    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2005, Book I)]
    [March 1, 2005]
    [Pages 327-335]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
    Leadership Conference
    March 1, 2005

        Thank you all. Thank you for coming. Please be seated. Thanks for
    coming. Thank you for the warm welcome. It is great to be here with
    leaders from around our country who are leading our Nation's faith-based
    and community groups.
        I am here to talk about my continued commitment to faith-based and
    community groups because I'm firmly committed to making sure every
    American can realize the promise of our country. It is said that faith
    can move mountains. Here in Washington, DC, those helping the poor and
    needy often run up against a big mountain--[laughter]--called
    bureaucracy. And I'm here to talk about how to move that mountain so
    that we can reach out and partner with programs which reach out to
    people who hurt.
        You know, one of the tests of character for America is how we treat
    the weakest of our citizens. Interesting test, isn't it? What are we
    doing in Government to help people who need help? Part of the test of
    Government is to understand the limitations of Government. Government--
    when I think about Government, I think about law and justice; I really
    don't think about love. Government has got to find ways to empower those
    whose mission is based upon love in order to help those who need love
    find love in society. That's really what we're here to talk about.
        I was talking earlier with some of our leaders, and I was reminding
    them that I think de Tocqueville, the Frenchman who came to America in
    the early 1800s, really figured out America in a unique way when he said
    that ``Americans like to form association in order to help save lives.
    Americans formed association in order to channel the individualistic
    inputs of our society to enable people to serve a cause greater than
    themselves.''
        Really, what we're doing is we're carrying on that philosophy today,
    a vision and philosophy that I think makes America a unique country and
    gives us, those of us responsible for helping lives, a unique
    opportunity to empower people, encourage people, partner with people to
    save lives in America. And that's what we're here to talk about today.
        I want to thank the members of my administration who've joined us,
    because the efforts to partner with faith-based and community programs
    require a commitment by all of us in the administration, not just the
    President or not just the people in the White House Office but people
    throughout Government.
        Margaret Spellings--Madam Secretary,
    thank you for coming. I appreciate you. She's the Secretary of the
    Department of Education. I see my friend Robert McCallum, who's the Associate Attorney General for the
    Department of Justice. Thank you for coming, Robert. Hector Barreto is
    the Administrator for the Small Business Administration. Yes, there is a
    connection between faith- and community-based groups and business. It's
    called helping make sure the entrepreneurial spirit

    [[Page 328]]

    and entrepreneurial know-how reaches every corner of America.
        I want to thank David Eisner, the CEO of
    the Corporation for National and Community Service, for joining us. And
    I want to thank Stephen Goldsmith, sitting
    right next to David, who's the Chairman. I want to appreciate everybody
    else who is here from my administration. Make sure you get back to work
    right after the speech is over. [Laughter]
        I appreciate three Members of the United States Congress who have
    joined us: Congressman Mike Ferguson from
    New Jersey; Congressman Mark Green from
    Wisconsin; and Congressman Jim Ryun from Kansas.
    I'm not interested in jogging--[laughter]--if you know what I mean.
        I appreciate the leaders in the armies of compassion--one of my
    favorite phrases, the armies of compassion. It's a strong word, isn't
    it? I want to thank the generals and sergeants and privates--
    [laughter]--who are here from the armies of compassion. Thank you all
    for taking time out of your day to come and hopefully be reassured that
    this initiative is one that has got a lot of momentum and impetus and
    reassured that we want to help change America.
        I appreciate the fact that many in this room have come from many
    different faiths and traditions. The Faith-Based Initiative is not about
    a single faith. In this country we're great because we've got many
    faiths, and we're great because you can choose--whatever faith you
    choose or if you choose no faith at all, you're still equally American.
    It's one of the great traditions of America that we will always hold
    sacred and always should hold sacred.
        But no matter what your faith is, we're united in the conviction
    that to whom much is given, much is expected, and that the liberty and
    prosperity we enjoy, the great freedom we enjoy in America, with that
    freedom comes an obligation to reach out to brothers and sisters who
    hurt. And so I recognize--and the first point I want to make is, I
    recognize the great work faith organizations are doing in this country.
    In other words, I stand here in confidence knowing that this initiative
    makes sense because I'm a results-oriented guy, and faith organizations
    are achieving results we want.
        I just met Curtis Jones. He was an 11-year-
    old boy from one of our Nation's Capital's rough neighborhoods. And he
    walked into the doors of UNIQUE Learning Center. A volunteer would tutor
    and mentor Curtis for the next 7 years. I just asked Curtis about the
    volunteer. He said he was the local judge. Think about that. It's
    interesting, isn't it? You've got a really busy person; he's on the
    bench; and so he decides to tutor Curtis for 7 years, not 7 days, 7
    hours, 7 minutes, but 7 years. All those who helped Curtis, particularly
    the mentor, must have taken great joy when they realized Curtis
    graduated from Penn State University with a degree in
    telecommunications. Where are you, Curtis? There you go.
        The mentors and the folks at the Learning Center get a lot of
    credit. As Curtis said, ``I wouldn't be here--I
    wouldn't be where I am today without the Learning Center.'' But Curtis,
    never forget that ultimately it was your decision. You made the choice.
    You decided to receive help and then aim big and get your degree. And I
    congratulate you. I'm proud of you, as is everybody else. But it's
    important for people to know there are stories like this all across
    America. This isn't just a story for Washington, DC; this is a story
    where lives have been transformed because somebody has put their arm
    around somebody who hurts, somebody out of a faith-based organization or
    community-based organization, and said, ``What can I do to help you,
    Curtis? What can I do to make sure that you can, with your choice, have
    an opportunity to realize the dreams of America?''
        And the goal is to bring the healing touch, like Curtis found at the UNIQUE

    [[Page 329]]

    Center, to lives all across America. That's what we're here to talk
    about today.
        Unfortunately, there are some roadblocks, such as the culture inside
    government at the Federal, State, and local level that is unfriendly to
    faith-based organizations. One of the keys to solving a problem and
    achieving a goal is to recognize roadblocks and then have the will to
    remove those roadblocks. But there is a cultural problem. You know, it's
    manifested itself, for example, when the Federal Government denied a
    Jewish school in Seattle emergency disaster relief because the school
    was religious. That's an indication that there's a roadblock. We have a
    cultural problem when FEMA money--we're going out to help lessen the
    effects of a disaster that hurt--hit, and all of a sudden, the school
    was denied Federal money because of the nature of the school.
        Or for example, the Federal Government--when I came in office, I
    found out the Federal Government was threatening to cut off funds for an
    Iowa homeless shelter. The shelter was receiving money from the Federal
    Government, and the shelter was doing good work. The shelter was helping
    to meet an objective, which was to provide housing for the homeless, but
    they were threatening to cut off money because the governing board was
    not sufficiently secular. Think about that. It kind of defeats the
    purpose of a faith-based organization, doesn't it, when the Government
    says, ``We will design the board of directors for you.'' It's a process
    world we live in, oftentimes, in the Nation's Capital. Instead of
    focusing on the results, instead of asking the question, ``Was this
    homeless shelter working,'' they asked the question, ``Tell me about the
    board of directors you've got.''
        And so today, after 4 years of work, we continue to confront this
    culture, a culture of process instead of results, head on. And the goal
    is, over the next 4 years, to change the culture permanently so faith-
    and community-based organizations will be welcomed into the grantmaking
    process of Government. That's the goal.
        I like to ask questions. The job of a President is to call people
    and say, ``How are we doing?'' Part of my job is to be the
    accountability person in the White House, you know, ``Are we making
    progress?'' So let me give you some of the progress that has been made
    in terms of achieving our goal, which is a hopeful America for every
    person. Today, 10 Federal agencies have got faith-based offices, 3 of
    them set up last year. In other words, a lot of money comes out of these
    different bureaucracies, and in order to make sure people feel
    comfortable accessing the grantmaking process, and/or that the
    bureaucracy itself is fair in enabling faith-based organizations to
    apply, there's an office in these different bureaucracies. You know,
    Housing and Urban Development has got one; Margaret has got one; McCallum's organization, the Justice Department, has got one.
        And so I've not only said, ``You must have one,'' I then asked, to
    make sure, ``How are they working? How are you changing the rules on
    Federal contracting?'' And the answer is universally, ``Yes, we have, to
    make sure that faith-based bidders are not being unfairly shut out of
    the competition for Federal money.'' That was the first thing I looked
    for in these offices, ``Tell me whether or not people are allowed to
    apply for money on an equal basis.''
        I want to call attention to my friend Jim Towey. Towey is in charge of the Faith-Based Office in the
    White House. His job is to answer your questions, to hold meetings such
    as this. His job is to answer my questions. [Laughter] He did such a
    good job, he got a promotion in the White House, so that the man who
    works full-time to help others feed the hungry can feed his own five
    children. [Laughter] Towey, by the way, interestingly enough--he's
    probably tired of hearing me say this, but I find it an interesting
    comment about

    [[Page 330]]

    our society--Jim Towey was Mother Teresa's lawyer. Think about that.
    [Laughter] Maybe we're a little too litigious in America. [Laughter]
        Anyway, he did a heck of a job
    being a lawyer, and he's doing a fine job of judging faith-based groups
    by their results. And that's important for our society to do. We ought
    to judge faith-based groups by results, not by their religion. And
    that's part of the cultural change that we're working on here.
        Since 2003, the administration has increased grants to faith-based
    organizations by 20 percent. That's a positive development. That's the
    kind of news that I like to hear, particularly when those faith-based
    programs are changing America one soul at a time. Last year, 10.3
    percent of all Federal grants--those are grants coming out of
    Washington; those are not formula-based grants to States--10 percent of
    those grants went to faith-based organizations. That's up from 8.1
    percent. So I asked Towey, I said,
    ``How are we doing?'' He said, ``Well, the percentage of grants to
    faith-based programs has grown, and that's good.'' Ten percent isn't
    perfect. Ten percent is progress. That means about $2 billion in grants
    were awarded last year to religious charities. That's a start. And so, 6
    months from now, I'm going to say, ``Jim, how are we doing?'' Then he's
    going to call the faith-based offices, and he's going to say, ``The
    President wants to know how you're doing.'' [Laughter]
        I also asked the question, ``Are we encouraging social
    entrepreneurship in America?'' That's one of my favorite words. Think
    about it: social entrepreneurship. Oftentimes, you think about
    entrepreneurship, you think about starting a business or balance sheets
    or income statements. There's a different kind of income statement in
    life, and that's the income statement of the heart, the balance sheet of
    the heart. And so I like to talk about social entrepreneurship, those
    courageous souls who are willing to take a stand in some of the toughest
    neighborhoods in America to save lives.
        So what we want to know is, what I want to know is, are we helping
    increase the number of new groups, small groups, first-time appliers for
    Federal money? Are we doing that? Are we getting beyond those great,
    courageous faith-based programs that have been providing help for a long
    period of time? Are we reaching beyond the Salvation Army or the
    Catholic Charities, the fantastic pillars of the faith-based program?
    And the answer is, we are.
        Let me give you an example. The Peacemaker Family Center in Miami is
    a small ministry of the Trinity Church that helps low-income and
    unemployed families. Towey visited
    there, so he's telling me on the way over in the limousine, that this is
    a desperate part of Miami--that this program is in a desperate part of
    Miami. And yet in the midst of desperation is a little beacon, a light.
    And so the center received a $50,000--seed money, it's called--from the
    Compassion Capital Fund mini-grant program. It's the first Federal
    funding the organization had ever received.
        And so the pastor there is a woman named Linda Freeman, and says that the funding, the mini-grant, was the
    turning point for her program--exactly what Jim Towey and I were hoping to hear. Why? Because the center
    was able to raise--was able to hire a writer for grants with that money.
    In other words, the center was able to take a leap forward in terms of
    being able to convince others that the program was worthwhile, leveraged
    the grant, and has expanded from 3 employees to 25 employees in a quick
    period of time. That's exactly what we hope happens.
        So this little program, in a dark neighborhood, had three employees.
    Think about that. It was somebody with an idea, somebody who heard a
    call, not from Government but from a higher authority, to try to help
    people in need. And so they had

    [[Page 331]]

    a program with three people. Three people--I mean, it's a small program
    but working hard to save any life they could save. And so the mini-grant
    enabled the person, Linda, to leverage, to
    hire somebody to help in the grantmaking process, to expand their scope,
    to get more notice. And obviously, more help is coming in, not from the
    Federal Government, from local government--local charities, so they're
    now up to 25 people, and they're expanding, helping to achieve the goal,
    which is to save as many lives as possible. It's the Federal goal, State
    goal, local goal, universal goal for America to help people realize the
    great promise of the country.
        And so I asked the question, ``How many programs like
    Linda's did we help last--over the last 2
    years?'' And it's 600--600 programs. So we're beginning to fuel social
    entrepreneurship. Those are the kinds of questions I will continue to
    ask, you'll be happy to hear, in order to help us achieve the objective.
        So we're making progress. There's more to do. And I want to talk
    about four steps that we intend to take and will take--not intend to
    take, will take over the next 4 years to achieve our goal of helping the
    poor and the needy.
        The first step will be to expand individual choice when it comes to
    providing help for people who hurt. I believe citizens in a free society
    must make responsible choices about their lives every day. And by giving
    those who look for help the opportunity and the responsibility to choose
    the help that's best for them, we'll not only give them better care but
    we'll put them on the path to productive citizenship.
        Now, we are expanding individual choice in programs in Washington.
    And the first place that we really worked hard to expand that choice
    is--that my administration has, is in the drug treatment programs. It
    is--there's all kinds of ways to quit drinking, but one of the most
    effective ways to quit drinking is for a person to make a choice to go
    to a place that changes your heart. If you change your heart, then you
    change your habits.
        The idea in the Access to Recovery program was to direct resources
    to the individual--there's some 100,000 a year who aren't able to get
    help for their alcohol and drug issues--to let them make the choice
    about the program that suits their needs. See, that's how it works. It
    says, ``We will fund you, and you choose. If you think a--kind of the
    classic clinical approach will work for you, give it a shot. If you
    think the corner synagogue will work for you''--like the synagogue I saw
    in Los Angeles that's saving life after life after life because of a
    belief in the Almighty--``give it a shot. But you get to make the
    choice.''
        And so, giving an example, there's the Meta House in Milwaukee, is a
    nonprofit that specializes in treating women addicts. And the people of
    the Meta House know better than a lot of other type of programs that
    kicking addiction is never easy, and they've got what they call a
    ``tough love'' program. This is their approach. It's not a universal
    approach; it happens to be their approach, tailormade to what they think
    will work.
        And one mother said, as a result of this approach, of ``tough
    love,'' admitting you've got an addiction--they make people stand up and
    say, ``I've got an addiction,'' and they talk about what amends they're
    going to make--says--and I love this quote--she says, she feels like she
    has ``an angel on her shoulder.'' Isn't it an interesting description
    about a tough love addiction program for somebody who says--who's made
    the choice--in other words, she was given the coupon that's redeemable
    where she chooses. She chose the Meta House in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And
    as a result of that, she said, ``I feel like I've got an angel on my
    shoulder.'' It's an inspirational program that makes people feel like
    they've got an angel on their shoulder as they're trying to recover from
    alcohol or drugs.
        And so what I want to do is apply this concept of individual choice
    beyond just

    [[Page 332]]

    the alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, such as mentoring programs
    or housing counseling or traditional--transitional housing programs or
    after-school programs or homeless services. And so I've asked the
    Cabinet officers and their faith-based and community offices to come up
    with ways to expand individual choice into how their departments can
    implement this philosophy.
        Now, I understand people are skeptical about this approach, because
    they say, you know, ``People in need don't want it.'' Or the other
    classic excuse is, ``People in need are not sophisticated to make the
    choices for themselves.'' I firmly reject that point of view. This
    approach has worked, by the way.
        President Bush--former President Bush,
    affectionately known as Number 41--[laughter]--introduced choice in the
    childcare and development block grants to States. In 1990, he started to
    implement this philosophy. And it turns out that when you analyze the
    results of that decision, that American parents decided they liked
    making the decisions as to where they send their children to child care.
        Today, more than 80 percent of the money in this program that goes
    out the door is in the form of individual coupons. In other words,
    consumer demand was quite large when it came to saying, ``I'd like to
    make the choice where my child goes, where I put my child, not you,
    Government.'' And these were people from all walks of life, by the way.
    These are the people that some say aren't sophisticated enough to make
    the choice. Parents are sophisticated enough to decide what's best for
    their children, and the Government has got to realize that.
        The second step is to continue to build our culture of compassion by
    making sure State and local agencies do not discriminate against faith-
    based and community-based programs when they hand out Federal dollars.
    In other words, one of the roadblocks to full implementation of this
    initiative is to not only make sure the Federal Government responds
    positively but the State and local governments do as well.
        Let me give you an example of part of the issues that faith-based
    programs face at the State and local government. Janesville, Wisconsin,
    authorized the Salvation Army to use Federal funds to help purchase a
    small apartment building to use for transitional housing for the
    homeless. The city council wisely said, ``Why don't we go to an expert?
    The Army--the Salvation Army has done this for years. They know what
    they're doing.'' And that was good news. The bad news is, is that when
    it approved the funding, the city added a provision declaring that
    religious ceremonies are not to be conducted on the site initiated by
    the Salvation Army. That doesn't make any sense, to tell a faith-based
    provider that they cannot practice the religion that inspires them in
    the work of compassion.
        And so when we learned what happened there with the city council,
    the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the office we set up,
    sent a letter informing the city that as long as the religious services
    were not funded with Federal money--in other words, the money was not--
    Federal money was not used to proselytize--and participation was
    voluntary, the city had no right to tell the Salvation Army that the
    price of running a center was to give up its prayers. It's an important
    concept that you just heard. I mean, it's a--and fortunately, the
    Janesville city council reversed its previous stand.
        Now, we've got to continue to encourage State and community and
    local governments to not discriminate against faith-based programs, to
    welcome faith-based programs, to understand a faith-based program will
    not use money to proselytize, that faith-based programs fully understand
    that participation in any religious ceremony is voluntary, but that the
    governments have got to understand that faith-based programs can help
    Governors and mayors achieve the

    [[Page 333]]

    common goal that we all share, which is a hopeful America for every
    single citizen. That's an important objective of this administration.
    And one of the roadblocks, frankly, happens because some States and some
    local governments receive formula grants--all of them receive formula
    grants from the Federal Government, but they haven't opened up those
    grants to competitive bidding.
        And so, yesterday, when I spoke to the Governors, I urged them to
    set up faith-based offices in their Governors' offices. Now, half of the
    Governors have done so. And if you're in a State where your Governor
    hasn't, I would urge you to get the Governor to say, ``Wait a minute,''
    to the State bureaucracies, ``Allow faith-based and community-based
    groups to bid on Federal money that has been sent down by formula to the
    States.'' In other words, we've talked about the Federal grantmaking
    process, but a lot of money goes out of Washington, DC--about $40
    billion of it--through formula grants. And to me, that's an area where
    the faith-based community ought to have the chance to bid as well.
    There's about 100 mayors have set up faith-based offices, so that's
    progress. Half the States, 100 cities--we're making progress to make
    sure that this initiative is accepted at the Federal, State, and local
    governmental level.
        Third step is to get Congress to pass charitable choice legislation.
    The legislation guarantees in law that faith-based organizations are
    treated equally when they compete for Federal dollars, and it also
    protects their religious independence in hiring workers. Charitable
    choice is something I've supported every year, and every year it's got
    stuck. There's kind of a consistent pattern there. [Laughter]
        And so I acted. I signed an Executive order that said that all
    faith-based groups should have equal access to Federal money. In other
    words, instead of waiting for Congress to pass charitable choice
    legislation, I said that a group with a cross on the wall or a rabbi on
    the board of a faith-based program would not be excluded from the
    awarding of Federal grants. That's what the initiative said; it said,
    ``Since Congress isn't moving, I will.'' And that Executive order still
    stands, but I believe that Executive order ought to be codified into
    Federal law, and Congress needs to act this year to do so. I think it's
    important.
        Faith-based organizations also need a guarantee they will not be
    forced to give up their right to hire people of their own faith as the
    price of competing for Federal money. There are some in our society in
    the faith community that say, ``Why would I want to interface with
    Government?'' And we've got to rid people of that fear. In other words,
    if we want this program to be effective and to save lives, people have
    got to say, ``Interfacing with Government will not cause me to lose my
    mission.'' And part of Towey's job and part of the faith-based offices--
    the job of the faith-based offices is to go around the country assuring
    people about the new culture in Washington, DC.
        One of the key reasons--and it's important for people here in
    Washington to understand--one of the key reasons why many faith-based
    groups are so effective is a commitment to serve that is grounded in the
    shared values and religious identity of their volunteers and employees.
    In other words, effectiveness happens because people who share a faith
    show up to help a particular organization based on that faith to
    succeed. And that's important now for people in Washington to
    understand.
        The right of religious groups to hire within their faith is included
    in Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act. But Congress has sent
    conflicting signals about whether that right still applies when a group
    gets Federal funding. When it comes to drug treatment and aid to needy
    families, Congress has included language in law that affirms their right
    to preserve their religious identity in their hiring decisions--

    [[Page 334]]

    the ``their'' being the faith-based groups. Congress has affirmed that
    right.
        When it comes to programs such as the Workforce Investment Act,
    Congress has required faith-based groups to forfeit the right. In other
    words, we're seeing mixed signals. Conflicting laws and regulations
    discourage faith-based groups. The purpose is to remove roadblocks, to
    encourage people to participate, not discourage people.
        And so I want this issue resolved. Congress needs to send me the
    same language protecting religious hiring that President
    Clinton signed on four other occasions.
    And they need to do it this year. And if we can't get it done this year,
    I'll consider measures that can be taken through executive action.
        The fourth step in advancing a culture of compassion is in ridding
    the Federal Tax Code of provisions that can discourage charitable
    giving. Today, a retired American who wants to donate a portion of his
    or her IRA to charity first pays taxes on the money withdrawn. In other
    words, ``I want to give some money. I've retired. I've got an IRA. I
    feel compassionate. I want to help an organization that's changing
    lives. I want to be a part of achieving your goal for America, and so
    therefore, I'm going to give you some money, but I have to pay tax on it
    first.''
        So we've decided to do something about that, and my 2006 budget
    includes a proposal that will allow all retirees to make contributions
    to charities from their IRAs tax-free.
        It's a simple change, but it's a substantive change to law. And I
    believe it will help encourage giving. Listen, America is a generous
    country, and a lot of people give. They don't need the tax law to
    encourage tithing, for example. But it always helps on the margin to
    have good tax law. [Laughter]
        We've also got another interesting provision in the 2006 budget, and
    I appreciate the Members of Congress being here to listen to this. It
    would allow greater deductibility for food donations at a time when food
    pantries are having trouble keeping their shelves filled. And we're
    doing a better job of managing surpluses in America. In other words,
    technology is--and the agricultural sector is coming down, so the ag
    community does a better job of managing surpluses in America. It's
    harder to get those surpluses, since there aren't--the surpluses are
    smaller, to the food pantry, so we've got a problem. And plus, current
    law discriminates against farmers or ranchers or small businesses or
    restaurants who do not get the same break, tax break, that some
    corporations get, and that's not right.
        And so the proposal would encourage more food donations by expanding
    and increasing the deduction of all taxpayers, large and small, sole
    proprietorships, incorporated, all who are engaged in a trade or a
    business, that can claim deductions for food donations. It's a practical
    thing to do, isn't it? I mean, if food pantries are having trouble
    getting food, why not have the Tax Code encourage people to give food?
    And so Congress needs to work on helping us help those who want to be
    generous anyway with a little help in the Tax Code.
        It's important for our fellow citizens to understand that the
    efforts that I've spoken about today do not involve the Government
    establishing religion. The State should never be the church, and the
    church should never be the State. And everybody in America understands
    that.
        Anybody who accepts money from the Federal Government, any faith
    provider, cannot discriminate based on religion. It's an important
    concept for our fellow citizens to understand, that no one in need will
    ever be forced to choose a faith-based provider. That's an important
    concept for people to understand. What that means is if you're the
    Methodist church and you sponsor an alcohol treatment center, they can't
    say only Methodists--only Methodists who drink too much can come to our
    program. [Laughter] All drunks are welcome, is what

    [[Page 335]]

    the sign ought to say--welcome to be saved, so they become sober.
        When the Government encourages the helping hand offered by the
    armies of compassion, it is important to understand that Government is
    acting through common sense, that Government is doing what you would
    want it to do, saying, ``Can we achieve results? How best to achieve an
    objective?''
        The goals that we've set here in our Nation, which is a
    compassionate country for everybody, to bring light where there's
    darkness, to help people who struggle, that goal--they are large. I
    mean, these goals are large goals; I mean, really big goals, important
    goals. And it's important for our fellow citizens to understand that to
    achieve those goals, we need all the help we can get. And the best help
    you can find, in my judgment, is the help from the armies of compassion,
    those brave soldiers who on an hourly basis answer a universal call to
    love a neighbor just like they would like to be loved themselves.
        I can't think of a better motto for an army, to love a neighbor just
    like you'd like to be loved yourself. And I can't think of a better role
    for Government, to say we stand with that army. We stand ready to help
    energize that army. We want that army to succeed because we want every
    American from every background in every neighborhood to realize the full
    promise of this blessed country.
        I want to thank you for being generals, lieutenants, sergeants, and
    privates in the army of compassion. Thank you for giving me a chance to
    lay out an agenda for the next 4 years that will invigorate this
    incredibly important initiative of Government.
        May God bless you, and may God bless your work.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:11 a.m. at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.