    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2005, Book I)]
    [April 14, 2005]
    [Pages 593-604]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at the American Society of Newspaper Editors Convention and a
    Question-and-Answer Session
    April 14, 2005

        The President. Thank you all. Please be seated. Thanks, Rich. I appreciate the chance to come back--more
    than you know. [Laughter] I miss my hometown newspaper. Austin was my
    hometown newspaper for quite a while. I miss reading it every morning as
    it was thrown on the Governor's Mansion doorsteps, but not enough to
    want to stay here for 4 more years. [Laughter]
        I appreciate your leadership, Rich. Two thoughts came to mind when I first saw Rich. One, he
    has to work with a guy named Ken Herman.
    [Laughter] Is Herman in the pool today?
        Ken Herman. Yes, sir, Mr. President.
        The President. Yes, okay. [Laughter] Just trying to help you out--
    [laughter]--kind of like you try to help me out, you know what I mean?
    [Laughter]
        And second, I know Rich is proud
    of his son, Rich, Jr., who is in
    Baghdad. My daughter Barbara--one of our
    daughters went to Yale, and she brought a fellow over the other day. I
    said, ``What are you doing?'' He said, ``Well, I was in your daughter's
    class. I'm in Baghdad, and I'm working with the State Department to help
    shepherd the press corps.'' I said, ``Oh, who are some of the characters
    you've run into there?'' And he mentioned a guy named John Burns, who I had known when my dad was the liaison officer in China. And believe it or not,
    he mentioned Oppel. I said, ``I know the old man.'' [Laughter]
        I know you're proud of him. I
    appreciate the service he's providing.
        And I want to thank Karla Garrett Harshaw as well, from Clark County, Ohio. Happens to be one
    of my favorites. [Laughter]
        Just a couple of brief thoughts, and I'd be glad to answer some
    questions if you have any. [Laughter] Here's what Jefferson said.
    Jefferson said, ``Our liberty depends on freedom of the press; that
    cannot be limited without being lost.'' He also went on to say, ``I've
    given up newspapers, and I find myself much happier.'' [Laughter]
        I haven't given up newspapers. I do find myself much happier than
    I've been in a long time in Washington. I'm enjoying myself. It's been a
    fascinating experience to be the President of the country. It's been a
    remarkable time in Washington. You know, as Rich said, the last time I was here we were talking about the
    EP-3. It seems like an eternity ago. A lot has happened.
        Somebody said, ``Well, how do you describe the Presidency?'' I said,
    ``It is a decisionmaking job. I make a lot of decisions.'' At your next
    editorial board, when you're dealing with a future President, you ought
    to say, ``How do you intend to make decisions? What is the process by
    which you will make large decisions and small decisions? How do you
    decide?''
        I've got a decision to make today. Do I go with the fastball or a
    slider? [Laughter]
        A couple of thoughts about this year and the agenda, and then
    questions. First, we've got a problem with energy. And it's a problem
    that didn't happen overnight. It's a problem that's been brewing for
    quite a while because the country has yet to implement a strategy that
    will make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
        I was at Fort Hood the other day and sitting, having lunch with some
    soldiers, and the second question that the fellow asked me was, ``Why
    don't you lower gasoline prices?'' I said, ``I'd like to.''
        You see, the problem is, the supplies are out of balance with demand
    when it comes to the major feedstock of gasoline, which is crude oil.
    We've got to think long term in this country, and Congress needs to pass

    [[Page 594]]

    the bill that I suggested in 2001 to begin the process of changing how
    we consume energy in America. We need to be better when it comes to
    conservation. We need to continue spending money on research and
    development to find ways to make corn economic--ethanol and biodiesel.
    We've got to continue exploring ways to make sure we can burn coal in
    environmentally friendly ways. I know we need to continue to explore for
    natural gas in our own hemisphere in environmentally friendly ways. But
    Congress needs to get off the dime. I'm looking forward to working with
    them.
        And so one of the initiatives that I will push--again--is to get an
    energy bill out. I will tell you, with $55 oil we don't need incentives
    to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.
    What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country
    over time become less dependent. It's really important. It's an
    important part of our economic security, and it's an important part of
    our national security.
        I'm also talking about retirement security. I'm talking about it a
    lot. Frankly, I'm not a really popular fellow on Capitol Hill for
    talking about it. I recognize that. It's one of these issues that I
    think people would rather avoid than take on. There's--you've written
    about this, I'm confident--the old third rail of American politics: If
    you touch it, you know, you don't do so well politically.
        I think Rich would attest to this,
    that when I was Governor, I felt like it was important to take on big
    issues, and I tried to convince the legislature to work with me on the
    school funding issue before it became adjudged by the courts to be
    unconstitutional or property taxes got so high that it created a real
    problem. Well, I tried and worked hard. Now, they're dealing with it, I
    think.
        I feel the same way about Social Security. We've got a serious
    problem. I don't care what your party is or what your political
    philosophy is; you can't ignore the math. And the math really is this:
    Baby boomers like me are ready to retire in 4 years. I'll be 62 in 4
    years. That's actually a fairly convenient date for me. [Laughter] And
    we're living longer. And people ran for office saying, ``Vote for me. I
    promise you more benefits.'' So you've got a lot of people like me
    getting ready to retire, living longer, and we've been promised greater
    benefits than the previous generation. And yet there are fewer people to
    pay the bill. And so what ends up happening is, is that a pay-as-you-go
    system goes in the red in a relatively short period of time, and every
    year it's in the red, it gets worse and worse and worse.
        And the fundamental question confronting Congress is, are they
    willing to take on this issue now, before it's too late--before, by
    waiting, the cost becomes more and more severe? And so I'm going to
    spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on
    the issue. I guess, it's the mother in me. I appreciate calling people
    to action. I like doing it. And the more resistance I find for people to
    protect the status quo, the more determined I am to continue building
    the case that there is a problem and assuring seniors that they're going
    to get their check.
        And we've just started the process. It may seem like a long time to
    you, but realistically, we've really just started. If you ask questions
    about it, I'd be glad to expand on what I mean by that. But there's--
    I've got a lot more time to tell people there is a problem. See, I think
    the American people are beginning to realize it, but they've got to
    understand the significance of the problem. And then seniors have got to
    realize they're fine when it comes to the check. Because once I make
    that case, then the issue becomes a generational issue. Grandparents are
    going to start to ask the question, ``What are you going to do about my
    grandkids?''
        Now, in my State of the Union Address, I did lay out options. And I
    think I have a responsibility to lay out options. I bet

    [[Page 595]]

    I'm the first President ever to talk about a variety of options that
    ought to be on the table, that people ought to come forth and discuss.
    And so I'm looking forward to working with Congress. I'm looking forward
    to continue to remind people we got a problem. I'm absolutely convinced
    that, when it's all said and done, inaction will create a political
    problem for people. The third rail of politics will be failure to solve
    the problem. And so just to give you a heads up, I'll be coming to your
    communities, continuing to talk about this issue a lot. I'm going to
    Cleveland tomorrow to talk about the issue.
        Overseas, there's a lot going on. And it's--I believe our actions
    have helped make the world a more peaceful place. Rich was right; obviously, times changed dramatically on
    September the 11th, 2001, and we're still at war with terrorists. There
    are still people there who'd like to create harm to America. The only
    way to deal with them, in my opinion, is to keep them on the run, is to
    keep enormous pressure--pressure on their finances, pressure on their
    safe havens, pressure on their--on people who are willing to accommodate
    their philosophy. And we're doing that--and not only doing it alone,
    we're doing it in a lot of other countries. We've got a lot of folks who
    understand the stakes in dealing with Al Qaida.
        We've got a lot of people around the world who are more than willing
    to share intelligence and to help follow leads and to bring people to
    justice. Today I was with the Indian Foreign Minister, and we were talking about the neighborhood. And I
    reminded him that I was appreciative of the efforts of President
    Musharraf and his efforts in fighting Al
    Qaida. I thought it was in the best interests of the United States and
    India that President Musharraf be tough when it comes to running down
    people in caves that are trying to do harm to free people. After all,
    India is a free country. It made sense to encourage a leader like
    President Musharraf.
        We're getting help in Saudi Arabia. The terrorists made a tactical
    mistake, in my judgment, by attacking the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They
    now understand the stakes, and so we've got an ally in chasing down Al
    Qaida. And we'll continue to do so. You've just got to know we're going
    to be relentless and unyielding, and we'll do everything we can to bring
    people to justice.
        The long term to solve the problem, however, of a radical ideology
    is to defeat it with freedom, is to encourage societies to become open,
    free, transparent societies based upon rule of law, with respect for
    minority rights, honoring each human being. Oh, I know, some people say
    that's not possible in certain societies. I don't believe that. I just
    don't believe it. I believe everybody longs to be free. I believe deep
    in everybody's soul is the desire to live in a free world. The people of
    Afghanistan proved that theory right, as poor people were subjugated to
    incredible brutalism--brutality from the Taliban, and yet when give a
    chance to vote, millions voted.
        The same in Iraq--over 8 million people voted in spite of the fact
    that they were threatened, cajoled, and some killed as they tried to
    exercise something that they believe is their right, God-given right to
    do, which is to express yourself freely in a society.
        Lebanon--there's a movement in Lebanon now to be free, to have a
    democracy that works. And we're working with France and other countries
    to enable Lebanon's democracy to flourish by insisting that, first and
    foremost, Syria get completely out of the country. I don't mean halfway
    out. I don't mean 80 percent out. I mean 100 percent out, not only
    Syrian military but the secret police and secret service and
    intelligence officers that are embedded in the Syrian--in the Lebanese
    Government.
        I met with Prime Minister Sharon this
    weekend. I am hopeful that there will be a Palestinian state living side
    by side with Israel in peace. I believe in order for that

    [[Page 596]]

    to work, however, we need to work--the free world needs to work with the
    Palestinians to develop the institutions necessary for a democracy to
    survive. And that's going to take work.
        I felt Prime Minister Sharon's decision to
    withdraw from the Gaza was bold and necessary. He came to Washington
    on--I think it was April the 14th last year--and informed me that he was
    going to do this. And I thought it was a really interesting decision. I
    admire strong, courageous decisionmaking. It created--his decision
    created an opportunity now for America, the EU, Russia, the United
    Nations to work with the Abbas
    Government to set up a democratic state in the Gaza.
        And today I announced that Jim Wolfensohn, the former head of the World Bank, is going to be the
    director of our operation with Abbas, to help him build a Government, to help them try to
    pull out of this ash heap of what used to exist, a Government that will
    function and meet the will of the people. And I think it's possible. I
    wouldn't be expending U.S. capital if I didn't. And I know it's
    necessary if you want to see peace in that part of the world.
        So a lot is going on worldwide, based upon the fundamental premise
    that freedom is a necessary part of achieving a peaceful world. And so
    I'm looking forward to the next 4 years, working on this agenda, working
    with friends and allies to continue the spread of freedom, defying the
    cynics and the critics who believe the free only belong to a certain
    type of religion or a certain type of person. And my hope, of course,
    is, when it's all said and done, to look back and say this world is a
    more peaceful place after 8 years of my administration.
        So, Rich, thanks for having me.
    Looking forward to taking a few questions. You've got the floor.
        Richard A. Oppel, Sr. President
    Bush has graciously agreed to take questions as time allows. ASNE
    members are invited to come to the microphones in the audience. Please
    tell us your name and newspaper. And I'm going to take the opportunity,
    Mr. President, to ask the first question.
        I thought at one time that you had a hard time with the political
    crowd here in DC, the voters and the entrenched. And I see that--I
    picked up a baseball cap for this new team you've got here, and I see
    they named it after you; it's got a big ``W'' on it. Are you going to
    the game tonight?
        The President. I thought you were going to ask about FOIA.
    [Laughter]
        Mr. Oppel. That's to come.
        The President. Go ahead. Do you want to ask the first question?
        Mr. Oppel. No, there will be
    questions out here.
        The President. Okay, I'll ask them myself, then. [Laughter]
        Yes, sir.

    Social Security Reform

        Q. Mr. President, Clarence Pennington, retired Ohio editor. We
    remember--I remember you saying that you're not going to give up all
    your ideas for a while, until you find out what the opposition is saying
    about Social Security. When I heard that, I thought it was a good idea.
    Well, it's been a while. Is there anybody talking yet, and what are they
    saying?
        The President. Yes. I don't remember putting it that way. I thought
    what I said was I welcome all ideas on the table and that if you're a
    Democrat or a Republican, please bring your ideas forward, and I'll do
    my best to make sure you don't get ridiculed, punished--whatever word
    you want to use--for being bold enough to come up and discuss ways to
    solve the problem.
        But it's interesting, you said we've been here for a while. We have
    been talking about it for a while, but it's going to take a while more
    to continue making clear to people in Congress that we've got a problem,
    see. They're not going to respond until the people say clearly,
    ``There's a problem,

    [[Page 597]]

    and what are you going to do to fix it?'' And it takes a while because,
    frankly, this is a heavy lift for some in Congress. You know, why deal
    with an issue if you don't have to? And so I'm going to spend a lot more
    time talking about the problem, making it clear to people.
        There's a dialog going on quietly up there. People are slowly but
    surely beginning to share ideas. And we spend a lot of time on Capitol
    Hill--``we,'' my staff, in particular--working with Members, trying to
    listen to their ideas, trying to begin to fashion a long-term, permanent
    solution to the Social Security issue.
        Q. Just between us, what is being said? Any of them saying anything?
        The President. Are they saying anything?
        Q. Well, yes, about--nobody from the opposition has had a new idea
    for you?
        The President. Oh, they may have, but they're not willing to put it
    on the table yet, publicly. It's going to take a while. This is a
    process. I, unfortunately, don't get to write the legislation. I
    propose; Congress disposes. But yes, we've had some good ideas.
    Remember, a lot of the interesting ideas that I quoted in the State of
    the Union were ideas from people like Bill Clinton or Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. These are citizens who
    have stepped forward and have talked about ways to permanently fix
    Social Security.
        And I keep emphasizing ``permanently'' because, in 1983, President
    Reagan and Tip O'Neill came together and said, ``Let's fix--put a 75-
    year fix out there for Social Security,'' and here we are, 22 years
    later, worrying about permanently fixing it again. And so now is the
    time to do it forever.
        But I'm pleased with the progress. I'm also understanding that
    we're--this is just the beginning stages of what is a difficult debate
    for some. Remember, some in Congress would rather not discuss this issue
    at all. They would rather say, ``Well, please don't jeopardize--put me
    in jeopardy. Please don't cause me to have to take a tough vote.''
        And I've just got a different perspective. I think now is the time
    to fix the problem. The longer you wait, every year you wait, it costs a
    future generation $600 billion. And so I'll continue talking about the
    issue a lot. But it's kind of a--beginning a little movement up there.
    People are talking. They just haven't made their cards all public yet.
        Okay, yes.

    Border Security/Immigration Reform

        Q. Mr. President, George Condon with Copley News Service. A month
    ago you stood in Crawford with the leaders of Mexico and Canada and
    talked about the importance of balancing security but maintaining the
    free flow of trade and people across the borders. But this month, your
    Department of Homeland Security has said that they're going to be
    requiring passports for tourists coming across the border. As somebody
    who is familiar with the long lines at today's border, do you--what's
    your reaction to the protests from the business and tourism community?
    And do you support the requirement of passports?
        The President. Yes, I'm aware of the issue, obviously. When I first
    read that in the newspaper, about the need to have passports, for
    particularly today's crossings that take place--about a million, for
    example, in the State of Texas--I said, ``What's going on here?'' I
    thought there was a better way to do--to expedite legal flow of traffic
    and people. Evidently this has been mandated in law. And so I've talked
    to Condi and the Homeland Security people
    about making--seeing if there's some flexibility in the law that will
    allow for, for example, finger imaging to serve as the so-called
    passport for daily traffic. But you're right, it's going to--if people
    have to have a passport, it's going to disrupt honest flow of traffic. I
    think there's some flexibility in the law, and that's what we're
    checking out right now.
        On the larger scale, look, we've got a lot to do to enforce the
    border. For those

    [[Page 598]]

    of you in Arizona, now know that Arizona has got more illegal immigrants
    coming across their border than, I guess, any other State right now. My
    view is Congress needs to work with us to pass immigration reform. One,
    we've got to enforce the border better. We've increased border spending
    by 34 percent since, I think, 2001. But it doesn't make any sense to me
    to have a system that kind of forces an industry to develop, an industry
    that smuggles people, an industry that forges documents, an industry
    that really doesn't represent the best of America.
        It seems like to me what we ought to do is be open about it and say,
    ``Look, if you're a willing worker and a willing employee, and you can't
    find an American, here's a legal way to work. Here's a document which
    enables you to be here legally so that if you decide to go home for a
    little bit, you can.'' And there will be time limit on the document, a
    time limit on the right to be here to work. To me it's a more humane way
    than a system which encourages employers who are looking for workers to
    break the law, to accept--unknowingly accept illegal documentation, for
    example. And so I--and this is a tough issue. Look, I understand. The
    danger with the immigration issue is that it can be--it can lead to
    nativism and encourage behavior which is really not how Americans should
    view the world.
        The long-term solution, by the way, to--for example, immigration
    issues with Mexico, is for Mexico to grow a middle class. That's why I'm
    such a big believer in NAFTA. It's in our interest that wealth be spread
    out through the hemisphere--the best way to spread wealth is through
    trade--so that Mexico can grow and become a vibrant place, so people are
    more likely to be able to find a job closer to home. But the reality is
    if you make 50 cents in the interior of Mexico and $5 in Texas, you're
    going to do $5 if you can make it. And so now is the time for legal--
    reforming of the immigration system.
        I don't believe in blanket amnesty. I think it would be mistake. I
    think that wouldn't--all that would do is create another incentive for 8
    million people, whatever the number is, to come. And so I think if
    somebody wants to be a citizen, they ought to get in line like everybody
    else who has gotten in line to become a citizen of the United States.
    And so my vision is one that's work-related, and hopefully we can get
    Congress to move on it. There's some bipartisan movement on this issue
    as well. But I'm under no illusions; this is a tough issue for people,
    and it's a hard one. But the system is not working right now.
        And when you talk about border security, George, it's--it would be
    better if our Border Patrol agents were chasing down drugs and guns than
    trying to chase down people. And by that I mean it would be a much more
    efficient use of taxpayers' money if the system were legal, the worker
    system was legal so that the Border Patrol could focus on other issues.
    In other words, if it were legal, people wouldn't have to get in the
    back of an 18-wheeler. If it were legal to come here and work, you
    wouldn't have to walk miles across the hot desert. And it would make it
    easier to protect our border with an immigration system that worked on
    legalizing work.
        Yes, sir.

    Government Video News Releases

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President, Bryan Monroe from Knight Ridder. We're
    all aware of the past issues with Armstrong Williams and the video news
    releases and using Government funds to promote, through media and
    journalism, positions that you feel you need to get out. Is that
    consistent with your values and your First Amendment beliefs? And do you
    think that's deceptive to the American people?
        The President. Yes, it's deceptive to the American people if it's
    not disclosed. And I, first of all, in reviewing this issue, have been
    told this has gone on for quite a

    [[Page 599]]

    while. It makes--that doesn't excuse the behavior here, but nevertheless
    it has been, in that it's a legal--it's legal for--to use these video
    news clips. But it's incumbent upon people who use them to say, ``This
    news clip was produced by the Federal Government.''
        Armstrong Williams--it was wrong what
    happened there in the Education Department. But no, I think there needs
    to be full disclosure about the sourcing of the video news clip in order
    to make sure that people don't think their taxpayers' money is being
    used to--in wrong fashion.
        Thank you.

    Death Penalty/Theresa Marie Schiavo Case

        Q. Mr. President, Wendy Zomparelli of the Roanoke Times in Virginia.
    In the aftermath of the terribly distressing national debate over the
    case of Terri Schiavo, you spoke of the need to establish a culture of
    life, and yet there's one way in which the United States has long been
    out of step with much of the rest of the world in terms of one's
    appreciation of life, and that is in the use of the death penalty.
        The President. Right.
        Q. Can you please talk about a little bit about your view of the
    death penalty and how that fits into your vision of a culture of life?
        The President. Sure. Thanks. I have been supportive of the death
    penalty both as Governor and President. And the difference between the
    case of Terri Schiavo and the case of a convicted killer is the
    difference between guilt and innocence. And I happen to believe that the
    death penalty, when properly applied, saves lives of others. And so I'm
    comfortable with my beliefs that there's no contradiction between the
    two.

    Representative Tom DeLay

        Q. Mr. President, Bill Sternberg with USA Today.
        The President. Oh, hi there. Got a great seat, didn't you?
    [Laughter]
        Q. Yes. Your fellow Republican from Texas, Tom DeLay, has blamed the
    ethical controversy around him largely on bias by the liberal news
    media. Do you agree with him on that----
        The President. Of course not. [Laughter] No, go ahead. Sorry to
    interrupt you.
        Q. ----and do you think Mr. DeLay has become a liability to your
    party or your agenda?
        The President. No, I appreciate that. Look, as I've read his
    comments today, he wants the Ethics Committee to review his case, and
    he's willing to step up and talk to the Ethics Committee about it. And
    secondly, I'm looking forward to working with Tom. He's been a very
    effective leader. We've gotten a lot done in the Legislature, and I'm
    convinced we'll get more done in the Legislature. And I'm looking
    forward to working with him.
        Yes, sir.

    Freedom of Information Act

        Q. Mr. President, Tim Franklin from the Baltimore Sun. I know you'd
    be disappointed if you didn't get an FOI question----
        The President. I thought you were going to ask about the, like the
    Oriole-National thing, you know--[laughter]--the broadcast agreement or
    whatever. [Laughter]
        Q. In processing FOI requests, should Government officials presume
    that information should be given to citizens? Or should the burden fall
    on citizens to convince Government to give them access to information?
        The President. That's an interesting way to put the question. Look,
    the presumption ought to be that citizens ought to know as much as
    possible about the Government decisionmaking. Rich and I talked about this backstage a little bit, of
    course. He's constantly lobbying me. [Laughter]
        I know there is a tension now between making the decision of that
    which is--that which can be exposed without jeopardizing the war on
    terror, and I understand there's

    [[Page 600]]

    a suspicion that we--we're too security-conscience [conscious]. * Let me
    refer you to the WMD report that the Silberman-Robb Commission--as an
    example, however, of how I hope that we're becoming balanced between
    that which the public ought to know and that which, if we were to
    expose, would jeopardize our capacity to do our job, which is to defend
    America.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ninety percent of the report was declassified. I think that might
    have surprised the press corps. I don't know; I don't want to speak for
    you all. But I think people following this issue were surprised that so
    much was declassified. And yet the Silberman-Robb Commission made it
    really clear that had the other 10 percent been declassified, it would
    have created--it would have jeopardized our capacity to protect the
    country. It would have exposed sources and uses.
        Rich talked about, you know, I
    didn't realize we spent that much money on protecting it, but we also
    spend a lot of money on analyzing FOIA, because somebody told me there's
    3.5 million FOIA requests a year, which is a lot. I can't tell you the
    percentage which pass or not pass, but there is an active interest in
    people reading documents. And I would hope that those who expose
    documents are wise about the difference between that which truly would
    jeopardize national security and that which should be read.
        Look, John Cornyn is a good friend, and we
    look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make--
    it would hope--put a free press' mind at ease that you're not being
    denied information you shouldn't [should] * see. I will tell you,
    though, I am worried about things getting in the press that put people's
    lives at risk. And I know you--I'm sure you feel the same way, and
    everybody in the room would feel that same way. And it's that judgment
    about what would put somebody's life at risk and what doesn't, is where
    there's tension.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And to answer your question, I believe in open government. I've
    always believed in open government. Rich is right. You know, I don't e-mail, however. And there's
    a reason. I don't want you reading my personal stuff. There has got to
    be a certain sense of privacy. You know, you're entitled to how I make
    decisions, and you're entitled to ask questions, which I answer. I don't
    think you're entitled to be able to read my mail between my daughters
    and me.
        And so I've made an easy decision there. I just don't do it, which
    is sad, really, when you think about it. Everything is investigated in
    Washington, and that's just the nature of the way here right now. And so
    we're losing a lot of history, not just with me but with other
    Presidents as well. And so there's a balance through all this. And I
    hope it's said--when it's all said and done, that we were fair to the
    press corps and the American people.
        I said it's hard--in my Inaugural Address, I did talk about, we've
    got to be consistent. I talked to Vladimir Putin about a free press. We've got to make sure our own
    press is free. I know that. I talked to the people in Iraq about a free
    press and transparency and openness, and I'm mindful we can't talk one
    way and do another. But we're still at war, and that's important for
    people to realize.
        Right after September the 11th, I was fully aware that the farther
    we got away from September the 11th, the more likely it would be that
    people would forget the stakes. I wish I could report that all is well.
    It's not. It's just not. It's going to take a while. What is better is
    that there's fewer Al Qaida, and we got them off balance, and we're
    continuing to press. And so long as people can be endangered by leaks,
    we just got to be real careful.
        Anyway, I don't know if--I probably talked your--talked you to
    death. That's call filibustering. [Laughter]

    [[Page 601]]

        Thank you.

    CIA Employee Identity Disclosure Investigation

        Q. Mr. President, Mike Lloyd, the Grand Rapids Press, Grand Rapids,
    Michigan, kind of a followup on the same topic. When you talk about
    risks of exposing sources of information that could have an impact on
    life, do you think that Judith Miller and Matt Cooper are wrong for not
    disclosing their sources?
        The President. Why don't we let the courts decide that. You think
    I'm going there? You're crazy. [Laughter]
        Q. Then I have a followup----
        The President. Right answer, Herman? Now, if
    it were Herman, I would say, lock him up. [Laughter]
        I'm not going to talk about that, seriously----
        Q. I have a followup that might help you, then. Do you have two
    tickets to tonight's game? [Laughter]
        The President. Yes. Depends on what you write next time. [Laughter]
        No, look, this is all--we're all under the microscope on this issue.
    This is an issue that there is a--Mr. Fitzgerald is looking into all aspects of this issue, and so it's--on
    the advice of counsel, I'm not talking. [Laughter]

    Freedom of Information Act

        Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President. I'm Craig Klugman from the Fort
    Wayne Journal Gazette. I, too, have a follow-up question on FOIA. The
    longest pending FOIA request is over two decades old. My own newspaper
    has received answers to FOI requests long after the reporter has left
    the newspaper. Is there anything your office can or should do to speed
    up responses to legitimate FOI requests?
        The President. First of all, I was happy to hear that the request
    was more than two decades. I thought he was going to say, like, 4 years
    and 2 months old. [Laughter] I have no idea how to answer your question
    on this particular request. And I will be glad to get Rich to send it over. I really don't. I'm not
    dodging. I don't know what the request is. I don't know who you made the
    request to. I don't know why it's taken 20 years.
        Q. It's not that particular request; it is just the whole nature
    that some FOI requests take years and years to get an answer.
        The President. Was this a request to the White House or was it to--
    --
        Q. It was an FBI request. But I'm talking in general terms: Is there
    anything your office can or should do?
        The President. I think that FOIA requests ought to be dealt with as
    expeditiously as possible. But again, I just don't know the facts on
    this one. And I would hope that, at least the FOIA requests to the White
    House, our staff deals with them quickly or as quickly as humanly
    possible.
        Yes, ma'am.
        Q. Hi, Margaret Sullivan with the Buffalo News, Mr. President.
    Following up just a bit on the question of classified information, which
    we discussed, would you support a requirement that agencies submit an
    impact statement, sort of like an environmental impact statement, before
    they make a determination that large categories of information should be
    kept secret? Given that the U.S. Information Security Oversights Office,
    which monitors classification, has expressed concern about the sharp
    increase in unwarranted classifications of Government information.
        The President. Yes. I'll look at the idea. Again, I don't know
    enough about it. But I think the philosophical answer I gave was that
    the people deserve to know so long as it doesn't jeopardize their
    security. Put it in that context. But if there is a--again, this is--is
    this a part of the Cornyn law, I presume?
        Mr. Oppel. The Cornyn law would put a limit of a maximum 20 days on
    how long an agency has to respond.

    [[Page 602]]

        The President. I just need to--I, frankly, haven't looked at the
    particulars of the Cornyn idea. Be glad to look
    at it. Thanks. Sorry about that.

    Decency Standards for Satellite and Cable Television

        Q. Mr. President, Scott Anderson with Tribune Interactive in
    Chicago. There are those in Congress and elsewhere who would propose
    that the FCC be expanded or legislation be passed that would provide for
    decency standards on satellite television and cable television. Your
    thoughts on that, sir?
        The President. I didn't quite get it all, the FCC, the Michael
    Powell suggestion on decency standards?
        Q. Yes, there are those who would like to place on satellite and
    cable some decency standards.
        The President. Yes, I'm for that. I think there ought to be a
    standard. On the other hand, I fully understand that the final edit or
    the final decision is a parent turning off the TV. I mean, the ultimate
    responsibility in a consumer-driven economy is for people to say, ``I'm
    not going to watch it,'' and turn the knob off. That's how best to make
    decisions and how best to send influences. But I don't mind standards
    being set out for people to adjudge the content of a show, to help
    parents make right decisions. Government ought to help parents, not
    hinder parents in sending good messages to their children.
        But look, I mean, we're a free society. The marketplace makes
    decisions. If you don't like something, don't watch it. And presumably,
    advertising dollars will wither, and the show will go off the air. But I
    have no problems with standards being set to help parents make good
    decisions.
        Yes, sir.

    Federal Emergency Management Agency/Florida Disasters

        Q. Randy Hammer from Pensacola, Florida. The four hurricanes that
    hit the State and, since then, the counties that were hardest hit have
    had problems getting information as well as help from FEMA. At the
    congressional hearings last month, there was a sense that FEMA was more
    effective and responsive when it wasn't under the umbrella of Homeland
    Security. Would you support removing FEMA from under the umbrella of
    Homeland Security?
        The President. No. I would support getting FEMA to do its job no
    matter what the umbrella it's under. I was, one, impressed by the FEMA
    response. Of course, sometimes I only get the Cook's tour. But I----
        Q. Well, it was pretty good when you showed up. [Laughter]
        The President. That's what I was afraid of. [Laughter]
        Q. It was after you left that----
        The President. No, I think FEMA ought to be under the umbrella. I
    just think it ought to do its job as good as possible. Look, if FEMA--I
    don't think that is--I don't think the umbrella under which FEMA exists
    will make the decisions as to whether or not people respond to a
    national catastrophe like that.
        I do get feedback from your Governor--
    [laughter]--who felt like things were going all right. The Congressmen
    from that part of the world--the last time I was down there, I asked
    them if they thought the response was--the initial response was good,
    and the question is, is the followup response?
        Q. Right, it's the followup response.
        The President. Yes, the SBA loans, the help. And he didn't complain--or they didn't complain. But I'll check
    back into it. No, I think FEMA ought to stay in the Homeland Security
    Department, though.
        A couple more, and then I've got to go warm up. [Laughter]

    Independence of the Judicial Branch

        Q. Mr. President, Chris Peck, editor of the Commercial Appeal in
    Memphis. This

    [[Page 603]]

    morning we heard Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment attorney, who said that
    greatest challenge and the greatest threat to the First Amendment now is
    the effort that Congress is making to put pressure on judges, to try to
    say that judges should not act independently. And part of this grew out
    of the Terri Schiavo case, but there are other pressures growing. What
    is your thought about the role Congress should play in trying to
    influence the decisions of judges?
        The President. I think there are three distinct branches of
    Government, and they ought to act independently and serve as checks and
    balances. I'm strongly for an independent judiciary. My focus with
    Congress on judges is that they're not approving enough of my judges in
    the United States Senate. And I think my judges ought to get an up-or-
    down vote, period. I think they ought to get a hearing, and I think they
    ought to get to the floor of the Senate, and I think they ought to
    deserve an up-or-down vote. But I'm strongly for an independent
    judiciary.

    China-U.S. Relations

        Q. Mr. President, Rod Sandeen from the Freedom Forum. You talked
    that there's a lot going on overseas and mentioned some countries. I'd
    like to ask you about China. What is our Government's policy toward
    China?
        The President. Well, that is a complex question because the
    relationship is complex. On trade, we're friends with China, for
    example, for floating our currency, so we can have free and fair trade
    with China. With human rights, we expect China to be a society that
    welcomes all religions. When it comes to foreign policy, we expect China
    to cooperate in the war on terror, and we expect there to be peace with
    Taiwan.
        I mean, there is a lot to our relationship with China. My view of
    China is, is that it's a great nation that's growing like mad. That's
    one of the reasons why Americans are seeing over $2 gasoline, is because
    demand for energy in China is huge, and supply around the world hasn't
    kept up with the increase in demand. That's why you're seeing crude go
    up, and crude is the feed stock for gasoline.
        But we've got a very complex and a good relationship with China
    right now, and I intend to keep it that way. But I'm constantly
    reminding China that a great society is one that welcomes and honors
    human rights, for example; welcomes the Catholic Church in its midst;
    doesn't fear religious movements. As a matter of fact, a vibrant society
    is one that welcomes religious movements. But with China--we've got good
    relations with China.
        Listen, I've got to hop. I want to thank you for your time,
    appreciate your interests. God bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:22 p.m. at the J.W. Marriott Hotel. In
    his remarks, he referred to Richard A. Oppel, Sr., past president,
    American Society of Newspaper Editors, who introduced the President; Ken
    Herman, reporter, Austin American-Statesman; Karla Garrett Harshaw,
    president, American Society of Newspaper Editors; Minister of External
    Affairs K. Natwar Singh of India; President Pervez Musharraf of
    Pakistan; Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel; President Mahmoud Abbas
    (Abu Mazen) of the Palestinian Authority; Secretary of State Condoleezza
    Rice; columnist Armstrong Williams; President Vladimir Putin of Russia;
    Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of
    Illinois and Department of Justice CIA leak investigation Special
    Prosecutor; and Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida. He also referred to the
    Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States
    Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (Silberman-Robb Commission).

    [[Page 604]]