[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.