Wednesday, Aug. 12
– Remarks by President Obama at Medal of Freedom ceremony
– Remarks by president and Justice Sonia Sotomayor at White House ceremony
– Press briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
Wednesday, Aug. 12
Remarks by President Obama at Medal of Freedom ceremony
THE PRESIDENT: There are many honors and privileges bestowed on the occupant of this house, but few mean as much to me as the chance to award America’s highest civilian medal to the recipients that are here today. This is a chance for me — and for the United States of America — to say thank you to some of the finest citizens of this country, and of all countries.
The men and women we honor today have led very different lives and pursued very different careers. They’re pioneers in science and medicine. They’re gifted artists and indomitable athletes. They have made their mark in the courtroom, in the community, and in Congress. And what unites them is a belief — that most — forgive me to those of you who are not Americans — but what we consider to be that most American of beliefs — that our lives are what we make of them; that no barriers of race, gender, or physical infirmity can restrain the human spirit; and that the truest test of a person’s life is what we do for one another.
The recipients of the Medal of Freedom did not set out to win this or any other award. They did not set out in pursuit of glory or fame or riches. Rather, they set out, guided by passion, committed to hard work, aided by persistence, often with few advantages but the gifts, grace, and good name God gave them.
So, let them stand as an example here in the United States — and around the world — of what we can achieve in our own lives. Let them stand as an example of the difference we can make in the lives of others. Let each of their stories stand as an example of a life well lived.
One of the last things Suzy Komen did before she passed away was ask her sister Nancy to make her a promise. Nancy promised her she would prevent other families battling breast cancer from hurting the way theirs had. What began with $200 and a list of friends has become a global Race for the Cure, a campaign that has eased the pain and saved the lives of millions around the world. In the months after her sister’s death, Nancy lay awake at night, thinking about the promise she had made and wondering whether one person could really make a difference. Nancy’s life is the answer.
While an intern at Miami’s Jackson Memorial, Dr. Pedro José Greer came across a patient in a coma without a known name or address — a homeless man, found by firefighters, suffering from tuberculosis. In the days that followed, the physician Little Havana knows as Dr. Joe searched for clues about the patient’s life in the squalor under Miami’s highways. Deciding that Miami’s homeless deserved better, Dr. Greer founded Camillus Health Concern, a clinic that now offers care to over 4,000 poor and homeless patients. It’s a life that might be distilled into a question Dr. Greer asks all of us: “If we don’t fight injustice, who will?”
Professor Stephen Hawking was a brilliant man and a mediocre student — (laughter) — when he lost his balance and tumbled down a flight of stairs. Diagnosed with a rare disease and told he had just a few years to live, he chose to live with new purpose. And happily, in the four decades since, he has become one of the world’s leading scientists. His work in theoretical physics — which I will not attempt to explain further here — (laughter) — has advanced our understanding of the universe. His popular books have advanced the cause of science itself. From his wheelchair, he’s led us on a journey to the farthest and strangest reaches of the cosmos. In so doing, he has stirred our imagination and shown us the power of the human spirit here on Earth.
Told he was too small to play college football, Jack Kemp became a pro quarterback. Cut by four teams, he led the Buffalo Bills to two championships. Football, he once said, gave him a good sense of perspective about politics: He’d “already been booed, cheered, cut, sold, [and traded].” (Laughter.) Makes me feel better. (Laughter.) A conservative thinker, a Republican leader, and a defender of civil rights, he was that rare patriot who put country over party, never forgetting what he learned on the gridiron — that it takes each of us doing our part, and all of us working together, to achieve a common goal. It’s a life from which we can all draw lessons, Democrat and Republican alike.
After purchasing an $8 racket with money earned from chores, 11-year-old Billie Jean declared a goal to be the number one tennis player in the world. Yet, what we honor are not simply her 12 Grand Slam titles, 101 doubles titles, and 67 singles titles — pretty good, Billie Jean — (laughter) — we honor what she calls “all the off-the-court stuff” — what she did to broaden the reach of the game, to change how women athletes and women everywhere view themselves, and to give everyone — regardless of gender or sexual orientation — including my two daughters — a chance to compete both on the court and in life. As Billie Jean once said, we should “never, ever underestimate the human spirit.” Nor should we underestimate Billie Jean King’s spirit.
Born and raised in Jim Crow Alabama, preaching in his blood, the Reverend Joseph Lowery is a giant of the Moses generation of civil rights leaders. It was just King, Lowery, and a few others, huddled in Montgomery, who laid the groundwork for the bus boycott and the movement that was to follow. A founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Lowery was later asked to serve as President. He agreed to serve for one year, but wound up serving, as he puts it, for 20 one-year terms. (Laughter.) Throughout his life, some have called him crazy. But one of my favorite sermons that I heard Dr. Lowery once deliver, he said: There’s good crazy and there’s bad crazy — (laughter) — and sometimes you need a little bit of that good crazy to make the world a better place.
Born just a generation past the Battle of the Little Big Horn, a grandson of a scout for General Custer himself, Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow was the first member of his tribe to attend college and earn a Master’s. Before completing his PhD, he left to serve in World War II. Wearing war paint beneath his uniform, and a sacred feather beneath his helmet, Joseph Medicine Crow completed the four battlefield deeds that made him the last Crow war chief. Historian, educator, and patriot — a good man, a bacheitche in Crow — Dr. Medicine Crow’s life reflects not only the warrior spirit of the Crow people, but America’s highest ideals.
His name was Harvey Milk, and he was here to recruit us — all of us — to join a movement and change a nation. For much of his early life, he had silenced himself. In the prime of his life, he was silenced by the act of another. But in the brief time in which he spoke — and ran and led — his voice stirred the aspirations of millions of people. He would become, after several attempts, one of the first openly gay Americans elected to public office. And his message of hope — hope unashamed, hope unafraid — could not ever be silenced. It was Harvey who said it best: “You gotta give ’em hope.”
When a young Sandra Day graduated from Stanford Law School near the top of her class — in two years instead of the usual three — she was offered just one job in the private sector. Her prospective employer asked her how well she typed and told her there might be work for her as a legal secretary. Now, I cannot know how she would have fared as a legal secretary — (laughter) — but she made a mighty fine justice of the United States Supreme Court. (Laughter and applause.) A judge and Arizona legislator, cancer survivor, child of the Texas plains, Sandra Day O’Connor is like the pilgrim in the poem she sometime quotes who has forged a new trail and built a bridge behind her for all young women to follow.
It’s been said that Sidney Poitier does not make movies, he makes milestones — milestones of artistic excellence; milestones of America’s progress. On screen and behind the camera, in films such as The Defiant Ones, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Uptown Saturday Night, Lilies of the Field — for which he became the first African American to win an Academy Award for Best Actor — Poitier not only entertained, but enlightened, shifting attitudes, broadening hearts, revealing the power of the silver screen to bring us closer together. The child of Bahamian tomato farmers, Poitier once called his driving purpose to make himself a better person. He did — and he made us all a little bit better along the way.
Dolores Conchita Figueroa del Rivero — (applause) — knows the adversity that comes with a difficult name. (Laughter.) I can relate. (Laughter.) Known to the world by the name that has lit up Broadway marquees, Chita Rivera’s career had an improbable start. Accompanying a nervous classmate on an audition, she decided to audition herself, and impressed the choreographer, Jerome Robbins, who would make her famous as Anita in West Side Story. Sassy, electric — that rare performer who can sing, dance, and act — Chita Rivera revealed that still rarer ability to overcome when she recovered from a car accident that shattered her leg. She ended up retaking the stage, won a Tony for Kiss of the Spider Woman. And like her unforgettable Anita, Chita Rivera has shown that life can indeed be bright in America.
The only girl in a family of four brothers, Mary Robinson learned early on what it takes to make sure all voices are heard. As a crusader for women and those without a voice in Ireland, Mary Robinson was the first woman elected President of Ireland, before being appointed U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. When she traveled abroad as President, she would place a light in her window that would draw people of Irish descent to pass by below. Today, as an advocate for the hungry and the hunted, the forgotten and the ignored, Mary Robinson has not only shone a light on human suffering, but illuminated a better future for our world.
After graduating from the University of Chicago School of Medicine in 1948, Janet Rowley got married, and gave birth to four sons, making medicine a hobby and making family her priority. It was not until she was almost 40 that she took up serious medical research, and not until almost a decade later that she discovered, hunched over her dining room table, examining small photos of chromosomes, that leukemia cells are notable for changes in their genetics — a discovery that showed cancer is genetic, and transformed how we fight the disease. All of us have been touched in some way by cancer, including my family — and so we can all be thankful that what began as a hobby became a life’s work for Janet.
The glint in the eye and the lilt in the voice are familiar to us all. But the signature quality of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, says Nelson Mandela, is a readiness to take unpopular stands without fear. Perhaps that explains what led the Arch, as he’s known, to preach amid tear gas and police dogs, rallying a people against apartheid. And later, when a free South Africa needed a heart big enough to forgive its sins, Archbishop Desmond Tutu was called to serve once more — as chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Tribune of the downtrodden, voice of the oppressed, cantor of our conscience, Desmond Tutu possesses that sense of generosity, that spirit of unity, that essence of humanity that South Africans know simply as Ubuntu.
Thirty-five years ago, a young economics professor at a university in Bangladesh was struck by the disconnect between the theories he was teaching in class and the reality of the famine outside. So, determined to help, Mohammed Yunus left the classroom for a village, and discovered that just $27 would free dozens of artisans, vendors, and rickshaw pullers from debt. Offering himself as a guarantor, he withdrew a loan, paid off their debts, and founded Grameen Bank — a bank that has disbursed over $8 billion, lifting millions of people from poverty with microloans. Mohammed Yunus was just trying to help a village, but he somehow managed to change the world.
There’s a story Ted Kennedy sometimes tells. It’s about a boy who sees an old man tossing starfish stranded by a receding tide back into the sea. “There are so many,” asks the boy, “what difference can your efforts possibly make?” The old man studies the starfish in his hand and tosses it to safety, saying: “It makes a difference to that one.” For nearly half a century, Ted Kennedy has been walking that beach, making a difference for that soldier fighting for freedom, that refugee looking for a way home, that senior searching for dignity, that worker striving for opportunity, that student aspiring to college, that family reaching for the American Dream. The life of Senator Edward M. Kennedy has made a difference for us all.
These are the 2009 recipients of the Medal of Freedom. At a moment when cynicism and doubt too often prevail, when our obligations to one another are too often forgotten, when the road ahead can seem too long or hard to tread, these extraordinary men and women — these agents of change — remind us that excellence is not beyond our abilities, that hope lies around the corner, and that justice can still be won in the forgotten corners of this world. They remind us that we each have it within our powers to fulfill dreams, to advance the dreams of others, and to remake the world for our children.
And it is now my distinct and extraordinary honor to ask each of them to come forward to receive their award, as a military aide reads their citation. (Applause.)
MILITARY AIDE: Drawing strength from tragedy, Nancy Goodman Brinker has transformed the nation’s approach to breast cancer. When her sister was diagnosed in 1977, most breast cancer victims knew relatively little about the disease and suffered from popular stigmas. Nancy G. Brinker promised to challenge these norms. She founded Susan G. Komen for the Cure in honor of her sister, and today, the organization supports research and community awareness programs across the United States and around the world. Nancy G. Brinker’s unique passion and determination have been a blessing to all those whose lives have been touched by breast cancer.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Pedro José Greer Jr. (Applause.)
Dr. Pedro José “Joe” Greer Jr. has devoted his career to improving medical services for the uninsured. A native of Miami, he followed his passion for helping others to medical school and founded the Camillus Health Concern (CHC) in 1984 as a medical intern. Today, CHC treats thousands of homeless patients a year, serving as a model clinic for the poor, and inspiring physicians everywhere to work with indigent populations. Dr. Greer’s tremendous contributions to the South Florida community, and our nation as a whole, stand as a shining example of the difference one person can make in the lives of many.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Stephen Hawking. (Applause.)
Persistent in his pursuit of knowledge, Stephen Hawking has unlocked new pathways of discovery and inspired people around the world. He has dedicated his life to exploring the fundamental laws that govern the universe, and he has contributed to some of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time. His work has stirred the imagination of experts and lay persons alike. Living with a disability and possessing an uncommon ease of spirit, Stephen Hawking’s attitude and achievements inspire hope, intellectual curiosity, and respect for the tremendous power of science.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Joanne Kemp, accepting on behalf of her husband, Jack French Kemp. (Applause.)
A statesman and a sports icon, Jack French Kemp advocated for his beliefs with an unwavering integrity and intellectual honesty. On the football field, he earned the respect and admiration of his teammates for his judgment and leadership. As a public servant, he placed country before party, and ideas before ideology. Jack Kemp saw bridges where others saw divisions, and his legacy serves as a shining example for all those who strive to challenge conventional wisdom, stay true to themselves, and better our nation.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Kara Kennedy, accepting on behalf of her father, Edward M. Kennedy. (Applause.)
For more than four decades, Senator Edward M. Kennedy has boldly fought for equal opportunity, fairness, and justice for all Americans. In his tireless quest for a more perfect Union, Senator Kennedy has reformed our schools, strengthened our civil rights, helped seniors and working families, lifted up the poor, and worked to ensure that every American has access to quality and affordable health care. With volumes of laws bearing his name and countless lives touched by his extraordinary passion, Senator Kennedy has accumulated several lifetimes’ worth of achievements. The United States proudly recognizes this righteous citizen, devout public servant, and giant among men.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Billie Jean Moffitt King. (Applause.)
Through her example and advocacy, Billie Jean Moffitt King has advanced the struggle for greater gender equality around the world. In an age of male-dominated sports, her pioneering journey took her from Long Beach, California, to the lawns of All England Club and the International Tennis Hall of Fame. Her athletic acumen is matched only by her unwavering defense of equal rights. With Billie Jean King pushing us, the road ahead will be smoother for women, the future will be brighter for LGBT Americans, and our nation’s commitment to equality will be stronger for all.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Reverend Joseph E. Lowery. (Applause.)
Reverend Joseph E. Lowery has marched through life with faith and purpose, carrying with him the legacy of a movement that touched America’s conscience and changed its history. At the forefront of the major civil rights events of our time — from the Montgomery bus boycott to protests against apartheid — he has served as a tireless beacon for nonviolence and social justice. As a pastor and civil rights advocate, he co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and championed the cause of peace and freedom around the world. The United States proudly honors this outstanding leader.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Joseph Medicine Crow. (Applause.)
As a warrior and living legend, history flows through Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow — High Bird. Born on a reservation and raised by traditional grandparents, he became the first member of his tribe to earn a Master’s degree. For his valiant service in World War II, he was awarded the status of Crow War Chief, and his renowned studies of the first Americans and contributions to cultural and historical preservation have been critical to our understanding of America’s history. Joe Medicine Crow is a symbol of strength and survival, and the United States honors him for his dedication to this country and to all Native Americans.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Stuart Milk accepting on behalf of his uncle, Harvey Bernard Milk. (Applause.)
Harvey Bernard Milk dedicated his life to shattering boundaries and challenging assumptions. As one of the first openly gay elected officials in this country, he changed the landscape of opportunity for the nation’s gay community. Throughout his life, he fought discrimination with visionary courage and conviction. Before his tragic death in 1978, he wisely noted, “Hope will never be silent,” and called upon Americans to stay true to the guiding principles of equality and justice for all. Harvey Milk’s voice will forever echo in the hearts of all those who carry forward his timeless message.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Sandra Day O’Connor. (Applause.)
Sandra Day O’Connor has paved the way for millions of women to achieve their dreams. Completing law school in just two years, she graduated third in her class at a time when women rarely entered the legal profession. With grace and humor, tenacity and intelligence, she rose to become the first woman on the United States Supreme Court. Her historic 25-term tenure on the Court was defined by her integrity and independence, and she has earned the nation’s lasting gratitude for her invaluable contributions to history and the law.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Sidney Poitier. (Applause.)
Ambassador and actor, Sidney Poitier has left an indelible mark on American culture. Rising from the tomato farms of the Bahamas, his talent led him to Broadway, Hollywood, and global acclaim. In front of black and white audiences struggling to right the nation’s moral compass, Sidney Poitier brought us the common tragedy of racism, the inspiring possibility of reconciliation, and the simple joys of everyday life. Ultimately, the man would mirror the character, and both would advance the nation’s dialogue on race and respect.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Chita Rivera. (Applause.)
From stage to screen, Chita Rivera has captured America’s imagination with her magnetic presence and radiant voice. Over a career that has spanned a half-century, she has received numerous accolades for her performances, including two Tony Awards, six additional Tony nominations, and the Kennedy Center Honors Award. As fearless as “Anita” in West Side Story, and as self-reliant as “Aurora” in Kiss of the Spider Woman, she has broken barriers under Broadway’s lights and inspired a generation of women to follow in her remarkable footsteps. The United States honors Chita Rivera for her lifetime of achievement as one of America’s great artists.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Mary Robinson. (Applause.)
For Mary Robinson, the fight to end discrimination and suffering is an urgent moral imperative. She has been a trail-blazing crusader for women’s rights in Ireland and a forceful advocate for equality and human rights around the world. Whether courageously visiting conflict-stricken regions, or working to inject concern for human rights into business and economic development, Mary Robinson continues this important work today, urging citizens and nations to make common cause for justice.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Janet Davison Rowley. (Applause.)
Dr. Janet Davison Rowley was the first scientist to identify a chromosomal translocation as the cause of leukemia and other cancers — considered among the most important medical breakthroughs of the past century. After enrolling at the University of Chicago at age 15, she went on to challenge the conventional medical wisdom about the cause of cancer in the 1970s, which had placed little emphasis on chromosomal abnormalities. Her work has proven enormously influential to researchers worldwide who have used her discovery to identify genes that cause fatal cancers and to develop targeted therapies that have revolutionized cancer care. The United States honors this distinguished scientist for advancing genetic research and the understanding of our most devastating diseases.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu. (Applause.)
With unflagging devotion to justice, indomitable optimism, and an unmistakable sense of humor, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu has stirred the world’s conscience for decades. As a man of the cloth, he has drawn the respect and admiration of a diverse congregation. He helped lead South Africa through a turning point in modern history, and with an unshakable humility and firm commitment to our common humanity, he helped heal wounds and lay the foundation for a new nation. Desmond Tutu continues to give voice to the voiceless and bring hope to those who thirst for freedom.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
Muhammad Yunus. (Applause.)
With his belief in the self-reliance of all people, Professor Muhammad Yunus has altered the face of finance and entrepreneurship. As an academic, he struggled with pervading economic theories and their effects on the people of his native Bangladesh. Yearning for a new way of lifting people out of poverty, he revolutionized banking to allow low-income borrowers access to credit. In the process, he has enabled citizens of the world’s poorest countries to create profitable businesses, support their families, and help build sustainable communities. In doing so, Muhammad Yunus has unleashed new avenues of creativity and inspired millions worldwide to imagine their own potential.
(The medal is presented.) (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Before we break up, why don’t we all give an extraordinary round of applause to these remarkable men and women. (Applause.)
Thank you very much for joining us, everyone. Thank you very much.
Remarks by president and Justice Sonia Sotomayor at White House ceremony
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the White House. I am glad all of you could be with us today as we honor the newest member of our highest Court who I’m proud to address, for the very first time, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor. (Applause.)
We are also honored to be joined by Justice Sotomayor’s new colleagues. We have Justice Ginsburg who is here — (applause) — as well as Justice Stevens. So I just want to thank both Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg not only for being here today, but for your extraordinary service on the Court. And I know you’ll be giving Justice Sotomayor some good tips. (Laughter.)
I also want to thank everyone who’s worked so hard to bring us to this day. I want to thank especially our Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy — (applause) — as well as our Senate Majority Leader, Senator Reid — (applause) — for their outstanding work to complete this process before the August recess.
I want to thank Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand, both of whom are Justice Sotomayor’s home-state senators, for their extraordinary work on her behalf. I want to thank all the members of Congress who’ve taken the time to join us here at the White House event. And I want to acknowledge all the advocates and groups who organized and mobilized and supported these efforts from the very beginning. Your work was absolutely critical to our success, and I appreciate all that you’ve done. So pat yourselves on the back. Congratulations. (Applause.)
Two members of Congress that I just especially want to acknowledge — Senator Bob Menendez, who worked so hard on the Senate side. (Applause.) And Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, who is our chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. (Applause.)
And I think we all want to take a moment to recognize the woman who, in so many ways, truly made this day possible — Justice Sotomayor’s mother, Celina Sotomayor. (Applause.) Mrs. Sotomayor is here with her husband, Omar; and Justice Sotomayor’s brother, Juan; and other members of their family. And we’re thrilled that they could join us here today.
And by the way — I don’t normally do this, but let me also just thank my extraordinary White House staff who helped to usher this stuff through. We’re very proud of them. (Applause.) Thank you very much.
Of course, we’re here not just to celebrate our extraordinary new Supreme Court justice and all those who’ve been a part of her journey to this day. We’re here, as well, to celebrate an extraordinary moment for our nation. We celebrate the impact Justice Sotomayor has already had on people across America who have been inspired by her exceptional life story. We celebrate the greatness of a country in which such a story is possible. And we celebrate how, with their overwhelming vote to confirm Justice Sotomayor, the United States Senate –- Republicans and Democrats — tore down yet one more barrier and affirmed our belief that in America, the doors of opportunity must be open to all.
With that vote, the Senate looked beyond the old divisions and they embraced excellence. They recognized Justice Sotomayor’s intellect, her integrity, and her independence of mind; her respect for the proper role of each branch of government; her fidelity to the law in each case that she hears; and her devotion to protecting our core constitutional rights and liberties.
Justice William Brennan once said that in order for government to ensure those rights for all its citizens, government officials must be attentive to the concrete human realities at stake in the decisions they make. They must understand, as Justice Brennan put it, “the pulse of life beneath the official version of events.” The pulse of life beneath the official version of events.
Justice Sotomayor understands those realities because she’s witnessed them firsthand as a prosecutor, a litigator, and a judge, working to uphold our laws, keep our communities safe, and give people the chance to live out their dreams — work that she has done with devotion, with distinction, and with an unyielding commitment to give back to this country that has given her so much.
And she understands these things because she’s lived these things — because her life is one of those “only in America” stories: raised by a single mom in the South Bronx determined to give her every opportunity to succeed; propelled by the talent and hard work that would earn her scholarships and honors at the best schools in the country; driven always by the belief that it doesn’t matter where you come from, or what you look like, or what challenges life throws your way — no dream is beyond reach in the United States of America.
And with her extraordinary breadth and depth of experience, Justice Sotomayor brings to the Court both a mastery of the letter of the law and an understanding of how the law actually unfolds in our daily lives — its impact on how we work and worship and raise our families; on whether we have the opportunities we need to live the lives we imagine.
That understanding is vital for the work of a Supreme Court justice, as Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg will testify — the work of applying principles set forth at our founding to the cases and controversies of our time.
For as visionary as our founders were, they did not presume to know exactly how the times would change, what new questions fate and history would set before us. Instead, they sought to articulate ideals that would be timeless — ideals that would accommodate the ever-changing circumstances of our lives and preserve for each new generation our most sacred rights and freedoms.
When Justice Sotomayor put her hand on that Bible and took that oath, we took yet another step towards realizing those ideals. We came yet another step closer to the more perfect union that we all seek.
Because while this is Justice Sotomayor’s achievement –- the result of her ability and determination -– this moment is not just about her. It’s about every child who will grow up thinking to him or herself, if Sonia Sotomayor can make it, then maybe I can, too. (Applause.) It’s about every mother or father who looks at the sacrifices Justice Sotomayor’s mother made, and the successes she and her brother have had, and thinks, I may not have much in my own life, but if I work hard enough, maybe my kids can have more. It’s about everyone in this nation facing challenges and struggles in their lives, who hear Justice Sotomayor’s story and thinks to themselves, if she could overcome so much and go so far, then why can’t I?
Nearly 80 years ago, as the cornerstone was laid for the building that became our Supreme Court, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes declared, “The Republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith.”
Justice Sotomayor’s rise from humble beginnings to the height of achievement is yet another symbol of that faith — faith that the American Dream still endures; faith that “equal justice under the law” is not just an inscription in marble, but an animating ideal of our democracy; faith that in this great nation, all things are still possible for all people.
This is a great day for America, and I know that all of us here are proud and honored to have been a part of it.
And so, with that, I would like to introduce the newest member of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. (Applause.)
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: No words can adequately express what I am feeling. No speech can fully capture my joy in this moment. Nothing can convey the depth of gratitude I feel to the countless family members, starting with Mom and my brother, and the many friends and colleagues — so many of you who are here with me today, and the others who aren’t — who have helped me to reach this moment. None of this would have happened without all of you.
Mr. President, I have the most heartfelt appreciation for the trust that you’ve placed in me by nominating me. And I want to convey my thanks to the Judiciary Committee, led by Chairperson Leahy, for conducting a respectful and timely hearing, and to all members of the Senate for approving the President’s selection. I am so grateful to all of you for this extraordinary opportunity.
I am most grateful to this country. I stand here today knowing that my confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court would never have been possible without the opportunities presented to me by this nation. More than two centuries ago, in a Constitution that contains fewer than 5,000 words, our founders set forth their vision for this new land. Their self-proclaimed task was to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, and to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. Over the years, the ideals at the heart of that document have endured, as subsequent generations have expanded those blessings, these rights and freedoms to more and more Americans.
Our Constitution has survived domestic and international tumult, including a civil war, two world wars, and the catastrophe of September 11th. It draws together people of all races, faiths, and backgrounds from all across this country who carry its words and values in our heart. It is this nation’s faith in a more perfect union that allows a Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx to stand here now. (Applause.)
I am struck again today by the wonder of my own life, and the life we in America are so privileged to lead. In reflecting on my life experiences, I am thinking also today of the judicial oath of office that I first took almost two decades ago, and that I reiterated this past weekend — to judge without respect to what a person looks like, where they come from, or whether they are rich or poor, and to treat all persons as equal under the law. That is what our system of justice requires, and it is the foundation of the American people’s faith in the rule of law, and it is why I am so passionate about the law.
I am deeply humbled by the sacred responsibility of upholding our laws and safeguarding the rights and freedoms set forth in our Constitution. I ask not just my family and friends, but I ask all Americans, to wish me divine guidance and wisdom in administering my new office.
I thank you all again for the love and support you have shown me. And I thank President Obama and the United States Senate for the tremendous honor and privilege they have granted me. Thank you. (Applause.)
Press briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
MR. GIBBS: Let me just make two quick announcements before we get going. This evening, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, will deliver a speech at New York University Center for Global Affairs. She will detail how the United States is changing the course it charts in the world. That is at 5:30 p.m. at the New York School of Law.
And the second announcement, on Monday, President Obama will give a speech to the 110th VFW National Convention in Phoenix, Arizona. President Obama will be discussing our responsibility to maintain the world’s finest military in the 21st century, to give our troops and veterans the care, the benefits and the respect that they have earned. That is on Monday.
And I think I’m relatively organized.
Q Will he take any questions? VFW — take any questions?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t think that’s — we didn’t last year. I don’t think the format will be that way, just the speech.
Yes, sir.
Q A report today that Ambassador Eikenberg [sic] said a lot more money needs to be spent, $2.5 billion, if there’s to be success or progress next year in Afghanistan — talking about development that’s going in projects. How has that fallen in the White House? What kind of reaction has there been to that request?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Steve, as you know, when the President first came into office we conducted an initial assessment of our policy as it related to Afghanistan and Pakistan, understanding, as the President had said throughout the campaign, that we had under-resourced our efforts in those areas. He already requested $2.8 billion in assistance for Afghanistan. And the President certainly agrees that, as he said during the campaign about our efforts in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region as well as in Iraq, that a military solution alone was not possible; that we have to figure out how, through using all elements and all tools of our national power, including development assistance, how we can best attain our goals in that region.
As you know, that review continues. The President ordered an increase in troop strength leading up to — in Afghanistan — leading up to the important elections that will be held in only a few days by the Afghans. And we anticipate that an assessment of — a further assessment by Ambassador Eikenberry and by General McChrystal will come in mid-September after those elections.
Q But in particular, this request that would nearly double, it appears —
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President wants to, as I assume both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense want to, evaluate not elements of, but a package for, a different strategy for this region, which the President has long advocated. We’ll do that as part of an entire package.
But I will say again, the President has requested as part of that budget a substantial increase in our assistance to that region, understanding, as he said in many speeches at the beginning of this administration, that we are going to have to build things — we’re going to have to build a civil society and a governing structure in that country as a way of winning hearts and minds.
Yes, sir.
Q Robert, a question on executive compensation. On Friday, some big companies like Bank of America, CitiGroup, GM have to turn in their executive pay plans to the Treasury Department.
MR. GIBBS: Right.
Q The first question on that is will that be made public?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t believe so, but you should ask Treasury for the specific answer to that. But I’m not under the impression that’s the case, no.
Q And along those lines, how concerned is the administration still about executive pay? Less than a year after the banking crisis, banks are beginning to make money again and it seems like they’re paying some traders and executives a great deal. Is that still an issue of concern?
MR. GIBBS: Well, two things on that, Jeff. One, as you know, the President’s — what he believes is an important proposal to give shareholders a say on executive pay that’s had impacts in other countries is moving its way through Congress and we’re very pleased about that. We hope that’s ultimately part of legislation that gets quickly to his desk; that will have an impact.
Secondly, the President continues to believe, as he has long before he got here, compensation has to be based on — not on reckless risk-taking, but on value that you’re providing and doing so in a way that doesn’t jeopardize your firm or taxpayers. That’s what the President has talked about. I don’t think the American people begrudge that people make big salaries, as long as they’re not jeopardizing the goodwill of the public in doing so. And I think that will ultimately be the test of all of this.
Jake.
Q A couple questions. I don’t know if you think it’s unfair to say, but it occurs to me that if the President finds himself at a town hall meeting telling the American people that he does not want to set up a panel to kill their grandparents, that perhaps there, at some point, the President has lost control of the message. And I’m wondering if you — if what you’ve seen in the last few weeks is one of the reasons why it was so important to the President earlier this year to pass health care reform in the House and Senate before the August recess. Is everything that’s going on right now what you feared would happen?
MR. GIBBS: No, I — a lot of ways to take this question, and I’m trying to figure out which avenue to drive down.
Q Jusr say yes.
MR. GIBBS: You’d just say “yes” and go to the next one — (laughter) — certainly one way to do it. (Laughter.)
Let me sort of — let me split these up a little bit. I think there’s a tremendous amount of disinformation that’s out there. We’ve seen it — and look, let’s be honest, you all, the media, tend to cover “X said this, Y said this,” but some of you, but not everyone, does an investigation about whether what X said is actually true. Now, that’s not a blanket statement, not every one of you is that way. (Laughter.)
Q We called death panels false. I don’t know what more you want from us.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t think everybody has called them false. I think a lot of people have done stories about — again, it’s “he-said/she-said,” no pun intended because actually she said it. I don’t think there’s any doubt that in some ways — look, do I think some of you were disappointed yesterday that the President didn’t get yelled at? Sure. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.
Q Was he disappointed?
Q Were you disappointed the President didn’t get yelled at?
MR. GIBBS: I was going to yell at him just to make — (laughter.)
Q It looked like the President wanted to get yelled at.
Q But was the President disappointed —
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q — that he was hoping to get that kind of confrontation?
MR. GIBBS: No. The President wanted to have what I think what happened, which was a rational discussion about health care reform legislation. I think that’s what ensued. Did everybody agree? I think the answer to that is obviously no. I think what the President said, which was important, is let’s have a conversation where we talk to one another not over one another.
Like I said, I do think there was some disappointment because a bunch of your stories had more to do with the fact of the sideshow on each side of the street outside than what was actually going on inside of the town hall.
But, Jake, going back to the campaign, we’ve always thought it more important to take disinformation that anybody may have about a proposal or something that the President is trying to do and address directly that misinformation. I think that’s the most important thing.
Again, the notion that did we always expect this was going to happen — I said this before, I don’t think the President has ever done a town hall meeting where everybody agreed with what he was proposing or what he said. I think the President believes that the town hall meeting is a structure where people can discuss those issues in a way that they think — a way that he believes engenders a positive discussion. I think that’s what he gained yesterday.
Q But is this what he feared would happen? Is this one of the reasons he wanted it passed before the August recess?
MR. GIBBS: No, the President wants to get through the process of getting something to his desk because delay now simply means, as the President I think discussed very succinctly yesterday, it means — delay means more people are going to get discriminated against on the basis of a preexisting condition; more people are going to lose their insurance because they get too sick; more people are going to get thrown off their insurance because their employer can no longer afford to pay it. That’s the reason the President wants to see this done as quickly as possible.
Q Who decides which of the many applicants for tickets to the town halls is actually chosen?
MR. GIBBS: Randomly by computer.
Q Totally random?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q What about who gets a question?
MR. GIBBS: The President asks people to raise their hands and picks on them.
Q Robert, what do you think accounts for the stark difference in the scenes, though? I mean, we saw — people were very polite with the President yesterday. They are, shall we say, less than polite with some lawmakers you saw —
MR. GIBBS: Some lawmakers.
Q Some lawmakers, but —
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know that — I’ll be honest with you, Sheryl, I don’t know how many town hall meetings you’ve been to over the summer —
Q I haven’t been to that many, but I’ve watched the clips of a fair number of them.
MR. GIBBS: Right. But let’s just address that for a second. You’ve watched clips put up about certain segments of certain town halls in order to demonstrate the consternation —
Q I’ve watched enough clips to know that President didn’t get that kind of treatment that some lawmakers got —
MR. GIBBS: No, no, I understand.
Q — and I’m just wondering do you think —
MR. GIBBS: I’m just asking you to compare that to all the town halls that you’ve been to over the summer.
Q But aside from that, the President didn’t get that kind of treatment. And I’m wondering, do you think is it just that people are more polite when it comes to talking to the President? Is it something in your — in the way folks are allowed into your meetings, or what’s the difference?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I think, again, I’m sensing your disappointment that he didn’t get yelled at.
Q No, I’m not disappointed, I’m just wondering what the explanation is for it.
MR. GIBBS: I think people wanted to — I think what the — I can’t speak to what — again, I don’t want to speak to what other town hall meetings because I only go to the President’s. It’s hard for me to — I doubt we’re seeing a representative sample of any series of town hall meetings, despite the food fight on cable every day.
But my sense is that people wanted to take the opportunity to find out from the President — to have him answer their questions about why he’s doing what he’s doing, and the concerns they may have on the legislation. That’s why when he asked, let’s take some questions from those directly that have some concerns, at that point I think — do you want to take that opportunity to have a discussion with the President of the United States about what he wants to see on health care reform? I think most people took that opportunity as something that was positive. I think it was a good conversation. I think the President thought it was a very productive conversation about the issues that we were dealing with.
And as Jake said, we — the President went out of his way to bring up, in fact, some of the misinformation that churns out there in order to address it, because I think obviously he understands he has a pulpit that is large enough to deal with some of the misinformation that some people might not ordinarily ask or inquire about because they’ve read it somewhere and they just assume that it’s true, even if it’s not.
Q What does he think is the biggest obstacle to passing this legislation?
MR. GIBBS: The special interests — the people that want to keep the status quo, the people that believe that somehow what we have is working for the millions of Americans who are watching their health care premiums skyrocket every day, who are watching small businesses drop their coverage, who are part of the 12.5 million people over the past three years that have been told by an insurance company, in seeking to buy insurance on a private market, that they’re not eligible because of what somebody has decided there’s a preexisting condition. I think that would be what the President would believe is the greatest obstacle, and has been for 40 years, are people that have a vested — in some sense is monetary interest in keeping things as they are.
Q Isn’t it his fault, though, that he’s not getting the message across?
MR. GIBBS: No. Look, I don’t think the President was under any illusion that with his presidency — with the ascendance of his presidency that would be the end of misinformation. I do think the President believes — look, I’m sure there are communications experts that would tell you, well, any time you’re — you know, what’s the old thing, if you’re explaining, you’re losing? Well, I think the President believes these town halls provide an excellent opportunity to explain exactly what his ideas and principles are. And more importantly, if he can affect misinformation by telling people what isn’t in a piece of legislation, I think he’ll take that opportunity.
Q In addition to the town halls and the Web site to knock down these myths, is the White House considering other venues to try to correct the record, if you will?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t — specifically?
Q Are you thinking of doing anything else, or is there the need to do anything else?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, we’ve got two town halls later in the week — one in Montana, one in Colorado. And then the President has — he’ll be back here for a bit, and then some down time with his family. Look, I don’t doubt we’ll take this battle up in some earnestness in September. But I don’t think there are any specific venue announcements.
Again, I think the President believes the format of the town hall in the ability to discuss directly with people what their cares and concerns are he finds to be — and always has been — tremendously valuable.
Q And is there any concern at all that if this misinformation machine continues and the record can’t be corrected as the White House would like it to be, that it could potentially make it more difficult to get health care reform across the finish line?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, if the debate is dominated by something that’s not true, of course. I don’t think the President believes, though, that when all is said and done, that most people will make their decisions on something that is false and something that’s been said is false. But I rant on cable a little bit, Dan, as you, in your exhaling, noted in answering another question — you know, take a couple of questions at a town hall meeting — you guys, lord knows, have shown enough video of people with concerns about the bill — take one of those concerns and address its factualness.
Q So do you think now that so much attention is being focused on the myths and debunking the myths, that that, in essence, will help you?
MR. GIBBS: I do. I think if people believe for some reason that this plan is government-controlled health care — which it’s not — if the President can address that each time he goes out there and more and more people believe the truth, then, sure, that helps — I think that helps the prospect of millions to see health care reform this year.
Yes, ma’am.
Q It seemed yesterday the President seemed disappointed, that he wanted some soliciting of tough questions and casting about for a real skeptic in the audience, and not really finding one — there was maybe one or two.
MR. GIBBS: I’m not sure —
Q Well, I mean, there was the one Republican and then the guy at the end —
Q And the woman —
MR. GIBBS: I did read in a few leads yesterday afternoon that the President addressed skeptics of his health care plan, but maybe that was —
Q Okay, maybe it was a hundred percent great. I don’t know — it seemed that way to me.
MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, I’m just — I’m pointing out that at least yesterday afternoon the perception among many of the stories I read was that the President had addressed some skeptics.
Q Okay. He was asking the audience “Who’s a skeptic?” He seemed to be soliciting tougher questions. So to the extent that there weren’t as many of those folks present as we’ve seen in other town halls — not necessarily yellers, but people who have legitimate concerns — is there anything that you guys can do going forward as you approach these town halls to get an audience that’s more representative of divergent views? For example —
MR. GIBBS: Well, first of all, I know how many questions the President took yesterday — eight. I don’t know how many we’d say are people that were — at least the last two, because he took those from that, I don’t remember — I guess the Republican was one of those two, right, the guy who said he didn’t know why he was here. There was the gentleman — I think the third question — I was sitting on the left-hand side, so it would have been on the right-hand side — the question about Medicaid and Lipitor. Again, I don’t — that’s at least three of the eight questions as not being — that were in some ways skeptical.
What I’m saying is, I don’t — I’m not assuming that the audience wasn’t in some ways representative. Again, I sense disappointment that he didn’t get yelled at. But I think there were a number of people in there that had concerns and wanted to ask the President directly. I think we’re going to continue to pick people randomly to come to a town hall meeting and they’ll raise their hand and the President will ask.
Q A smaller fraction of the audience, those tickets, as I understand it, go to offices through elected officials.
MR. GIBBS: I think Bill told you guys, the pool, that on Sunday or Monday.
Q A smaller fraction. Would you — but to Democratic lawmakers. Would you consider at any time to have a more open debate? Would you consider, for example, in Montana, giving to the Republican congressman?
MR. GIBBS: Savannah, I think the President feels very comfortable with the fact that he’s having a representative discussion despite people’s disappointment that he wasn’t yelled at.
Yes, sir.
Q I’ll yell at him.
MR. GIBBS: I don’t doubt that.
Q If you look at the protests that we saw outside of the building yesterday as a kind of a continuum from the tea parties and then the controversy over the birth certificate, and then some of the anger over the Gates/Crowley episode — you look back at that, I’m wondering what —
MR. GIBBS: Jonathan, let me just — I didn’t go in the front door, so I don’t know — I did not —
Q There were —
MR. GIBBS: Oh, I don’t doubt that, but I’m saying I don’t know — I didn’t see a representative sample of the signs.
Q Well, what I was going to say is, this is a President who campaigned on the notion that we could get beyond the partisan — the ugly partisan warfare of the last 16 years, and that there could be rational discussion that could bring parties together. And I wonder what happened to that. Why did the post-partisan presidency not materialize?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Jonathan, again, I don’t know if you were outside or inside, but I think there was a rational discussion about issues not based on ideology or party inside the town hall meeting. Look, it’s not for me to — I can’t tell you why somebody believes, despite all preponderance of the evidence, that the President was born here and not somewhere else. I’ve stopped trying to explain that. I did see a poll yesterday where 8 percent of the people said they didn’t know if Hawaii was — or weren’t sure whether Hawaii was a state. So I don’t know if that’s caused some consternation.
Q In the South of the United States now among self-identified white-collar workers, about a quarter of those people identify themselves as feeling very negative to this President. It’s a quarter. I mean, obviously, the vast majority aren’t saying that, but it does seem like there was an emergence of —
MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry, you said white-collar?
Q People who identify themselves as white-collar workers. There seems to be an emergence of a core group of people who feel very strongly negative, whereas at inauguration, I think it was only 6 percent that said that.
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Jonathan, I don’t think the President ever believed that all of the people were going to agree with him all of the time, or even that all the — certainly that all the people would even agree with him a majority of the time.
I think you can have the effort to talk about issues differently to be — to disagree on issues without being disagreeable about it, to have those type of discussions, to talk about how we deal with the issues that haven’t been confronted for years and years, you’re still not going to get a hundred percent of the people all the time. You may not get most of the people all of the time.
I think the President will continue to reach out to Democrats and Republicans for ideas, both in Washington and outside of Washington; continue to find a way to bridge the differences that we have and seek common-sense solutions. I think that’s what he’s tried to do since he’s come into office.
Peter.
Q What individuals or groups do you think are the biggest purveyors of the disinformation and misinformation that you mentioned?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t know — look, I think there’s — I think you’ve seen certain elected officials give out information that was wrong. You’ve seen —
Q Who?
MR. GIBBS: Sarah Palin gave out information that I think many of you all pointed out was wrong just on Friday — that’s one. There’s certainly countless others.
Q She’s not an elected official anymore.
MR. GIBBS: Well, fair enough. That’s — I promoted her, I guess, to current Alaska governor rather than former. Obviously, there are — look, you watch — I watch TV. You watch different groups that are coming to these meetings that are saying stuff that just isn’t true.
The President will continue, though, to try to address that — I think he thinks that’s a positive thing — so that people that want to make an informed decision about this stuff will have all the information they need to do it.
Q To what extent does he hope to, shall we say, lower the temperature of the debate by doing what he did yesterday and going out again in the West later this week?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t know that it’s a “lower the temperature.” I think it’s just a way of discussing this and understanding that, agree or not, people rightly have questions and the President is happy to answer those questions. Again, he’s always seen this as a way of — town halls as a way of doing that.
I think the President also came into office understanding and believing that, as I’ve said here many times before, that whether people agree with you or not, he thinks it’s important to — here’s why I’m doing these things, here’s why I’m making the decisions that I’m making, here’s why the issue that we’re dealing with is important for our long-term economic growth and laying that foundation. I think he believes that that type of continued dialogue with the American people is tremendously important.
Q Following up on Jeff’s question, it’s been reported that the executive compensation proposal — that they will be made public at some point, but done in a way that preserves the privacy of the individuals at these firms. Is that something that —
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know — I think Jeff’s question was — and I don’t want to infer — that were the proposals that were handed in by the deadline of Friday, were those simply going to be made public. I thought I doubted that, but you guys should check with Treasury on the specifics of that.
Q On all the process?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, whether or not — I mean, I guess at some point obviously, I think, as I understand it, Mr. Feinberg has up to 60 days to review and make decisions about those, and obviously at some point that decision will be a public decision.
Q But you’re wrong in saying people aren’t concerned at these high salaries and bonuses that are being given while their tax money is being used and so forth.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I didn’t say that there wasn’t concern for that. I said I didn’t think people begrudged people making money if they’re doing it in something that is not based on a risk that’s going to put somebody else’s tax money in danger. I think people don’t want the President of the United States making every business decision and every economic decision. I know the President believes that and I believe —
Q I know, but there is resentment against these —
MR. GIBBS: Oh, no, no, I — that’s why the President talks about it. Look, the President didn’t come at this — the President came at this upset as many taxpayers were in reading this stuff.
Q Has the President in any meetings lined out — obviously there’s executive pay as has been pointed out, but what he’d like to ultimately see, some of the goals in which the government, having a vested interest now in the firms that Ken Feinberg has jurisdiction over — has the President talked about meeting to balance compensation restrictions with making sure that they’re not at a competitive disadvantage?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t know that I’ve heard him enumerate it quite like that. I think he has — obviously we’ve had a number of discussions about executive compensation and ensuring that — more in the way of ensuring, as I said earlier, that we don’t have compensation that’s based on outsized, irresponsible risk-taking.
Q So the competitiveness is not a concern —
MR. GIBBS: I think I’ve heard it mentioned, but I don’t know that I’ve heard the President discuss something like that.
Q Among the economics team in this administration and over here at the White House, is there a — is it important to see that these firms remain on a competitive —
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, without getting into the specific compensation issues of these firms, obviously we have a monetary — taxpayers have a monetary interest in ensuring that places like GM and others do well. That’s not to say anybody is going to cut corners, but obviously — we’ve seen banks already this year repay money; we’ve seen them repay with interest; warrants on stock options have been sold in order to get money back to the government. And I think the President wants to see that money rightly returned to the taxpayers.
Q Will Chairman Baucus be with the President at the event in Montana?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q So they’ll do it jointly?
MR. GIBBS: No, no, he’ll be in attendance. He’s not an introducer or — he’s just — he’s not a participant, he’s — I guess he’s been —
Q Right, but he won’t be answering questions or anything like that, he’s just there?
MR. GIBBS: He’s just there.
Q Yesterday the President said AARP endorsed the plan. As you’re aware, yesterday AARP said it hasn’t endorsed a plan. Where on the information or disinformation scale would the President’s remark fall?
MR. GIBBS: Well, the President said — well, AARP has said they are certainly supportive and have been for years on comprehensive health reform. I don’t think the President meant to imply anything untoward. I think he discussed the notion that AARP is supportive of — or, I’m sorry, an agreement that would fund filling the doughnut hole for seniors as part of Medicare Part D, as well as additional savings for comprehensive health care reform.
Q The President is doubtless aware AARP hasn’t even endorsed the House pending committee legislation or the Senate legislation.
MR. GIBBS: Which is what I just said.
Q Right. So he’s aware of that. So he wasn’t trying to mislead anyone —
MR. GIBBS: No, no.
Q He just misspoke.
MR. GIBBS: Right.
Q Is that something that can happen in this debate?
MR. GIBBS: That people can misspeak?
Q Right, without intentionally meaning to mislead.
MR. GIBBS: Sure. I don’t know if it’s happened on certain subjects, but yes.
Q Okay, so is — within the range of this whole discussion, something can be wrong but not necessarily intentional misinformation is what I’m getting at.
MR. GIBBS: Yes. I think most of what the President has addressed, though, has been in many ways intentional misinformation.
Q That he’s been trying to correct; understood.
MR. GIBBS: Right.
Q Senator Isakson put out a statement yesterday, also taking issue with what the President describes as his position and his involvement in the end-of-life legislation in the House. Do you want to amend or correct anything the President said, or you said about that? Because Mr. Isakson has a completely different interpretation than the President used and you used yesterday. He didn’t have — he had no role in the House legislation. He opposes the language in the House —
MR. GIBBS: Well, I didn’t say — let’s take what I’ve talked about on the back of the plane. Let me just read what — let me just read the question, a series of questions and answers from Senator Isakson: “How did this become a question of euthanasia?” Senator Isakson: “I have no idea. I understand, and you have to check this out, I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s Web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end-of-life directive, or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.”
Question two: “You’re saying this is not a question of government, it’s for individuals?” Senator Isakson: “It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time, rather than having the government make them for you.”
Question three: “The policy here, as I understand it, is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.” Senator Isakson: “Correct. And it’s a voluntary deal.”
Q I believe those are answers in response to his amendment in the HELP bill, not the longer and more defined involvement of these end-of-life panels that’s in the House bill. That’s how it’s been explained to me by his people, so I’m just wondering if —
MR. GIBBS: Well, I would ask them, those people to interpret: “I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s Web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it, where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end-of-life directive or a living will as that is nuts.” Not my words. His.
Q Right, I understand. But what the President talked about yesterday was saying that Senator Isakson had some role in helping to craft or developed the House legislation —
MR. GIBBS: I think what the President mentioned —
Q — implying that he supported it. And I’m just saying that Senator Isakson denies that he had any role and he doesn’t support it.
MR. GIBBS: Again, I don’t think that’s what the President was implying. I think the President mentioned that Mr. Isakson had been in the House — that may have been some of the confusion. He was a member of — did, obviously, represent Atlanta suburbs before becoming a U.S. senator from Georgia.
I think, again, what the President was trying to say was, in a question about some of the misinformation, asked specifically about euthanasia and death panels, and I think — and I said this also in the back of the plane yesterday — I think what Senator Isakson says in addressing that misinformation could not be more clear, that for someone to take, as he says, talked about the House bill — his words, not mine — “having death panels on it where people would be euthanized, how somebody could come up with that” — and roughly paraphrasing — in that sense is nuts.
Q Right. And I’m not trying to beat this into the ground, but he doesn’t support the language in the House bill. You can have differences over —
MR. GIBBS: No, no, I understand. What I’m saying is I think there may be some confusion —
Q — of end-of-life counseling is and be clear to understand that neither of them calls for anything approaching euthanasia —
MR. GIBBS: I think the one thing that —
Q Setting that aside for a second —
MR. GIBBS: I mean, again, one thing that —
Q — he doesn’t back the House language, had no role in it, and believes that yesterday there was comments from the President that indicated that —
MR. GIBBS: I certainly didn’t read it that way and I don’t think my comments —
Q Should be interpreted that way.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I didn’t say that, to interpret it that way would be nuts. But —
Q He’s too sensitive about this?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I read what he said in an interview that was posted on WashingtonPost.com yesterday. I think if you go back and look at some amendments that he’s offered and cosponsored —
Q He — (inaudible) —
MR. GIBBS: Right, but this — he’s offered and cosponsored other amendments with Senator Rockefeller in dealing with this. I think — whether this is uncomfortable or not, I think he and the President agree.
Yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Robert.
Q I want to go back to the earlier question about the AARP. What he actually said was “AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare.” What exactly — how did he — can you explain to me how he misspoke and what he meant to say?
MR. GIBBS: I think, again, what he’s conflating is, one — and I think if you ask AARP this — they have been supportive of comprehensive health care reform for a long time. They have not, as they said, endorsed a specific piece of legislation. They are supportive of health care reform and they are supportive of an agreement that the Finance Committee and pharmaceutical manufacturers have entered into that the White House agrees with that would use $80 billion to partially fill with reduced-price prescription drugs 50 percent of the doughnut hole that seniors fall into at a certain level as part of Medicare Part D, as well as some of that additional money for savings in comprehensive health care reform.
Q But he left the impression, twice, to anyone, at least to me, sitting in the town hall meeting that Medicare — that AARP supported this and he needed it to rebut the questions about Medicare benefits would be cut. So is he going to not do that in future town halls?
MR. GIBBS: Well, the President is going to continue to say the bill doesn’t cut Medicare benefits. I think, again, the President was talking about the agreement structured with the Finance Committee and the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Q Can I follow up on the Senate Finance Committee?
MR. GIBBS: Generally or — sure, why not?
Q Specifically. The President complimented Grassley, Enzi, and Snowe yesterday for trying to get a bipartisan plan out. Baucus has also said he’d like a plan out by mid-September.
MR. GIBBS: Well, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley said they wanted a plan in June.
Q I know, but the point being, now they’re shooting for mid-September. The President said he’d hope to get a plan out — this is based on what he said yesterday — but he wants to get this done. So does there come a point where he wants this bill out of Senate Finance alone, regardless of whether there’s bipartisan support?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t want to get into those dates except to say he’s appreciative that those senators on both the Democratic and the Republican side are working together. They’re making progress, as they said, toward an agreement, and we’re hopeful that they’ll do so. That’s the last of the committees of jurisdiction to finish a bill and ultimately head to both — well, ultimately to go to the Senate floor. Obviously the House has done their work and can go there, as well.
Margaret.
Q I wanted to ask you on a different subject entirely, about the Medal of Freedom, and if you would talk a little bit about, if you’ve had any conversations with the President, what he’s told you about what that experience is like, selecting an array of people that have made their mark on American society and perhaps have made a mark on him, as well. And I’m wondering specifically if you would talk about the impact of Sidney Poitier and of Senator Kennedy, and why he chose them.
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously the President wanted to pick those individuals that, as the Medal talks about this year, who are agents of change. I think obviously Senator Kennedy is somebody who, for decades in Washington, has worked to improve health care, to improve education, to help millions send their children to college. I don’t think there’s a piece of legislation that has affected health care or education in 40 years that doesn’t bear some imprint of his effort in making the lives of millions and millions of Americans better, giving them opportunities that wouldn’t have normally existed unless you were a member of a certain family or wealthy.
Obviously there are others in this category that the President is honoring today. I think this — obviously I think it means a lot to recognize the efforts of many of these individuals, somebody like Senator Kennedy who has had such a profound impact on our public policy debates, and again, as I said, the outcomes of so many pieces of legislation that have made a genuine difference in the lives of so many people.
Q Anything about Poitier? And also is there any chance, since Senator Kennedy won’t be here today, that the President will have an opportunity to present the honor in person —
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know. I know Senator Kennedy’s daughter is here today accepting the award on his behalf. Obviously somebody like Sidney Poitier is somebody whose actions broke barriers and paved the way for so many others in so many aspects of life. I think obviously the President is enormously grateful for those efforts and for many that he will be recognizing.
Q Any second thoughts on Mary Robinson, given the opposition from Jewish groups?
MR. GIBBS: No. I think the President is recognizing her for her leadership on women’s rights and equal rights. And as I’ve said before, he doesn’t agree with each of her statements but she’s certainly somebody who should be honored.
April.
Q Robert, you know, you’re talking about people who were breaking barriers and things on the racial aspect. You’re talking about Sidney Poitier, Desmond Tutu, as well as Joseph Lowery today. But, you know, this health care debate has boiled down to, in some parts of the country, into a racial issue. Has the President gone into that matter, looked at it, has he talked about it, has he called David Scott, the swastika issue on his sign — David Scott has said, look, this was not meant — (inaudible) — for the President. What does the President —
MR. GIBBS: I haven’t seen those comments. Look, I would say — I think I’ve said this here before — I don’t think there’s a single act or event that we are debating or discussing right now, or have for at least as long as my memory can go back, that should or could be compared to the tragedy of the Holocaust. I think whenever that’s offered up into a public debate it is a sign that things have gotten, for those that enter into it, completely out of hand. It has absolutely no place in the dialogue that we’re having. We ought to be able to, as the President said, have conversations with one another, not over one another. And the notion that we’re having a public policy debate at the end of a spray paint can on somebody’s sign I think is ridiculous. And I think anybody, again, who offers up that sort of analogy is — ought to be ashamed of themselves, because they could not be more in the wrong.
Q So should there be more sensitivity, not just on the Jewish component, but also on the ethnic components — talking about black, Hispanic?
MR. GIBBS: I think the President would tell you, as he said countless times and as I’ve repeated hundreds of times, we ought to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We ought to be able to have a conversation, even a debate, about issues that are out there that don’t result in the type of degrading comments or actions like you’ve referenced.
Thanks, guys.
Share
Contributors
