President Richard Nixon's secretary Rose Mary Woods demonstrates the backwards-leaning stretch with which she erased eighteen-and-a-half minutes of a key Watergate conversation recorded on White House tapes.

Via George Washington University’s National Security Archive:

The Rosemary Award for worst open government performance, named after President Nixon’s secretary who erased 18 ½ minutes of a crucial Watergate tape, this year goes to the Federal Chief Information Officers Council, the senior federal officials (responsible for $71 billion a year of IT purchases) who have never addressed the failure of the government to save its e-mail electronically, according to the citation Friday by the National Security Archive.

Formed by Executive Order in 1996 and codified in law by Congress in the 2002 E-Government Act, the CIO Council describes itself as the “principle interagency forum for improving practices in the design, modernization, use, operation, sharing, and performance of Federal Government information resources.” Yet neither the Council’s founding documents, its 2007-2009 strategic plan, its transition memo for the Obama administration, nor its current Web site even mention the challenge of electronic records management for e-mail.

Last month, the Justice Department investigation of former senior officials John Yoo and Jay Bybee over their authorship of the so-called “torture memos” revealed that “most of Yoo’s email records had been deleted and were not recoverable.” The Yoo deletions represent only the latest red flag about government e-mail preservation – dating back to the January 1989 attempt by the Reagan administration to destroy its e-mail backup tapes, thwarted by the National Security Archive’s lawsuit.

A 2008 survey by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpenTheGovernment.org did not find a single federal agency policy that mandates an electronic record keeping system agency-wide. Congressional testimony in 2008 by the Government Accountability Office indicted the standard “print and file” approach by pointing out: “agencies recognize that devoting significant resources to creating paper records from electronic sources is not a viable long-term strategy”; yet GAO concluded even the “print and file” system was failing to capture the historic records “for about half of the senior officials” checked – John Yoo’s peers.

“The CIO Council has a bad case of attention deficit disorder when it comes to the e-mail disaster in the federal government,” commented Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive and author of a book on the e-mail lawsuit against the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations. “We hope this year’s Rosemary Award will serve as a wake up call to the government officials who have the power, the money and the responsibility to save the e-mail sent in the course of the public’s business.”

The disaster of disappeared e-mail implicates almost every agency of the U.S. government, not only the Department of Justice which could not recover the Yoo e-mails. The National Archives and Records Administration also bears responsibility for coming up with the “print and file” approach to begin with, but NARA’s $400 million budget is miniscule compared to the annual IT spending of $71 billion over which the federal government’s CIO’s preside, so the CIO Council won the 2010 Rosemary Award based on the well-established Watergate principle of “follow the money.”

The only part of the federal government that seems to be facing up to the e-mail preservation challenge with any kind of “best practice” is the White House, where the Obama administration installed on day one an e-mail archiving system that preserves and manages even the President’s own Blackberry messages.

The National Security Archive brought the original White House e-mail lawsuit against President Reagan in early 1989, and continued the litigation against Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, until court orders compelled the White House to install the “ARMS” system to archive e-mail. The Archive sued the George W. Bush administration in 2007 after discovering that the Bush White House had junked the Clinton system without replacing the systematic archiving functions. CREW subsequently joined this suit and with the Archive negotiated a settlement with the Obama administration that included the recovery of as many as 22 million e-mails that were previously missing or mis-filed.

As a result of the two decades of the Archive’s White House e-mail litigation, several hundred thousand e-mails survive from the Reagan White House, nearly a half million from the George H.W. Bush White House, 32 million from the Clinton White House, and an estimated 220 million from the George W. Bush White House.

Previous recipients of the Rosemary Award include the FBI in 2009 (for having a record-setting rate of “no records” responses to FOIA requests), the Treasury Department in 2008 (for shredding FOIA requests and delaying responses for decades), the Air Force in 2007, and the Central Intelligence Agency in 2006. The Award is named after President Nixon’s long-time secretary Rose Mary Woods and the backwards-leaning stretch – answering the phone while keeping her foot on the pedal of a tape transcription machine – that she testified caused the erasure of an 18 ½ minute section of a key Watergate conversation on the White House tapes.

Jamil, of Annandale, Va., was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Claude M. Hilton in the Eastern District of Virginia. He pleaded guilty on Aug. 11, 2009, to a one-count information charging him with conspiracy to steal government property.

In his guilty plea, Jamil admitted that in March 2007, he and two of his co-conspirators arranged for the creation of a false memorandum for record (MFR) authorizing individuals, purportedly on behalf of a company serving as a contractor to the U.S. government, to draw fuel from the Victory Bulk Fuel Point (VBFP), Camp Liberty, Iraq, which was owned and operated by the United States. The VBFP supplies aviation and diesel fuel to both military units and U.S. government contractors operating in and around the Victory Base Complex. Jamil admitted that he and his co-conspirators used this false MFR and others to steal large quantities of fuel from the U.S. Army for subsequent sale on the black market. Jamil admitted that he escorted the trucks to retrieve fuel from the VBFP using a false MFR on approximately 10 to 15 occasions. As a result of the scheme, Jamil received between $75,000 and $87,500 in personal profits.

In related cases, Robert Jeffery was convicted on Aug. 11, 2009, after a two-day jury trial of one count of conspiracy and one count of theft of government property for his role in the fuel theft. Evidence at trial established that Jeffery served as an escort for the fuel trucks and illegally retrieved hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel from the VBFP. On Dec. 11, 2009, Jeffery was sentenced to four years in prison.

Robert Young pleaded guilty on July 24, 2009, to participating in the same scheme. In his plea, Young admitted that he and his co-conspirators employed several individuals to serve as drivers and escorts of the trucks containing the stolen fuel. Young admitted that he received approximately $1 million in personal profits from the scheme. On Nov. 6, 2009, Young was sentenced to 97 months in prison.

Lee William Dubois pleaded guilty on Oct. 7, 2008, to participating in the same scheme. In his plea, Dubois admitted that he obtained government-issued common access cards for the drivers and escorts of the trucks and also presented false documents to the VBFP authorizing his co-conspirators to draw fuel. Dubois admitted that he received at least $450,000 in personal profits from the scheme. On Aug. 25, 2009, Dubois was sentenced to three years in prison.

The case was prosecuted by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Linick, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, and Fraud Section Trial Attorneys Andrew Gentin and Brigham Cannon. The investigation of this case was conducted by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FBI, and members of the National Procurement Fraud Task Force and the International Contract Corruption Task Force (ICCTF).

The National Procurement Fraud Task Force, created in October 2006 by the Department of Justice, was designed to promote the early detection, identification, prevention and prosecution of procurement fraud associated with the increase in government contracting activity for national security and other government programs. The ICCTF is a joint law enforcement agency task force that seeks to detect, investigate and dismantle corruption and contract fraud resulting from U.S. Overseas Contingency Operations, including in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait.

David DeGraw: “The American public needs to understand that we have been attacked. We are in an economic war right now and all economic indicators say that things are going to get worse…. The Economic Elite have come to the decision that the US middle class is obsolete…. It’s time for 99 percent of the population to come together and start organizing….”

David’s interview starts 13 minutes and 25 seconds in…

The Justice Department, FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service today announced that the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, which killed five individuals and sickened 17 others, has formally concluded.

Earlier today, representatives of the FBI and Justice Department provided a 92-page investigative summary along with attachments to victims of the attacks, relatives of the victims and appropriate committees of Congress. This document sets forth a summary of the evidence developed in the “Amerithrax” investigation, the largest investigation into a bio-weapons attack in U.S. history. As disclosed previously, the Amerithrax investigation found that the late Dr. Bruce Ivins acted alone in planning and executing these attacks.

The investigative summary and the attachments are now accessible to the public and have been posted to the Justice Department Web site at www.usdoj.gov/amerithrax under the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, roughly 2,700 pages of FBI documents related to the Amerithrax case are now accessible to the public and have been posted to the FBI website at http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/amerithrax.htm under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Amerithrax Task Force, which was comprised of roughly 25 to 30 full-time investigators from the FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and other law enforcement agencies, as well as federal prosecutors from the District of Columbia and the Justice Department’s Counterterrorism Section, expended hundreds of thousands of investigator work hours on this case. Their investigative efforts involved more than 10,000 witness interviews on six different continents, the execution of 80 searches and the recovery of more than 6,000 items of potential evidence during the course of the investigation. The case involved the issuance of more than 5,750 grand jury subpoenas and the collection of 5,730 environmental samples from 60 site locations.

For background on this case please see this story.

The meeting did go well, and I appreciate them making the trek. We had a good and frank conversation and it’s one that I hope we can continue on a more regular basis.

We all understand that there are legitimate and genuine differences between the parties, but despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree. That’s what the American people are demanding of us. I think they’re tired of every day being Election Day in Washington. And at this critical time in our country, the people sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics.

That’s why I’m going to continue to seek the best ideas from either party as we work to tackle the pressing challenges ahead. I am confident, for example, that when one in 10 of our fellow citizens can’t work, we should be able to come together and help business create more jobs. We ought to be able to agree on providing small businesses with additional tax credits and much needed lines of credit. We ought to agree on investments in crumbling roads and bridges, and we should agree on tax breaks for making homes more energy-efficient — all of which will put more Americans to work. Many of the job proposals that I’ve laid out have passed the House and are soon going to be debated in the Senate. We spent a lot of time in this meeting discussing a jobs package and how we could move forward on that. And if there are additional ideas, I will consider them as well. What I won’t consider is doing nothing in the face of a lot of hardship across the country.

We also talked about restoring fiscal responsibility. There are few matters on which there is as much vigorous bipartisan agreement, at least in public, but unfortunately there’s also a lot of partisan wrangling behind closed doors. This is what we know for sure: For us to solve this extraordinary problem that is so many years in the making, it’s going to take the cooperation of both parties. It’s not going to happen in any other way.

I’m pleased that Congress supported my request to restore the pay-as-you-go rule, which was instrumental in turning deficits into surpluses during the 1990s. I’ve also called for a bipartisan fiscal commission. Unfortunately this measure, which originally had received the support of a bipartisan majority of the Senate and was cosponsored by Senators Conrad and Gregg, Democrats and Republicans, was blocked there. So I’m going to be creating this commission by executive order. And during our meeting I asked the leadership of both parties to join in this serious effort to address our long-term deficits, because when the politics is put aside, the reality of our fiscal challenge is not subject to interpretation. Math is not partisan. There ought to be a debate about how to close our deficits. What we can’t accept is business as usual, and we can’t afford grandstanding at the expense of actually getting something done.

During our meeting we also touched briefly on how we can move forward on health reform. I’ve already announced that in two weeks I’ll be holding a meeting with people from both parties, and as I told the congressional leadership, I’m looking forward to a constructive debate with plans that need to be measured against this test. Does it bring down costs for all Americans as well as for the federal government, which spends a huge amount on health care? Does it provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry? Does it make coverage affordable and available to the tens of millions of working Americans who don’t have it right now? And does it help us get on a path of fiscal sustainability?

We also talked about why this is so urgent. Just this week, there was a report that Anthem Blue Cross, which is the largest insurer in the largest state, California, is planning on raising premiums for many individual policyholders by as much as 39 percent. If we don’t act, this is just a preview of coming attractions. Premiums will continue to rise for folks with insurance; millions more will lose their coverage altogether; our deficits will continue to grow larger. And we have an obligation — both parties — to tackle this issue in a serious way.

Now, bipartisanship depends on a willingness among both Democrats and Republicans to put aside matters of party for the good of the country. I won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but I also won’t hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that’s rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience. We talked about this as well, particularly when it comes to the confirmation process. I respect the Senate’s role to advise and consent, but for months, qualified, non- controversial nominees for critical positions in government, often positions related to our national security, have been held up despite having overwhelming support. My nominee for one important job, the head of General Services Administration, which helps run the government, was denied a vote for nine months. When she finally got a vote on her nomination, she was confirmed 96 to nothing. That’s not advise and consent; that’s delay and obstruct.

One senator, as you all are aware, had put a hold on every single nominee that we had put forward due to a dispute over a couple of earmarks in his state. In our meeting, I asked the congressional leadership to put a stop to these holds in which nominees for critical jobs are denied a vote for months. Surely we can set aside partisanship and do what’s traditionally been done to confirm these nominations. If the Senate does not act — and I made this very clear — if the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess, because we can’t afford to allow politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government.

My hope is that this will be the first of a series of meetings that I have with leadership of both parties in Congress. We’ve got to get past the tired debates that have plagued our politics and left behind nothing but soaring debt and mounting challenges, greater hardships among the American people, and extraordinary frustrations among the American people. Those frustrations are what led me to run for President, and as long as I’m here in Washington, I intend to try to make this government work on their behalf.

So, you know, I’m going to take a couple of questions, guys.

Major.

Q After meeting with you, John Boehner came out and told us, “The House can’t pass the health care bill it once passed; the Senate can’t pass the health care bill it once passed. Why would we have a conversation about legislation that can’t pass?” As a part of that, he said you and your White House and congressional Democrats should start over entirely from scratch on health care reform. How do you respond? Are you willing to do that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s how I responded to John in the meeting, and I’ve said this publicly before. There are some core goals that have to be met. We’ve got to control costs, both for families and businesses, but also for our government. Everybody out there who talks about deficits has to acknowledge that the single biggest driver of our deficits is health care spending. We cannot deal with our deficits and debt long term unless we get a handle on that. So that has to be part of a package.

Number two, we’ve got to deal with insurance abuses that affect millions of Americans who’ve got health insurance. And number three, we’ve got to make health insurance more available to folks in the individual market, as I just mentioned, in California, who are suddenly seeing their premiums go up 39 percent. That applies to the majority of small businesses, as well as sole proprietors. They are struggling.

So I’ve got these goals. Now, we have a package, as we work through the differences between the House and the Senate, and we’ll put it up on a Web site for all to see over a long period of time, that meets those criteria, meets those goals. But when I was in Baltimore talking to the House Republicans, they indicated, we can accomplish some of these goals at no cost. And I said, great, let me see it. And I have no interest in doing something that’s more expensive and harder to accomplish if somebody else has an easier way to do it.

So I’m going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. What I will not do, what I don’t think makes sense and I don’t think the American people want to see, would be another year of partisan wrangling around these issues; another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the House and the Senate in which there’s a lot of posturing. Let’s get the relevant parties together; let’s put the best ideas on the table. My hope is that we can find enough overlap that we can say this is the right way to move forward, even if I don’t get every single thing that I want.

But here’s the point that I made to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell: Bipartisanship can’t be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want, and that’s the price of bipartisanship, right? But that’s sometimes the way it gets presented. Mitch McConnell said something very nice in the meeting about how he supports our goals on nuclear energy and clean coal technology and more drilling to increase oil production. Well, of course he likes that; that’s part of the Republican agenda for energy, which I accept. And I’m willing to move off some of the preferences of my party in order to meet them halfway. But there’s got to be some give from their side as well. That’s true on health care; that’s true on energy; that’s true on financial reform. That’s what I’m hoping gets accomplished at the summit.

Q Do you agree the House and Senate bill can’t pass anymore?

THE PRESIDENT: What I agree with is that the public has soured on the process that they saw over the last year. I think that actually contaminates how they view the substance of the bills. I think it is important for all of these issues to be aired so that people have confidence if we’re moving forward on such a significant part of the economy as health care, that there is complete transparency and all of these issues have been adequately vetted and adequately debated.

And this gives an opportunity not just for Democrats to say here’s what we think we should do, but it also gives Republicans a showcase before the entire country to say here’s our plan; here’s why we think this will work. And one of the things that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell both said is they didn’t think that the status quo was acceptable, and that’s, right there, promising. That indicates that if all sides agree that we can’t just continue with business as usual then maybe we can actually get something done.

Q Mr. President, one of the reasons Anthem said — Anthem Blue Cross says that it’s raising its premiums is because so many people are dropping out of individual coverage because the economy is so bad and that leaves the people in the pool who are people who need medical care driving up costs. One of the reasons why businesses are not expanding right now, in addition to some of the credit issues you’ve talked about, at least according to business leaders, is they say there’s an uncertainty of what they need to plan for because of the energy bill, because of health care. That’s what they say. I’m not saying it’s true or not, but that’s what they say. What do you say when you hear that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the biggest uncertainty has been we just went through the worst recession since the Great Depression and people weren’t sure whether the financial system was going to melt down and whether we were going to tip into a endless recession. So let’s be clear about the sources of uncertainty in terms of business investment over the last several years: A huge contraction, trillions of dollars of losses in people’s 401(k)s; people have a lot of debt coming out of the previous decade that they still haven’t worked out; the housing market losing a whole bunch of value.

So the good news is that where we were contracting by 6 percent the economy is now growing by 6 percent. The CEOs I talked to are saying they are now making investments, and I anticipate that they’re going to start hiring at a more rapid clip. What I’ve also heard is them saying that we would like to feel like Washington is working and able to get some things done.

There are two ways of interpreting the issue of uncertainty. One way would be to say, well, you know what, we’ll just go back to what we were doing before on, let’s say, the financial markets. We won’t have the regulations that we need; we won’t make any changes in terms of “too big to fail.” That will provide certainty — until the next financial crisis.

That’s not the kind of certainty I think that the financial markets need. The kind of certainty they need is for us to go ahead and agree on a bipartisan effort to put some rules of the road in place so that consumers are protected in the financial markets; so that we don’t have banks that are too big to fail; that we have ways of winding them down and protecting the overall system without taxpayer bailouts. That requires legislation. The sooner we can get that done, the better.

The same would be true when it comes to health care. A lot of CEOs I hear from will say, boy, we’d like you to get health care settled one way or another, but they will acknowledge that when they open up their latest invoice for their premiums and they find out that those premiums have gone up 20 percent or 25 percent, that’s the kind of uncertainty that also tamps down business investment.

So I guess my answer would be this: The sooner the business community has a sense that we’ve got our act together here in Washington and can move forward on big, serious issues in a substantive way without a lot of posturing and partisan wrangling, I think the better off the entire country is going to be. I absolutely agree on that.

What I think is important is not to buy into this notion that is perpetrated by some of the business interests that got a stake in this who are fighting financial reform, for example, to say, boy, we’d be doing fine if we just didn’t try to regulate the banks. That I think would be a mistake.

Q Just to play devil’s advocate on that — a small business, let’s say, not somebody who’s going to be affected by the regulatory reform, small business — you have proposed, you would acknowledge, a bold agenda. And a small business might wonder, I don’t know how the energy bill is going to affect me, I don’t know how the health care reform bill is going to affect me — I’d better hold off on hiring.

THE PRESIDENT: The small businesses I talk to — and I’ve been talking to a lot of them as I’ve been traveling around the country over the last several months — their biggest problem is right now they can’t get credit out of their banks so they’re uncertain about that. And they’re still uncertain about orders — do they just have enough customers to justify them doing more.

It’s looking better at this point. But that’s not the rationale for people saying, I’m not hiring. Let me put it this way. Most small businesses right now, if they’ve got enough customers to make a profit and they can get the bank loans required to boost their payroll, boost their inventory, and sell to those customers, they will do so. Okay?

Let’s see, let’s get a print guy here. David.

Q You heard McConnell talk about nuclear power, offshore drilling, free trade — that’s a lot of Republican stuff. Is your party going to go for that if you decide to support that –

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that on energy there should be a bipartisan agreement that we have to take a both/and approach rather than an either/or approach. What do I mean by that? I am very firm in my conviction that the country that leads the way in clean energy — solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal — that country is going to win the race in the 21st century global economy. So we have to move in that direction.

What is also true is that given our energy needs in order to continue economic growth, produce jobs, make sure our businesses are competitive around the world, that we’re going to need some of the old, traditional energy sources as we’re developing these new ones and ramping them up. So we can’t overnight convert to an all-solar or an all-wind economy. That just can’t happen. We’re going to have needs in these traditional sources.

And so the question then is, are we going to be able to put together a package that includes safe, secure nuclear power; that includes new technologies so that we can use coal — which we have in abundance and is very cheap, but often is adding to our greenhouse gases — can we find sequestration technologies that clean that up; can we identify opportunities to increase our oil and natural gas production in a way that is environmentally sustainable? And that should be part of a package with our development of clean energy.

And my hope is that my Republican friends, but also Democrats, say to themselves, let’s be practical and let’s do both. Let’s not just do one or the other; let’s do both. Over time I think the transition is going to be more and more clean energy and over time fossil fuels become less prominent in our overall energy mix. But we’ve got to do both.

Q How confident are you there will be that kind of consensus for that double-edged approach?

THE PRESIDENT: I am just a eternal optimist — (laughter) — and so — it’s the right thing to do. And all I can do is just to keep on making the argument about what’s right for the country and assume that over time people, regardless of party, regardless of their particular political positions, are going to gravitate towards the truth. Okay?

I’m going to take two more. Let’s see –

Q How about the back? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just want to make sure that I was getting a balance here, so — go ahead, Chuck.

Q Awwww –

THE PRESIDENT: Why is everybody moaning about Todd?

Q He’s too good. His questions are too precise. (Laughter.)

Q Iran — we got the news today that they’re doing more of these — trying to enhance this uranium even more. Obviously Secretary Gates today in Paris was quoted as saying basically the dialogue seems to be over and now the question is sanctions. Where are we on sanctions? How close is this? I know you had sort of an end-of-the-year deadline when you stood up there with Sarkozy and Brown. It’s now February. How quickly is this moving along?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s moving along fairly quickly. I think that we have bent over backwards to say to the Islamic Republic of Iran that we are willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules and reenter as full members of the international community.

The most obvious attempt was when we gave them an offer that said we are going to provide the conversion of some of the low-enriched uranium that they already have into the isotopes that they need for their medical research and for hospitals that would serve up to a million Iranian citizens. They rejected it — although one of the difficulties in dealing with Iran over the last several months is it’s not always clear who’s speaking on behalf of the government, and we get a lot of different, mixed signals. But what’s clear is, is that they have not said yes to an agreement that Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States all said was a good deal, and that the director of the IAEA said was the right thing to do and that Iran should accept.

That indicates to us that, despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for civilian use, that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization. And that is not acceptable to the international community, not just to the United States. So what we’ve said from the start was we’re moving on dual tracks. If you want to accept the kinds of agreements with the international community that lead you down a path of being a member of good standing, then we welcome you. If not –

Q Haven’t they responded, though? I mean, by deciding to do what they did, with these –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m getting to that.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: And if not, then the next step is sanctions. They have made their choice so far, although the door is still open. And what we are going to be working on over the next several weeks is developing a significant regime of sanctions that will indicate to them how isolated they are from the international community as a whole.

Q What do you mean by “regime of sanctions”?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, meaning that there’s going to be a –

Q Some will be U.N. and some will be –

THE PRESIDENT: We are going to be looking at a variety of ways in which countries indicate to Iran that their approach is unacceptable. And the U.N. will be one aspect of that broader effort.

Q China will be there? You’re confident?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the — we are confident right now that the international community is unified around Iran’s misbehavior in this area. How China operates at the Security Council as we pursue sanctions is something that we’re going to have to see. One thing I’m pleased about is to see how forward-leaning the Russians have been on this issue. I think they clearly have seen that Iran hasn’t been serious about solving what is a solvable dispute between Iran and the international community.

All right? I’m going to make this the last question. And I’ll take somebody from the back — yes.

Q Me?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Thanks for doing this. It’s been a while. (Laughter.) On health care, the Republicans are asking whether the February 25th session will include economists and public interest groups and people supporting your side, or will it just be the members of Congress? And on Anthem Blue Cross, do you have the authority to go in and tell a private company they can’t charge that — how will you stop them?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t have the authority as I understand it — I can’t simply issue an executive order lowering everybody’s rates. If I could I would have done that already and saved myself a lot of grief on Capitol Hill. That’s why reform is so important. That’s why the status quo is unacceptable.

But there is no shortcut in dealing with this issue. I know the American people get frustrated in debating something like health care because you get a whole bunch of different claims being made by different groups and different interests. It is a big, complicated, tough issue. But what is also true is that without some action on the part of Congress, it is very unlikely that we see any improvement over the current trajectory. And the current trajectory is premiums keep on going up 10, 15, 20, 30 percent. The current trajectory is more and more people are losing health care.

I don’t know if people noted, because during the health care debate everybody was saying the President is trying to take over — a government takeover of health care. I don’t know if anybody noticed that for the first time this year you saw more people getting health care from government than you did from the private sector — not because of anything we did, but because more and more people are losing their health care from their employers. It’s becoming unaffordable. That’s what we’re trying to prevent.

We want people to be able to get health care from their employers. But we also understand that you’ve got to fix the system so that people are able to get it at affordable rates and small businesses can afford to give their employees insurance at an affordable rate. And that’s not happening right now.

To your question about the 25th, my hope is that this doesn’t end up being political theater, as I think some of you have phrased it. I want a substantive discussion. We haven’t refined exactly how the agenda is going to go that day. We want to talk with both the Democratic and Republican leaders to find out what they think would be most useful. I do want to make sure that there’s some people like the Congressional Budget Office, for example, that are considered non-partisan, who can answer questions.

In this whole health care debate I’m reminded of the story that was told about Senator Moynihan, who was I guess in an argument with one of his colleagues, and his colleague was losing the argument so he got a little flustered and said to Senator Moynihan, “Well, I’m entitled to my own opinion.” And Senator Moynihan said, “Well, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” I think that’s the key to a successful dialogue on the 25th or on health care.

Let’s establish some common facts. Let’s establish what the issues are, what the problems are, and let’s test out in front of the American people what ideas work and what ideas don’t. And if we can establish that factual accuracy about how different approaches would work, then I think we can make some progress. And it may be that some of the facts that come up are ones that make my party a little bit uncomfortable. So if it’s established that by working seriously on medical malpractice and tort reform that we can reduce some of those costs, I’ve said from the beginning of this debate I’d be willing to work on that. On the other hand, if I’m told that that is only a fraction of the problem and that is not the biggest driver of health care costs, then I’m also going to insist, okay, let’s look at that as one aspect of it, but what else are we willing to do?

And this is where it gets back to the point I was making earlier. Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That’s not how it works in any other realm of life. That’s certainly not how it works in my marriage with Michelle, although I usually do give in most of the time. (Laughter.) But the — there’s got to be some give and take, and that’s what I’m hoping can be accomplished. And I’m confident that’s what the American people are looking for.

So, all right?

Q Jobs question?

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, since there wasn’t a jobs question –

Q Well, I just –

THE PRESIDENT: I’ll make this the last one, jobs question.

Q At the stakeout, the Republicans were saying, well, the jobs package we’ve seen, it’s not really ready yet, we’re a little worried about the cost. Are you satisfied that there is something that can be quickly moved through Congress on jobs?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, my understanding is — first of all, the House has moved forward a jobs package that has some good elements in it. My understanding is, is that there is bipartisan talks taking place as we speak on the Senate side about some elements of a package.

I think there are some things that a lot of people agree on. Just to give you an example, the idea of eliminating capital gains for small businesses — something we can all agree on. I talked about it at the State of the Union address. My hope would be that we would all agree on a mechanism to get community banks who are lending to small businesses more capital, because that is something that I keep on hearing is one of the biggest problems that small businesses have out there.

So I think that it’s realistic for us to get a package moving quickly that may not include all the things I think need to be done, and it may be that that first package builds some trust and confidence that Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill can work together and then we move on to the next aspect of the package and so forth. It may take a series of incremental steps, but the one thing I’m absolutely clear about is, is that we’ve got an economy that’s growing right now, a huge boost in productivity — that’s the good news. The bad news is, is that companies still haven’t taken that final step in actually putting people on their payroll full-time.

We’re seeing an increase in temporary workers, but they haven’t yet taken on that full-time worker. And so providing some additional impetus to them, right as the economy is moving in a positive direction, I think can end up yielding some good results.

All right? Thank you, guys. That was pretty good, thanks.

Balli Aviation Ltd., a subsidiary of the United Kingdom-based Balli Group PLC, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a two-count criminal information in connection with its illegal export of commercial Boeing 747 aircraft from the United States to Iran, announced David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; Channing D. Phillips, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; Thomas Madigan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement; and Adam J. Szubin, Director of the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Under the plea agreement, Balli Aviation Ltd. agreed to pay a $2 million criminal fine and be placed on corporate probation for five years. The $2 million fine, combined with a related $15 million civil settlement among Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation Ltd., the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), that was also announced today, represents one of the largest fines for an export violation in BIS history. Under the terms of the related civil settlement, Balli Group PLC and Balli Aviation Ltd. have agreed to pay a civil penalty of $15 million of which $2 million will be suspended if there are no further export control violations. In addition, Balli Aviation Ltd. and Balli Group PLC are denied export privileges for five years, although this penalty will be suspended provided that neither Balli Aviation nor Balli Group commits any export violations and pays the civil penalty.  Under the terms of the settlement, Balli Group PLC and Balli Aviation, Ltd. will also have to submit the results of an independent audit of its export compliance program to BIS and OFAC for each of the next five years.

According to count one of the information filed with the court, beginning in at least October 2005, through October 2008, Balli Aviation Ltd. conspired to export three Boeing 747 aircraft from the United States to Iran without first having obtained the required export license from BIS or authorization from OFAC, in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the Iranian Transactions Regulations. More particularly, the information states that Balli Aviation Ltd., through its subsidiaries, the Blue Sky Companies, purchased U.S.-origin aircraft with financing obtained from an Iranian airline and caused these aircraft to be exported to Iran without obtaining the required U.S. government licenses. Further, Balli Aviation Ltd. entered into lease arrangements that permitted the Iranian airline to use the U.S.-origin aircraft for flights in and out of Iran.

Count two of the information states that Balli Aviation Ltd. violated a Temporary Denial Order (TDO) issued by BIS on March 17, 2008, that prohibited the company from conducting any transaction involving any item subject to the EAR. Starting in or about March 2008 and continuing through about August 2008, Balli Aviation Ltd. willfully violated the TDO by carrying on negotiations with others concerning buying, receiving, using, selling and delivering U.S.-origin aircraft which went to the Export Administration Regulations.

“As this case demonstrates, corporations that conduct business with Iran in violation of U.S. export laws and sanctions face serious consequences,” said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security. “The many agents, analysts and attorneys who worked on this successful investigation and prosecution deserve special thanks for their efforts.”

“These charges reflect the commitment of the United States to vigorously enforce our laws against corporations that illegally seek to acquire U.S. aircraft from the U.S. on behalf of Iranian customers,” said Channing Phillips, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. “Those who seek to profit by violating and circumventing U.S. trade laws should take heed of today’s guilty plea by Balli Aviation.”

“The significant fine is a direct consequence of the level of deception used to mislead investigators,” said Thomas Madigan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement. “The case agents worked through a complex corporate maze to obtain the facts and bring the violators to justice.”

“Today’s case should serve as further warning of Iran’s continued efforts to circumvent sanctions and obtain U.S. technology. Together with our colleagues from the Justice and Commerce departments, OFAC will continue to aggressively pursue both domestic and foreign entities that seek to violate U.S. sanctions programs by exporting goods to Iran from the United States.” said Adam J. Szubin, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Jack Barouh of Golden Beach, Fla., pleaded guilty today to filing a false tax return, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced. Sentencing has been set for April 16, 2010, before U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan in Miami. The defendant remains free on a $1 million bail pending sentencing. He faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison.

According to court documents and statements made in court, Barouh admitted to filing a false tax return for 2007 in which he failed to report that he had an interest in or a signature authority over financial accounts at UBS AG, one of Switzerland’s largest banks. He also failed to report income earned on his UBS Swiss bank accounts. The UBS accounts were opened in the names of Domilou S.A., a nominee Panamanian corporation, and Similen Investments Limited, a nominee British Virgin Island corporation. For years 2002 through 2007, the tax loss associated with the Domilou and Similen accounts at UBS is approximately $736,269.

In addition to the Domilou and Similen accounts, the defendant owned and controlled several additional offshore bank accounts located at banks other than UBS, including accounts in Switzerland and Hong Kong.

According to court documents, the defendant owned and operated several businesses that manufactured and sold watches. Beginning in 1976, the defendant skimmed income from his watch businesses and deposited the proceeds into his undeclared UBS bank accounts. The defendant also deposited unreported sales commissions into the accounts.

According to court documents, beginning in 2007, the defendant attempted to withdraw his funds from Switzerland and repatriate all of the money into the United States. However, a Swiss attorney persuaded the defendant to transfer the money from Switzerland to a newly created bank account in Hong Kong in the name of a nominee Hong Kong corporation. The Swiss attorney then told the defendant to pay himself an annual “consulting fee” until all of the funds were brought into the United States. The Swiss attorney knew the defendant was not going to perform any consulting work.

As part of his plea agreement, the defendant agreed to pay a 50 percent penalty for the one year with the highest balance in his offshore accounts in order to resolve his civil liability for failing to file Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, Forms TD F 90-22.1. The highest balance of all of the assets the defendant owned and controlled offshore was approximately $10,017,613. The defendant also must pay any additional taxes, interest and penalties he may owe.

“Today’s guilty plea is the latest success in our crackdown on illegal offshore tax evasion,” said John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “The Justice Department and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices will continue our investigations and prosecutions of individuals who utilize offshore accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere.”

“Skimming from one’s business and placing the assets in a secret offshore bank account is a classic example of tax evasion,” said Jeffrey H. Sloman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. ”With tax day looming, today’s guilty plea is a reminder that those who violate the tax laws will be held accountable.”

“Hiding money in foreign bank accounts to evade paying taxes is a crime,” said Victor S. O. Song, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation. “The IRS will continue our efforts to bring non-compliant taxpayers into the tax system either through the voluntary disclosure program or criminal prosecution.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General John DiCicco and U.S. Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman commended the investigative efforts of the IRS agents involved in this case, as well as Senior Litigation Counsel Kevin M. Downing and Trial Attorney Mark F. Daly of the Tax Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Neiman, who are prosecuting the case.

In February 2009, UBS entered into a deferred prosecution agreement pursuant to which the bank admitted to helping U.S. taxpayers hide accounts from the IRS. As part of their agreement, UBS provided the United States government with the identities of, and account information for, certain United States customers of UBS’s cross-border business. Jack Barouh is the seventh former client of UBS to plead guilty to a tax felony.

U.S. citizens who have an interest in, or signature or other authority over, a financial account in a foreign country with assets in excess of $10,000 are required to disclose the existence of such account on Schedule B, Part III of their individual income tax return. Additionally, United States citizens much file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or F-Bar, with the U.S. Treasury, disclosing any financial account in a foreign country with assets in excess of $10,000 for which they have a financial interest in or signature authority, or other authority over.