Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2005, Book I)

[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2005, Book I)]
[April 28, 2005]
[Pages 680-695]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

The President's News Conference
April 28, 2005

The President. Good evening. Tonight I will discuss two vital
priorities for the American people, and then I'd be glad to answer some
of your questions.
Millions of American families and small businesses are hurting
because of higher gasoline prices. My administration is doing everything
we can to make gasoline more affordable. In the near term, we will
continue to encourage oil-producing nations to maximize their
production. Here at home, we'll protect consumers. There will be no
price gouging at gas pumps in America.
We must address the root causes that are driving up gas prices. Over
the past decade, America's energy consumption has been growing about 40
times faster than our energy production. That means we're relying more
on energy produced abroad.
To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we must take
four key steps. First, we must better use technology to become better
conservers of energy. Secondly, we must find innovative and
environmentally sensitive ways to make the most of our existing energy
resources, including oil, natural gas, coal, and safe, clean nuclear
power. Third, we must develop promising new sources of energy, such as
hydrogen or ethanol or biodiesel. Fourth, we must help growing energy
consumers overseas like China and India apply new technologies to use
energy more efficiently and reduce global demand of fossil fuels.
I applaud the House for passing a good energy bill. Now the Senate
needs to act on this urgent priority. American consumers have waited
long enough. To help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy,
Congress needs to get an energy bill to my desk by this summer so I can
sign it into law.
Congress also needs to address the challenges facing Social
Security. I've traveled the country to talk with the American people.
They understand that Social Security is headed for serious financial
trouble, and they expect their leaders in Washington to address the
problem.
Social Security worked fine during the last century, but the math
has changed. A generation of baby boomers is getting ready to retire. I
happen to be one of them. Today, there are about 40 million retirees
receiving benefits. By the time all the baby boomers have retired, there
will be more than 72 million retirees drawing Social Security benefits.
Baby boomers will be living longer and collecting benefits over long
retirements than previous generations. And Congress has ensured that
their benefits will rise faster than the rate of inflation.
In other words, there's a lot of us getting ready to retire who will
be living longer and receiving greater benefits than the previous
generation. And to compound the problem, there are fewer people paying
into the system. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every beneficiary;
today, there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary; soon there will be 2
workers for every beneficiary.
These changes have put Social Security on the path to bankruptcy.
When the baby boomers start retiring in 3 years, Social Security will
start heading toward the red. In 2017, the system will start paying out
more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Every year after
that, the shortfall will get worse, and by 2041, Social Security will be
bankrupt.
Franklin Roosevelt did a wonderful thing when he created Social
Security. The system has meant a lot for a lot of people. Social
Security has provided a safety net that has provided dignity and peace
of mind for millions of Americans in their retirement. Yet there's a
hole in the safety

[[Page 681]]

net because Congresses have made promises it cannot keep for a younger
generation.
As we fix Social Security, some things won't change: Seniors and
people with disabilities will get their checks; all Americans born
before 1950 will receive the full benefits.
Our duty to save Social Security begins with making the system
permanently solvent, but our duty does not end there. We also have a
responsibility to improve Social Security by directing extra help to
those most in need and by making it a better deal for younger workers.
Now, as Congress begins work on legislation, we must be guided by
three goals. First, millions of Americans depend on Social Security
checks as a primary source of retirement income, so we must keep this
promise to future retirees as well. As a matter of fairness, I propose
that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the
benefits today's seniors get.
Secondly, I believe a reform system should protect those who depend
on Social Security the most. So I propose a Social Security system in
the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than
benefits for people who are better off. By providing more generous
benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make this commitment: If you
work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not
retire into poverty. This reform would solve most of the funding
challenges facing Social Security. A variety of options are available to
solve the rest of the problem, and I will work with Congress on any
good-faith proposal that does not raise the payroll-tax rate or harm our
economy. I know we can find a solution to the financial problems of
Social Security that is sensible, permanent, and fair.
Third, any reform of Social Security must replace the empty promises
being made to younger workers with real assets, real money. I believe
the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option,
the opportunity, if they so choose, of putting a portion of their
payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this
money is saved and invested, younger workers would have the opportunity
to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current
Social Security system can provide.
The money from a voluntary personal retirement account would
supplement the check one receives from Social Security. In a reformed
Social Security system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would
offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to
understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in
the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist
entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and
credit of the United States Government.
Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a
safer investment that will allow an American to build a nest egg that he
or she can pass on to whomever he or she chooses. Americans who would
choose not to save in a personal account would still be able to count on
a Social Security check equal to or higher than the benefits of today's
seniors.
In the coming days and weeks, I will work with both the House and
the Senate as they take the next steps in the legislative process. I'm
willing to listen to any good idea from either party.
Too often, the temptation in Washington is to look at a major issue
only in terms of whether it gives one political party an advantage over
the other. Social Security is too important for ``politics as usual.''
We have a shared responsibility to fix Social Security and make the
system better, to keep seniors out of poverty and expand ownership for
people of every background. And when we do, Republicans and Democrats
will be able to stand together and take credit for doing what is right
for our children and our grandchildren.

[[Page 682]]

And now I'll be glad to answer some questions, starting with Terry
Hunt [Associated Press].

Social Security Reform/Polls

Q. Mr. President, a majority of Americans disapprove of your
handling of Social Security, rising gas prices, and the economy. Are you
frustrated by that and by the fact that you're having trouble gaining
traction on your agenda in a Republican-controlled Congress?
The President. Look, we're asking people to do things that haven't
been done for 20 years. We haven't addressed the Social Security problem
since 1983. We haven't had an energy strategy in our country for
decades. And so I'm not surprised that some are balking at doing hard
work. But I have a duty as the President to define problems facing our
Nation and to call upon people to act. And we're just really getting
started in the process.
You asked about Social Security. For the past 60 days, I've traveled
our country making it clear to people, we have a problem. That's the
first step of any legislative process, is to explain to the people the
nature of the problem, and the American people understand we have a
problem.
I've also spent time assuring seniors they'll get their check.
That's a very important part of making sure we end up with a Social
Security reform. I think if seniors feel like they're not going to get
their check, obviously nothing is going to happen.
And we're making progress there too, Terry, as well. See, once the
American people realize there's a problem, then they're going to start
asking Members of Congress from both parties, ``Why aren't you doing
something to fix it?'' And I am more than willing to sit down with
people of both parties to listen to their ideas. Today I advanced some
ideas. I'm moving the process along. And the legislative process is just
getting started, and I'm optimistic we'll get something done.
Q. Is the poll troubling?
The President. Polls? You know, if a President tries to govern based
upon polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail. I don't think
you can make good, sound decisions based upon polls. And I don't think
the American people want a President who relies upon polls and focus
groups to make decisions for the American people.
Social Security is a big issue, and it's an issue that we must
address now. You see, the longer we wait, the more expensive the
solution is going to be for a younger generation of Americans. The
Social Security trustees have estimated that every year we wait to solve
the problem, to fix the hole in the safety net for younger Americans,
costs about $600 billion. And so my message to Congress is: Let's do our
duty; let's come together to get this issue solved.
Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

Iraq

Q. Your top military officer, General Richard Myers, says the Iraqi
insurgency is as strong now as it was a year ago. Why is that the case?
And why haven't we been more successful in limiting the violence?
The President. I think he went on to
say we're winning, if I recall. But nevertheless, there are still some
in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy. They want to go back to the old
days of tyranny and darkness, torture chambers, and mass graves. I
believe we're making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi
people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society. They're
beginning--they saw a Government formed today.
The Iraqi military is being trained by our military, and they're
performing much better than the past. The more secure Iraq becomes as a
result of the hard work of Iraqi security forces, the more confident
[confidence] * the people will have in the process and the more isolated
the terrorists will become.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* White House correction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 683]]

But Iraq has--have got people there that are willing to kill, and
they're hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure
their future. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an
important part of spreading peace. It's a region of the world where a
lot of folks in the past never thought democracy could take hold.
Democracy is taking hold, and as democracy takes hold, peace will more
likely be the norm.
In order to defeat the terrorists, in order to defeat their ideology
of hate in the long run, we must spread freedom and hope. Today I talked
to the Prime Minister of Iraq. I had a
great conversation with him. I told him I was proud of the fact that he
was willing to stand up and lead. I told him I appreciated his courage
and the courage of those who are willing to serve the Iraqi people in
government. I told him, I said, ``When America makes a commitment, we'll
stand by you.'' I said, ``I hope you get your constitution written on
time,'' and he agreed. He recognizes it's very important for the
Transitional National Assembly to get the constitution written so it can
be submitted to the people on time. He understands the need for a timely
write of the constitution.
And I also encouraged him to continue
to reaching out to disaffected groups in Iraq, and he agreed. I'm really
happy to talk to him. I invited him to come to America. I hope he comes
soon. There are a lot of courageous people in Iraq, Steve, that are
making a big difference in the lives of that country.
I also want to caution you all that it's not easy to go from a
tyranny to a democracy. We didn't pass sovereignty but about 10 months
ago, and since that time, a lot of progress has been made. And we'll
continue to make progress for the good of the region and for the good of
our country.
Gregory. David Gregory [NBC News].

Judicial Nominations/Role of Religion in Society

Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently the head of the Family
Research Council said that judicial filibusters are an attack against
people of faith. And I wonder whether you believe that, in fact, that is
what is nominating [motivating] * Democrats who oppose your judicial
choices? And I wonder what you think generally about the role that faith
is playing, how it's being used in our political debates right now?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* White House correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President. Yes. I think people are opposing my nominees because
they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated.
Some would like to see judges legislate from the bench. That's not my
view of the proper role of a judge.
Speaking about judges, I certainly hope my nominees get an up-or-
down vote on the floor of the Senate. They deserve an up-or-down vote. I
think for the sake of fairness, these good people I've nominated should
get a vote. And I'm hoping that will be the case as time goes on.
The role of religion in our society? I view religion as a personal
matter. I think a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his
life or lives her life. And that's how I've tried to live my life,
through example. Faith plays an important part of my life, individually,
but I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of
faith.
Q. Do you think that's an inappropriate statement? And what I asked
is----
The President. No, I just don't agree with it.
Q. You don't agree with it.
The President. No, I think people oppose my nominees because of
judicial philosophy.

Role of Religion in Politics

Q. Sir, I asked you what you think----

[[Page 684]]

The President. No, I know you asked me that.
Q. ----of the way faith is being used in our political debates, not
just in society in general.
The President. Well, I can only speak to myself, and I am mindful
that people in political office should not say to somebody, ``You're not
equally American if you don't happen to agree with my view of
religion.'' As I said, I think faith is a personal issue, and I get
great strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the
political process because they may not agree with me on religion.
The great thing about America, David, is that you should be allowed
to worship any way you want, and if you choose not to worship, you're
equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to
worship, you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim.
That's the wonderful thing about our country, and that's the way it
should be.
John [John Roberts, CBS News].

Gasoline Prices/Energy Legislation

Q. Good evening, Mr. President. Several times we've asked you or
your aides what you could do about the high price of gasoline, and very
often the answer has come back, Congress needs to pass the energy bill.
Can you explain for us how, if it were passed, soon after it were
introduced, the energy bill would have an effect on the current record
price of oil that we're seeing out there?
The President. Yes. John, actually I said in my opening statement
that the best way to affect the current price of gasoline is to
encourage producing nations to put more crude oil on the market. That's
the most effective way, because the price of crude oil determines, in
large measure, the price of gasoline. The feedstock for gasoline is
crude oil, and when crude oil goes up, the price of gasoline goes up.
There are other factors, by the way, that cause the price of gasoline to
go up, but the main factor is the price of crude oil. And if we can get
nations that have got some excess capacity to put crude on the market,
the increased supply, hopefully, will meet increased demand and
therefore take the pressure off price.
Listen, the energy bill is certainly no quick fix. You can't wave a
magic wand. I wish I could. It's like that soldier at Fort Hood that
said, ``How come you're not lowering the price of gasoline?'' I was
having lunch with the fellow, and he said, ``Go lower the price of
gasoline, President.'' I said, ``I wish I could.'' It just doesn't work
that way.
This is a problem that's been a long time in coming. We haven't had
an energy policy in this country, and it's going to take us a while to
become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. What I've laid out
for the Congress to consider is a comprehensive energy strategy that
recognizes we need to be better conservers of energy, that recognizes
that we can find more energy at home in environmentally friendly ways.
And obviously a contentious issue in front of the Congress is the
issue over the ANWR, which is a part of Alaska. ANWR is 19 million acres
of land. Technology now enables us to use just 2,000 of that 19 million
to be able to explore for oil and gas so we can have oil and gas
produced here domestically.
One of the great sources of energy for the future is liquefied
natural gas. There's a lot of gas reserves around the world. Gas is--can
only be transported by ship, though, when you liquefy it, when you put
it in solid form. We've only got five terminals that are able to receive
liquefied natural gas so it can get into our markets. We need more
terminals to receive liquefied natural gas from around the world.
We should have a active energy--nuclear energy policy in America.
We've got abundant resources of coal, and we're spending money for clean
coal technology. So these

[[Page 685]]

are longer term projects all aimed at making us become less dependent on
foreign sources of energy.
Terry [Terry Moran, ABC News].
Q. So am I reading correctly that the energy bill would not have had
an effect on today's high gasoline----
The President. Well, it would have 10 years ago. That's exactly what
I've been saying to the American people--10 years ago, if we'd had an
energy strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign
dependence. And--but we haven't done that, and now we find ourselves in
the fix we're in. It's taken us a while to get there, and it's going to
take us a while to get out. Hopefully, additional crude oil on the
market from countries with some spare capacity will help relieve the
price for the American consumers.
Terry.

War on Terror

Q. Mr. President, your State Department has reported that terrorist
attacks around the world are at an alltime high. If we're winning the
war on terrorism, as you say, how do you explain that more people are
dying in terrorist attacks on your watch than ever before?
The President. Well, we've made the decision to defeat the
terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home. And when
you engage the terrorists abroad, it causes activity and action. And
we're relentless--we, the--America and our coalition partners. We
understand the stakes, and they're very high because there are people
still out there that would like to do harm to the American people.
But our strategy is to stay on the offense, is to keep the pressure
on these people, is to cut off their money and to share intelligence and
to find them where they hide. And we are making good progress. The Al
Qaida network that attacked the United States has been severely
diminished. We are slowly but surely dismantling that organization.
In the long run, Terry, like I said earlier, the way to defeat
terror, though, is to spread freedom and democracy. It's really the only
way in the long term. In the short term, we'll use our troops and assets
and agents to find these people and to protect America. But in the long
term, we must defeat the hopelessness that allows them to recruit by
spreading freedom and democracy. But we're making progress.
Q. So in the near term, you think there will be more attacks and
more people dying?
The President. I'm not going to predict that. In the near term, I
can only tell you one thing: We will stay on the offense; we'll be
relentless; we'll be smart about how we go after the terrorists; we'll
use our friends and allies to go after the terrorists; we will find them
where they hide and bring them to justice.
Let me finish with the TV people first. Suzanne [Suzanne Malveaux,
Cable News Network]. You're not a TV person, Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angeles
Times]. I know you'd like to be, but--[laughter].
Q. You'd be surprised. [Laughter]
The President. It's a tough industry to get into.

Russian Policy in the Middle East/President Putin

Q. Mr. President, it was 4 years ago when you first met with Russian
President Vladimir Putin. You said you looked into his eyes and you saw
his soul. You'll also be meeting with the Russian leader in about a week
or so. What do you think of Putin now that he has expressed a
willingness to supply weapons to outlaw regimes, specifically his recent
comments that he said he would provide short-range missiles to Syria and
nuclear components to Iran?
The President. We have--first, just on a broader--kind of in a
broader sense, I

[[Page 686]]

had a long talk with Vladimir there in Slovakia about democracy and
about the importance of democracy. And as you remember, at the press
conference--or if you weren't there, somebody will remember--he stood up
and said he strongly supports democracy. I take him for his word.
I--and we'll continue to work. Condi just--Condi Rice, our Secretary of State, just came back, and she
briefed me that she had a very good discussion with Vladimir about the
merits of democracy, about the need to listen to the people and have a
Government that's responsive.
We're working closely with the Russians on the issue of vehicle-
mounted weaponry to Syria. We didn't appreciate that, but we made
ourselves clear.
As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched
uranium to a nuclear civilian powerplant and then collect that uranium
after it's used for electricity--power purposes. That's what they've
decided to do.
And I appreciate that gesture. See, what they recognize is that--
what America recognizes and what Great Britain, France, and Germany
recognize is that we can't trust the Iranians when it comes to enriching
uranium, that they should not be allowed to enrich uranium. And what the
Iranians have said was, ``Don't we deserve to have a nuclear power
industry just like you do?'' I've kind of wondered why they need one
since they've got all the oil, but nevertheless, others in the world
say, ``Well, maybe that's their right to have their own civilian nuclear
power industry.'' And what Russia has said, ``Fine, we'll provide you
the uranium. We'll enrich it for you and provide it to you, and then
we'll collect it.''
And I appreciate that gesture. I think it's--so I think Vladimir was
trying to help there. I know Vladimir Putin understands the dangers of a
Iran with a nuclear weapon. And most of the world understands that as
well.
Wendell [Wendell Goler, FOX News Channel].

John Bolton/Syria

Q. Mr. President, have you asked your Ambassador to the U.N.,
Ambassador John Bolton, about allegations that he acted improperly to
subordinates? Do you feel that these allegations warrant your personal
intervention? And if they're true, do you feel that they should
disqualify him from holding the post, sir?
The President. Well, John Bolton has been asked the questions about
how he handles his business by Members of the United States Senate. He's
been asked a lot of questions, and he's given very good answers. John
Bolton is a seasoned diplomat. He's been serving our country for, I
think, 20 years. He has been confirmed by the United States Senate four
times. In other words, he's been up before the Senate before, and
they've analyzed his talents and his capabilities, and they've confirmed
him.
John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm a little too
blunt. John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations. It seemed
like to me it made sense to put somebody who's capable, smart, served
our country for 20 years, been confirmed by the United States Senate
four times, and who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the
Ambassador to the U.N.
See, the U.N. needs reform. If you're interested in reforming the
U.N., like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put
somebody who's skilled and who is not afraid to speak his mind at the
United Nations.
Now, I asked John during the interview process in the Oval Office, I
said, ``Before I send you up there to the Senate, let me ask you
something: Do you think the United Nations is important?'' See, I didn't
want to send somebody up there who said, ``It's not worth a darn. I
don't think I need

[[Page 687]]

to go.'' He said, ``No, it's important, but it needs to be reformed.''
And I think the United Nations is important. As a matter of fact,
I'll give you an example. Today I met with the United Nations
representative to Syria, Mr. Larsen. He's
an impressive fellow. Now, he's delivered--to Lebanon, excuse me--he's
delivered a very strong message to the Syrian leader, though, that the
world expects President Asad to withdraw
not only his military forces but his intelligence services completely
from Lebanon. And now he is in charge of following up to make sure it
happens.
I think that's a very important and useful role for the United
Nations to play. We have played a role. France has played a role. A lot
of nations have played roles. But the United Nations has done a very
good job in Syria--with Syria, in Lebanon, of making sure that the world
expects the Lebanese elections to be free in May, without Syrian
influence. He's an impressive fellow. I
applaud him for his hard work. But there's an example of why I think the
United Nations is an important body.
On the other hand, the United Nations has had some problems that
we've all seen. And if we expect the United Nations to be effective, it
needs to clean up its problems. And I think it makes sense to have
somebody representing the United States who will be straightforward
about the issues.
Stretch [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News]. You mind if I call you
Stretch in front of----
Q. I've been called worse.
The President. Okay.

Personal Retirement Accounts in Social Security

Q. Getting back to Social Security for a moment, sir, would you
consider it a success if Congress were to pass a piece of legislation
that dealt with the long-term solvency problem but did not include
personal accounts?
The President. I feel strongly that there needs to be voluntary
personal savings accounts as a part of the Social Security system. I
mean, it's got to be a part of a comprehensive package. The reason I
feel strongly about that is that we've got a lot of debt out there, a
lot of unfunded liabilities, and our workers need to be able to earn a
better rate of return on our money to help deal with that debt.
Secondly, I like the idea of giving someone ownership. I mean, why
should ownership be confined only to rich people? Why should people not
be allowed to own and manage their own assets who aren't the, you know,
the so-called investor class? I think everybody ought to be given that
right. As a matter of fact, Congress felt so strongly that people ought
to be able to own and manage their own accounts, they set one up for
themselves. You've heard me say--I like to say this, if it's good enough
for the Congress, it is--it ought to be good enough for the workers, to
give them that option. The Government is never saying, ``You have to set
up a personal savings account.'' We're saying, ``You ought to have the
right to set up a personal saving account so you can earn a better rate
of return on your own money than the Government can.''
And it's that difference between the rate of return, between what
the Government gets on your money and what a conservative mix of bonds
and stocks can get on your money, that will make an enormous difference
in a person being able to build his or her own nest egg that the
Government cannot spend.
Now, it's very important for our fellow citizens to understand there
is not a bank account here in Washington, DC, where we take your payroll
taxes and hold it for you and then give it back to you when you retire.
Our system here is called pay-as-you-go. You pay into the system through
your payroll taxes, and the Government spends it. It spends the money on
the current retirees, and with the money left over,

[[Page 688]]

it funds other Government programs. And all that's left behind is file
cabinets full of IOUs.
The reason I believe that this ought to work is not only should a
worker get a better rate of return, not only should we encourage
ownership, but I want people to have real assets in the system. I want
people to be able to say, ``Here's my mix of bonds and stocks that I
own, and I can leave it to whomever I want.''
And I hear complaints saying, ``Well, you know, there's going to be
high--Wall Street fees are going to fleece the people.'' There's ways to
have fee structures that are fair. As a matter of fact, all you've got
to do is go to some of these States where they've got personal accounts
available for their workers, and you'll find that the fees will be fair.
People say, ``Well, I don't want to have to take risk.'' Well, as I
outlined in my opening statement, there are ways where you don't have to
take risk. People say, ``I'm worried about the stock market going down
right before I retire.'' You can manage your assets. You can go from
bonds and stocks to only bonds as you get older.
In other words, we're giving people flexibility to own their own
asset, and I think that's a vital part of making sure America is a
hopeful place in the future. So not only will these accounts make the
system work better, but the accounts are a better deal. The accounts
will mean something for a lot of workers that might not have assets they
call their own.
David [David Sanger, New York Times].

Timing of U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

Q. Mr. President, in your question--your answer before about Iraq,
you set no benchmarks for us to understand when it is the troops may be
able to----
The President. In Iraq?
Q. In Iraq, yes--about when troops may be able to come back.
The President. Right.
Q. Based on what you've learned now in 2 years of fighting the
insurgency and trying to train the Iraqi security forces, can you say
that within the next year you think you could have very substantial
American withdrawal of troops?
The President. David, I know there's a temptation to try to get me
to lay out a timetable, and--as you know, during the campaign. And I'll
reiterate it: I don't think it's wise for me to set out a timetable. All
that will do is cause an enemy to adjust. So my answer is as soon as
possible. And ``as soon as possible'' depends upon the Iraqis being able
to fight and do the job.
I had a good videoconference recently with General Casey and General Petraeus. General Casey is in charge of the theater; General
Petraeus, as you know, is in charge of training. And they were upbeat
about what they're seeing with the Iraqi troops.
One of the questions I like to ask is, ``Are they able to recruit?''
In other words, you hear--you see these killers will target recruiting
stations, and I've always wondered whether or not that has had an effect
on the ability for the Iraqis to draw their fellow citizens into the
armed forces. Recruitment is high. It's amazing, isn't it, that people
want to serve; they want their country to be free.
The other question that--one of the other issues that is important
is the equipping issue, and the equipment is now moving quite well. In
other words, troops are becoming equipped.
Thirdly, a fundamental problem has been whether or not there's an
established chain of command, whether or not a civilian Government can
say to the military, ``Here's what you need to do,'' and whether the
command goes from top to bottom and the plans get executed. And General
Petraeus was telling me he's pleased with
the progress being made with setting up a command structure, but there's
still more work to be done.
One of the real dangers, David, is that as politics takes hold in
Iraq, whether or

[[Page 689]]

not the civilian Government will keep intact the military structure that
we're now helping them develop. And my message to the Prime
Minister and our message throughout
Government to the Iraqis is: Keep stability; don't disrupt the training
that has gone on; don't politicize your military, in other words; have
them there to help secure the people.
So we're making good progress. We've reduced our troops from
160,000, more or less, to 139,000. As you know, I announced to the
country that we would step up our deployments--step up deployments and
retain some troops for the elections. And then I said we'd get them out,
and we've done that. In other words, the withdrawals that I said would
happen, have happened.
Go ahead; I can see you've got a follow-up right there on the tip of
your tongue.

Troop Levels/North Korea

Q. Do you feel that the number of troops that you've kept there is
limiting your options elsewhere in the world? Just today you had the
head of the Defense Intelligence Agency say that he was now concerned
that the North Koreans, for example, could put a weapon, a nuclear
weapon, on a missile that could reach Japan or beyond. Do you feel, as
you are confronting these problems, the number of troops you've left
tied up in Iraq is limiting your options to go beyond the diplomatic
solutions that you've described for North Korea and Iran?
The President. No, I appreciate that question. The person to ask
that to, the person I ask that to, at least, is to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, my top military adviser. I
say, ``Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other
problems because of our troop levels in Iraq?'' And the answer is no, he
doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got plenty of capacity.
You mentioned the Korean Peninsula. We've got good capacity in
Korea. We traded troops for new equipment, as you know. We brought some
troop--our troop levels down in South Korea but replaced those troops
with more capacity.
Let me talk about North Korea, if you don't mind. Is that your
question?
Q. Go right ahead. [Laughter]
The President. I'm surprised you didn't ask it. [Laughter]
Look, Kim Chong-il is a dangerous person.
He's a man who starves his people. He's got huge concentration camps.
And, as David accurately noted, there is concern about his capacity to
deliver a nuclear weapon. We don't know if he can or not, but I think
it's best when you're dealing with a tyrant like Kim Chong-il to assume
he can.
That's why I've decided that the best way to deal with this
diplomatically is to bring more leverage to the situation by including
other countries. It used to be that it was just America dealing with
North Korea. And when Kim Chong-il would make a
move that would scare people, everybody would say, ``America, go fix
it.'' I felt it didn't work. In other words, the bilateral approach
didn't work. The man said he was going to do something, and he didn't do
it, for starters. So I felt a better approach would be to include people
in the neighborhood, into a consortium to deal with him.
And it's particularly important to have China involved. China has
got a lot of influence in North Korea. We went down to Crawford with
Jiang Zemin, and it was there that Jiang Zemin
and I issued a statement saying that we would work for a
nuclear-weapons-free Korean Peninsula.
And so when Kim Chong-il announced the other
day about his nuclear intentions and weapons, it certainly caught the
attention of the Chinese because they had laid out a policy that was
contradicted by Kim Chong-il. And it's helpful
to have the Chinese leadership now involved with him. It's more--it's
better to have more than one voice sending the same message to Kim
Chong-il. The best way to deal with this

[[Page 690]]

issue diplomatically is to have five other--four other nations beside
ourselves dealing with him. And we'll continue to do so.
Finally, as you know, I have instructed Secretary Rumsfeld--and I've worked with Congress--Secretary
Rumsfeld has worked with Congress to set up a missile defense system.
And we're in the process of getting that missile defense system up and
running. One of the reasons why I thought it was important to have a
missile defense system is for precisely the reason that you brought up,
that perhaps Kim Chong-il has got the capacity
to launch a weapon, and wouldn't it be nice to be able to shoot it down.
And so we've got a comprehensive strategy in dealing with him.
Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angeles Times], yes.

Political Atmosphere in Washington/Social Security Reform

Q. Mr. President, good evening.
The President. Yes.
Q. Sir, you've talked all around the country about the poisonous
partisan atmosphere here in Washington. I wonder, why do you think that
is? And do you personally bear any responsibility in having contributed
to this atmosphere?
The President. I'm sure there are some people that don't like me.
You know, Ed, I don't know. I've thought long and hard about it. I was--
I've been disappointed. I felt that people could work together in good
faith. It's just a lot of politics in the town. It's kind of a zero-sum
attitude. ``We can't cooperate with so-and-so because it may make their
party look good,'' and vice-versa.
Although having said that, we did have some success in the education
bill. We certainly came together as a country after September the 11th.
I appreciate the strong bipartisan support for supporting our troops in
harm's way. There's been a lot of instances of bipartisanship, but when
you bring a tough issue up like Social Security, it--sometimes people
divide into camps.
I'm proud of my party. Our party has been the party of ideas. We
said, ``Here's a problem, and here's some ideas as to how to fix it.''
And as I've explained to some people, I don't want to politicize this
issue. People have said, ``You didn't need to bring this up, Mr.
President. It may cost you politically.'' I don't think so. I think the
American people appreciate somebody bringing up tough issues,
particularly when they understand the stakes: The system goes broke in
2041.
In 2027, for those listening, we'll be obligated to pay 200 billion
more dollars a year than we take in, in order to make sure the baby
boomers get the benefits they've been promised. In other words, this is
a serious problem, and the American people expect us to put our politics
aside and get it done.
You know, I can't answer your question as to why. I'll continue to
do my best. I've tried to make sure the dialog is elevated. I don't
believe I've resorted to name-calling here in Washington, DC. I find
that to not be productive. But I also understand the mind of the
American people. They're wondering what's going on. They're wondering
why we can't come together and get an energy bill, for example. They're
wondering why we can't get Social Security done. And my pledge to the
American people is I'll continue to work hard to--with people of both
parties and share credit and give people the benefit of the credit when
we get something done.
Yes, sir.

President's Agenda

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Just to follow up on Ed's question, we
like to remind you that you came to Washington hoping to change the
tone, and yet here we are, 3 months into your second term and you seem
deadlocked with Democrats on issues like Bolton, DeLay, judges. Is there
any danger that the atmosphere is becoming so poisoned or that you're
spending so much political capital that it could imperil

[[Page 691]]

your agenda items like Social Security, energy?
The President. I don't think so, Bill [Bill Sammon, Washington
Times]. I think when it's all said and done, we're going to get a lot
done. I mean, after all, one of the issues that people have been working
on for a long time is class-action lawsuit reform, and I signed that
bill. An issue that people have been working on for a long time is
bankruptcy law reform, and I signed that bill.
And the House got an energy bill out recently, and I talked to
Senator Domenici the other day, and he's
upbeat about getting a bill out pretty quickly and get it to conference
and get the issues resolved. I'm pretty aware of what the issues might
be that will hang up a conference, and I think we can get those issues
resolved. We're more than willing to help out. So I do believe I'll get
an energy bill by August.
There's a budget agreement, and I'm grateful for that. In other
words, we are making progress.
No question the Social Security issue is a big issue, but it's--as I
said before, we hadn't talked about this issue for 20 years. And they
thought we had it fixed 20 years--22 years ago, for 75 years, and here
we are, 22 years later after the fix, talking about it again. And it's
serious business. If you're a grandmother or a grandfather listening,
you're going to get your check. But your grandchildren are going to have
a heck of a price to bear if we don't get something done now.
You see, it's possible, if nothing gets done, that the payroll taxes
will go up to some 18 percent. Imagine that for your children and
grandchildren, living in a society where payroll taxes are up at 18
percent. Or there will be dramatic benefit cuts as time goes on. Now is
the time to get it done. And my pledge to the American people is that
I'm going to stay on this issue because I know it's important for you.
Fletcher [Michael Fletcher, Washington Post].

North Korea

Q. Yes, Mr. President. You had talked about North Korea, and you
mentioned that the six-party talks allow you to bring extra leverage to
the table. But do you think they're working, given North Korea's
continued threats and the continuing growth of their nuclear stockpile?
And how long do you let it go before you go to the U.N.?
The President. No, I appreciate that question. I do think it's
making a difference to have China and Japan and South Korea and Russia
and the United States working together with North Korea. In my judgment,
that's the only way to get this issue solved diplomatically, is to bring
more than one party to the table to convince Kim Chong-il to give up his nuclear ambitions. And how far we let it go
on is dependent upon our consensus amongst ourselves. Condi, the other day, laid out a potential option of
going to the United Nations Security Council. Obviously, that's going to
require the parties agreeing. After all, some of the parties in the
process have got the capacity to veto a U.N. Security Council
resolution.
So this is an issue we need to continue to work with our friends and
allies. And the more Kim Chong-il threatens and
brags, the more isolated he becomes. And we'll continue to work with
China on this issue. I spend a lot of time dealing with Chinese leaders
on North Korea, as do people in my administration. And I'll continue to
work with our friends in Japan and South Korea. And Vladimir
Putin understands the stakes as well.
Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

U.S. Policy on Detainees in War on Terror

Q. Mr. President, under the law, how would you justify the practice
of renditioning, where U.S. agents scoop up terror suspects abroad,
taking them to a

[[Page 692]]

third country for interrogation? And would you stand for it if foreign
agents did that to an American here?
The President. That's a hypothetical, Mark. We operate within the
law, and we send people to countries where they say they're not going to
torture the people.
But let me say something. The United States Government has an
obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's
interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of
harm's way. And we will do so within the law, and we will do so in
honoring our commitment not to torture people. And we expect the
countries where we send somebody to, not to torture as well. But you
bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we
will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain
them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that. We--we--
still at war.
One of my--I've said this before to you; I'm going to say it again--
one of my concerns after September the 11th is the farther away we got
from September the 11th, the more relaxed we would all become and assume
that there wasn't an enemy out there ready to hit us. And I just can't
let the American people--I'm not going to let them down by assuming that
the enemy is not going to hit us again. We're going to do everything we
can to protect us, and we've got guidelines. We've got law. But you bet,
Mark, we're going to find people before they harm us.
John McKinnon [Wall Street Journal].

National Economy

Q. Yes, sir. I'd just like to ask, simply, what's your view of the
economy right now? First-quarter growth came in weaker than expected.
There have been worries about inflation and lower spending by consumers.
Are these basically just bumps in the road, in your opinion, or are they
reasons for some real concern, and could they affect your agenda on
Social Security?
The President. No, I appreciate that, John. I am concerned about the
economy because our small-business owners and families are paying higher
prices at the gas pump. And that affects the lives of a lot of people.
If you're a small-business owner and you have to pay higher gas prices
and you're--likely you may not hire a new worker. In other words, higher
gas prices, as I have said, is like a tax on the small-business job
creators. And it's a tax on families. And I do think this has affected
consumer sentiment; I do think it's affected the economy.
On the other hand, the experts tell me that the forecast of economic
growth in the coming months looks good. There's more to do to make sure
that we don't slip back into slow growth or negative growth. One is to
make sure taxes stay low; secondly, is to continue to pursue legal
reform. I hope we can get an asbestos reform bill out of both the House
and the Senate. There's some positive noises on Capitol Hill as to
whether or not we can get an asbestos reform bill. That will be an
important reform in order to make sure that our economy continues to
grow.
We need to continue to open up markets for U.S. products. As you
know, there will be a vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement
here, hopefully soon. I'm a strong believer that that's in the interest
of American job creators and workers, that we open up those markets. I
know it's important geopolitically to say to those Central American
countries, ``You've got a friend in America. We said we'd have an
agreement with you, and it's important to ratify it. It'll help
strengthen the neighborhood.''
We've also got to make sure that we continue to reduce regulation. I
think an important initiative--I know an important initiative that we're
going to be coming forth with here probably in the fall is tax reform. I
was amazed by the report the other day that there is some $330 billion

[[Page 693]]

a year that goes unpaid by American taxpayers. It's a phenomenal amount
of money. To me, it screams for making the tax system easier to
understand, more fair, and to make sure that people pay their taxes.
That's--``more fair'' means pay what you owe.
And so there are a lot of things we can do, John, to make sure
economic growth continues. But I'm an optimistic fellow, based not upon
my own economic forecast--I'm not an economist--but based upon the
experts that I listen to.
Let's see here. Richard [Richard Benedetto, USA Today]. [Laughter]
There is somebody with a bad throat back there. [Laughter]

No Child Left Behind Act

Q. Mr. President, you've made No Child Left Behind a big part of
your education agenda. The Nation's largest teachers union has filed
suit against it, saying it's woefully inadequately funded. What's your
response to that? And do you think that No Child Left Behind is working?
The President. Yes, I think it's working. And the reason why I think
it's working is because we're measuring, and the measurement is showing
progress toward teaching people how to read and write and add and
subtract. Listen, the whole theory behind No Child Left Behind is this:
If we're going to spend Federal money, we expect the States to show us
whether or not we're achieving simple objectives like literacy, literacy
in math, the ability to read and write. And yes, we're making progress.
And I can say that with certainty because we're measuring, Richard.
Look, I'm a former Governor. I believe States ought to control their
own destiny when it comes to schools. They are by far the biggest funder
of education, and it should remain that way. But we spend a lot of money
here at the Federal level and have increased the money we spend here
quite dramatically at the Federal level, and we changed the policy.
Instead of just spending money and hope for the best, we're now spending
money and saying, ``Measure.''
And some people don't like to measure. But if you don't measure, how
do you know whether or not you've got a problem in a classroom? I
believe it's best to measure early and correct problems early, before
it's too late. That's why, as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act, we
had money available for remedial education. In other words, we said,
``We're going to measure, and when we detect someone who needs extra
help, that person will get extra help.''
But absolutely, it's a good piece of legislation. I will do
everything I can to prevent people from unwinding it, by the way.
Q. What about the lawsuit? Which----
The President. Well, I don't know about the lawsuit. I'm not a
lawyer. But you know, I'll ask my lawyers about the lawsuit. But I know
some people are trying to unwind No Child Left Behind. I've heard some
States say, ``Well, we don't like it.'' Well, you know, my attitude
about not liking it is this: If you teach a child to read and write, it
shouldn't bother you whether you measure. That's all we're asking.
The system for too long had just shuffled children through and just
hoped for the best. And guess what happened? We had people graduating
from high school who were illiterate, and that's just not right in
America. It wasn't working.
And so I came to Washington and worked with both Republicans and
Democrats; this is a case where bipartisanship was really working well.
And we said, ``Look, we're going to spend more money at the Federal
level.'' But the Federal Government, what, spends about 7 percent of the
total education budgets around the country. But we said, ``Let's change
the attitude. We ought to start with the presumption every child can
learn, not just some, and therefore, if you believe every child can
learn, then you ought to expect every classroom to teach.''

[[Page 694]]

I hear feedback from No Child Left Behind, by the way--and
admittedly, I get the Cook's tour sometimes--but I hear teachers talk to
me about how thrilled they are with No Child Left Behind. They
appreciate the fact that the system now shows deficiencies early so they
can correct those problems. And it is working.
Okay. Mr. Knox [Olivier Knox, Agence France-Presse].

North Korea

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to make sure I understand your
answer to Mike about North Korea. He asked you how long you were
prepared to let the multiparty talks proceed in the face of what might
be a gathering threat from North Korea, and you said, how long--and I'm
paraphrasing--how long we let it go on is dependent on our consensus
among ourselves----
The President. Yes.
Q. Did you mean to say that you will neither refer North Korea to
the U.N. for sanctions nor take military action unless you have the
agreement of all the other partners abroad?
The President. No, I didn't speak about military--I'm speaking about
diplomatically. And secondly, yes, we've got partners. This is a six-
party talk; five of us on the side of convincing Kim Chong-il to get rid of his nuclear weapons, and obviously, Kim
Chong-il believes he ought to have some. And my point was that it is
best--if you have a group of people trying to achieve the same
objective, it's best to work with those people; it's best to consult.
His question was, are you going to--when are you going to--when will
there be consequences? And what we want to do is to work with our allies
on this issue and develop a consensus, a common approach to the
consequences of Kim Chong-il. I mean, it seems
counterproductive to have five of us working together and all of a
sudden, one of us say, ``Well, we're not going to work together.''
Again, I repeat to you, our aim is to solve this problem
diplomatically. And like I've said before, all options, of course, are
on the table, but the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is
to work with four other nations who have all agreed in achieving the
same goal, and that is a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
Final question. Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder]. I don't want
to cut into some of these TV shows that are getting ready to air--
[laughter]--for the sake of the economy. [Laughter]

Social Security Reform

Q. I wanted to ask you about your ideas----
The President. Is that all right? Go ahead, Hutch. Sorry.
Q. I wanted to ask you about your ideas on dealing with Social
Security solvency problems. As I understand it--I know you'll tell me if
I'm wrong--the benefits would be equal to what--at least equal to what
they are today, and then any increase in benefits would be indexed
according to income, with lower income people getting bigger increases.
Two things on that: Today's benefits probably won't mean much somewhere
down the road; and how far are you going to go with this means-based
program? Are you talking about----
The President. Yes, I appreciate that.
Q. ----where a rich person, say, Dick Cheney, wouldn't get much out
of it?
The President. Now, wait a minute, don't get personal here, Hutch.
You're on national TV. That's a cheap shot.
First of all, in terms of the definition of who would get--whose
benefits would rise faster and whose wouldn't, that's going to be a part
of the negotiation process with the United States Congress. There's a--a
Democrat economist had a very--he put forth
this idea, and he had a level of--I think 30 percent of the people would
be considered to be in the lower income scale. But this is to be
negotiated. This is a part of the negotiation process. My

[[Page 695]]

job is to lay out an idea that I think will make the system more fair.
And the second question--or the first question----
Q. It's a means-based program where the real wealthy people might
not get very much out of it.
The President. It is--that's right. I mean, obviously, it is means-
based when you're talking about lower income versus wealthier income.
The lower income people's benefits would rise faster. And the whole goal
would be to see to it that nobody retired in poverty. Somebody who has
worked all their life and paid into the Social Security system would not
retire into poverty.
One other point on Social Security that people have got to
understand is that it's--the system of today is not fair for a person
whose spouse has died early. In other words, if you're a two-working
family like a lot of families are here in America, and--two people
working in your family, and the spouse dies early--before 62, for
example--all of the money that the spouse has put into the system is
held there, and then when the other spouse retires, he or she gets to
choose the benefits from his or her own work or the other spouse's
benefits, which is ever higher but not both. See what I'm saying?
Somebody has worked all their life, the money they put into the system
just goes away. It seems unfair to me. I've talked to too many people
whose lives were turned upside down when the spouse died early and all
they got was a burial benefit.
If you have a personal savings account, a voluntary personal savings
account, and your--and you die early, that's an asset you can leave to
your spouse or to your children. That's an important thing for our
fellow citizens to understand. The system today is not fair,
particularly if a spouse has died early, and this will help remedy that.
Listen, thank you all for your interest. God bless our country.

Note: The President's news conference began at 8:01 p.m. in the East
Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Prime Minister
Ibrahim al-Jafari of the Iraqi Transitional Government; President
Vladimir Putin of Russia; United Nations Special Envoy Terje Roed-
Larsen; President Bashar al-Asad of Syria; Gen. George W. Casey, Jr.,
USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Lt. Gen. David H.
Petraeus, USA, commander, Multi-National Security Transition Command--
Iraq; Chairman Kim Chong-il of North Korea; and former President Jiang
Zemin of China. A reporter referred to Tony Perkins, president, Family
Research Council. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a
Spanish language transcript of this news conference.