tv [untitled] CSPAN June 29, 2009 7:00pm-7:30pm EDT
increase of anybody making under $250,000 a year. it will the president veto any health bill -- >> i think we get this question once a week. i think in many ways what marks the difference between this health care effort and other efforts in the past is exactly what the president described, a very large table with people trying to solve a problem that we have been working on for 40 years. we are making significant progress and all of those people are still sitting at the table. we have not drawn a lot of bright lines. we understand there is some flexibility on the part of congress to work through some of these policy issues and we are going to allow that process to continue in order to make
progress. >> the president of the campaign said he made a flat pledge that he would not raise taxes on any one making under $250,000. >> in some ways, your question is hypothetical because there are any number of different bills, different proposals. i think the president has outlined what he believes is the very best way to pay for health care. >> he made a pledge. he said he would not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000. is that pledge still active? >> we will let the process work its way through. all right? you have a perplexed look on your face. >> will would be the reason for reversing -- what would be the
reason for reversing the campaign promise? >> i'd appreciate getting into the hypothetical set a month before we actually do that. >> there is nothing about hypothetical about reaffirming a campaign promise. >> we are letting congress work many of these issues through and we are making progress. >> historically, administrations can tell congress by not to go there because it is something they will not do. >> i think president to finance health-care reform has laid out pretty clearly what his financing mechanism would be,
which you note is to any increase in revenue would affect top wage earners charitable deductions, returning them to rates of the reagan administration. >> i have a question on that today's event. how much is the president involved in the don't ask, don't tell? >> the president has himself been involved in meetings with the pentagon. a solution has to include working with the pentagon, but it is something that president has been involved in since coming to this administration. >> how big of a priority is this for him now? [inaudible] >> when we can get it done. the president has talked about this -- i have talked about the
fact that having an interim solution, this has to be done legislatively. that is what i think most people recognize will take some time to do, working with both the congress and the pentagon. i think the president will address this during his remarks later today. >> [inaudible] >> no. but in order to have that in during solution, this will have to be done legislatively. >> why hasn't the president changed his license plates on the presidential limousine? >> i think rather than change the logo around a license plate, the president is committed instead to changing the status of the district of columbia. >> but it is a symbol that a lot of people look at. >> i guess i would ask you to
ask people in washington if it would like their status changed for the symbolism screwed on the back of a limousine. >> the previous president had a pretty good relationship with the colombian president. do you expect the new president to have -- >> i think today's meeting will mark the continued strong relationship between the united states and colombia. we hope that the meeting represents a deeper cooperation with an important ally. but i think part of that cooperation, part of that friendship, and part of that relationship is bringing up when you disagree, particularly on human rights. i know that will be a topic of
today's meeting. >> human rights groups believe he has an atrocious record on human rights. is he going to say something stronger? >> i don't know what led you to believe that he was going to do that. >> may be the moderate tone of your answer. >> soon there will pop up on top of this. the seriousness in acquired -- required in doing anything related to a human-rights. the press and does not tend to paper over things that he finds important. my hunch is that if it is important to bring out, the message will be delivered to its importance. >> going back to this tax pledge, whether he made a
campaign promise and if you opened the door to this. he said he won't raise taxes on people that make up of $250,000 a year. >> i love us playing at wimbledon without the benefit of a grass tennis court, but we are going to let congress do its job. we are going to have the president do his job. i think you will see a reform bill come to his desk later this year and one that he will sign. >> is it fair to say that he is not allowing himself to be boxed in? >> it is fair to say that we are watching congress -- letting congress do their job. >> [inaudible] >> let me get more on that and i will walk you through it. >> cap and trade related
question. over the past month, the dollar has been very volatile. wall street is looking for a strong signal from the white house, that you are serious about attacking the deficit. could you repeat again where cap and trade fits in and will help the deficit? >> i think we talked about the fact that -- first of all, cap and trade is something that generates revenue through pollution credits. capt. trade helps -- a comprehensive energy that the house passed and the president supported as well as other administrative initiatives and the recovery plan are laying the foundation for long-term economic growth through creating a market for clean energy jobs. getting our economy back on track, creating jobs is part of
bringing down that deficit. i think most people understand that in some ways, our deficit has gotten worse because our economy is worse. bringing the economy back is not going to fix the deficit. we are going to have to take actions to cut the deficit in half. >> [inaudible] >> it does raise revenues. some of that revenue will be used for, as the president talked about in the campaign, for tax credits to spur those energy jobs. >> did your answer mean that the president considered putting on died d.c. license plate -- >> i have not talked to him about his license plate.
nor have i talked to him about the oil in the car. >> this is an issue that makes people's blood boil. >> i am continually amazed. let me finish. you have a president that supports changing the status of the district. what could be more important? >> 1 not show that support on his car? >> and during that you are equating the two. >> when you say changing the status of the district, what do you mean? >> giving voter rights. >> i think the legislation is making its way through congress with the support of the president. >> on the story the other day that the administration is considering drafting an executive order to give the president authority to thwart
permanent detentions in guantanamo bay, is that happening? >> i think if you all walked the course of the day, he saw that story migrate in many ways when it first appeared on the internet to something -- i had to do it. three times in a four-hour period. -- it only changed three times in a four-hour period. i think the president addressed the notion and the very tough issue that the administration is likely to face, and that is that we are going to have detainees that would be hard to prosecute and too dangerous to release. what the administration is considering a series of options, a range of options, none relies on legal theories that we have the inherent authority to detain people.
this will not be pursued in that manner. >> [inaudible] why do you do it? isn't it against the law? you have no evidence. >> i hope that my language did not conflict to issues, and i did not think it did. i think there are, without getting into specifics, that are classified as intelligence, i think we are likely to end up -- >> [inaudible] >> as i said earlier, these are people that the great majority recognize might not be able to be dealt with through a prosecution but at the same time are too dangerous to be let go. >> to the president have any comment on the supreme court this is a note this morning
beeper? >>-- this morning? >> the ruling by judge sonia sotomayor was based on the president of the second circuit and the precedent that they considered. the supreme court apparently had a new interpretation for title 7 of the civil rights act. i think some of the very concerns that members of the senate have expressed about judicial activism seemed to be at the very least upside-down in this case. i think her ruling on the second circuit the notes that she is a follower of precedence. >> is there a concern that there will be consequences out of this
at the confirmation hearings at all? >> i don't foresee that this will represent anything that would prevent her from a seat on the supreme court. i would note that one of the rulings that came down today in an important first amendment case is that the new court will hear a case on september 9 that i think underscores the importance of ensuring that we get a new supreme court nominee there in order to be an active participant in that case rather than potentially have something that is a 4-4 decision. >> [inaudible] >> we are supposed to talk about that a little bit later today. our goal is to get this done in
the next day or two. >> you want her to be sworn in -- >> we want her to be an active participant in this case. >> [inaudible] do you think that will change your role call? >> if you look at the last two supreme court nominees, i don't think the vote changed because they had cases either reversed -- let me separate that a little bit. judge alito had three cases reversed by the supreme court and is now a member of the supreme court. judge roberts actually had a case reversed by the supreme court as the sitting chief
justice of the supreme court. i think that the notes that -- i think that denotes that there is little political significance about what the court decided today in terms of judge sonia sotomayor except to render a definitive opinion that she followed judicial precedents and she does not legislate from the bench. it is interesting to watch today the people that criticize her, in essence, i think you have seen a new interpretation of a piece of legislation by a court. her critics are criticizing her ruling based on judicial precedent in support of something where a court has interpreted in a new way the
law. it is interesting to watch the gymnastics. >> you are saying today was an example [inaudible] >> i think it is an interesting, the new interpretation of a law that has been reviewed by many judges in many courts. i find it somewhat interesting. >> on global warming and greenhouse gas regulation, republicans were saying it opens the question whether or not the epa reached a decision about endangerment even before announcing it in april. over the course -- a senior analyst says he would like
findings to be released and reviewed. the administration already decided on endangerment and the findings may not be distributed. some members of the house and senate said there were two issues. one, the president's pledge to use science in a non-political way, to be transparent and not to prejudge things before all scientific data was reviewed. could you comment on this? >> i have not seen this e-maiesm ails. endangerment is a policy or is the result of a court case that would require action in the absence of legislative action.
this administration has always maintained that the best course going forward was not through an administrative action but instead through a process that included the views of congress. i think congress took an important step in the case on friday by moving forward on legislation that will, for the first time, mandate the curtailing of greenhouse gas emissions. that is the preferred method that this administration would like to see. >> will the president recommend to the senate that it drop the tariff provision in the house that it criticized over the weekend? >> i think he has concerns about those positions. i think the bill is likely to -- i don't know about this particular provision, but i think the bill is likely to look different as it comes out of the senate. i think the president will have
something to sign later this year. >> today, the president is going to celebrate gay pride at the white house for the first time. even so, the gay community is somewhat divided over whether or not the president has done enough. >> i appreciate the opportunity to comment on mollifying a community. that is not the way the president looks at important issues. i think if you go back and look at his campaign for the senate or the presidency, he takes it views that are consistent with his values. we did not play a lot of interest group-based politics in
the presidential race. i think that was the noted about the fact that we did not get a lot of -- he makes those decisions on his values. i will get ahead of what he will say later today but he will address a number of issues, reaffirmed the commitment that he has made. >> the president has talked about repealing don't ask don't tell and also the [unintelligible] i was wondering if you could tell me what specific steps he has taken to do this and the timeline -- >> i think we have a fairly similar question. >> there is legislation apparently moving to the house repealed on don't ask, don't tell. he hasn't endorsed that. why not? >> i can talk to legislative
affairs about what that piece of legislation would do. as i said earlier, the president has and involved in personally readings on this topic with stakeholders, including those at the pentagon. i don't know if he has met specifically with members of congress with that. i can get a list. and a staff has worked here on the issue. >> can you talk a little bit more about the meetings he has had and how recent he has been in these meetings? >> since january 20. >> a prime minister said it next week at -- he is going to talk about sanctions on iran and elections. [unintelligible] >> i have not seen what he is considering.
i think the president would want to look at what is being considered before rendering a judgment. >> what about the decision today, the weekend that seem to be wrapped up very quickly after it started. >> -- the recounti that seemed to be wrapped up very quickly after it started. >> is the report correct that the president has told his staff that he does not intend to search for a church in washington? >> no. there have been no formal decisions about joining a church. i think i mentioned a tear in the past couple of weeks that when he goes to -- i think i mentioned in it here in the past couple of weeks that when he goes to camp david, he enjoys
the pastor there. they are not formally joining that church. there have not been formal decisions about joining a church in this area. i will say that one aspect of the article that is true is what i mentioned here in debts in discussion, the concern that the president continues to have about the destructive nature of his presence -- about the disruptive nature of his presence in the area. i think he serves the strong believe the very personal relationship with one owns spirituality. for his presence to be disrupted, i think that takes away from what churchgoers would get. he does not want to do that. >> so for now, he will not be
searching -- >> i think they will continue to look for a formal church home. i think when he is at camp david, he will continue to go to that chapel. he has told us he greatly enjoys that. >> on guantanamo bay, you said that the president does not intend to take unilateral action and cut out congress. that does not necessarily mean you are going in that direction of the national security board, which would be a cooperative -- >> let me say that i think there have been a number of stores about this that have tried to advance the ball on decisions yet to be made here. i don't know if those are being litigated among departments with different viewpoints but no final decisions have been made. >> do you think that deadline
will be breached? >> absolutely. i think you have seen over the past few weeks progress, particularly with statements by the european union and individual countries in their desire to share the responsibility of selling transferred detainees -- of selliettling transferred detain. i think we are making progress on what everyone understands and believes what is a very complicated issue. >> isn't bermuda at a case that shows how difficult it is to transfer these guys? the parliament is doing an inquiry into the head of state.
>> i think there was a vote on that and the head of state won that vote. if this was easy, we would have done it already. all things would be neatly wrapped up. i think we understand it is complicated. my larger point is that a number of stories appeared on friday and over the weekend that get significantly ahead of a final decision being made. >> thank you, robert. >> should we call you steve from now on? go ahead, lester. >> does the president support the new york congressman's resolution no. 5? >> i tend to get it mixed up
with the joint resolution 4 and 6. i would have to -- at the conclusion of our time together today to coat it is the repeal of the 22nd amendment. does he support this? in 2006, there was favor of it. does he support the repeal of the 22nd amendment or not, robert? >> this is for two terms? i think the president is firmly in support of an amendment that would limit his time at the presidency to eight years if he is given that awesome responsibility by the american people. >>you don't have to follow up on that? [laughter]