    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
    [January 23, 2006]
    [Pages 101-123]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on the War on Terror and a Question-and-Answer Session in
    Manhattan, Kansas
    January 23, 2006

        The President. Thanks for the warm welcome. Thanks for inviting me
    here to give the Landon Lecture. For those students who are here, I want
    you to know I can remember what it was like to sit through lectures.
    [Laughter] I didn't particularly like it then. [Laughter] Some will take
    a little different approach. I'm here to tell you how I see the world
    and how I've made some of the decisions I've made and why I made them.
        Before I get there, I want to thank the introducer.Pat So he's on Air Force One; he
    says, ``That's a cute-looking blue tie you have--[laughter]--but I
    strongly suggest, Mr. President''--[laughter]. I said, ``I don't know,
    Senator, if I can take it; I'm worried about all those lobby laws or the
    lack of them.'' [Laughter] He said, ``Fine, I'll just loan it to you.''
    I said, ``Well, now that you're helping me dress, you got any hints on
    how I ought to do my hair?'' [Laughter]
        Pat RobertsPat
    is a good man. He's got a great sense of humor. He loves the people of
    Kansas, and he loves Kansas State, and I'm proud to be with him on this
    stage.

    [[Page 102]]

    And I'm proud to be here, as well, with the other United States Senator,
    Senator Sam Brownback, former president of
    the Kansas State student body.
        I want to thank your Governor.
    Governor Sebelius, thanks for putting up with me, Roberts,Pat and Brownback as we drove from the airport to here. One hour with
    the three of us required a lot of patience. [Laughter] I'm proud the
    Governor came with us, and I want to thank you.
        I want to thank Congressman Jim Ryun, right
    from this district. I appreciate you being here, Congressman. I'm not
    interested in jogging with you. [Laughter] I also thank Congressman
    Dennis Moore and Congressman Jerry
    Moran, both fine Members of the United Stated
    Congress from the State of Kansas. Thank you all for coming.
        I appreciate President Wefald for having me
    come. I know Laura was his first choice.
    [Laughter] That's why he's the head of such a fine institution; he's got
    good judgment. [Laughter] By the way, she sends her best. I married
    really well.
        And I want to thank Charles Reagan and
    Edward Seaton. Charles is the chairman of the
    Landon Lecture Series. And Edward is the head of the patrons. He said to
    me, he said, ``I so appreciate you believing in free speech; thanks for
    giving a free one.'' [Laughter] I want to thank Tom Herald, who is the faculty senate president. I want to thank all
    the faculty members who are here. Thanks for teaching. It's such a noble
    profession, and I appreciate you lending your expertise to help
    youngsters learn what is possible and how to think and how to be
    creative. And I want to thank the president of the student body, Michael
    Burns, for being here as well.
        I appreciate the students being here. I particularly want to thank
    those who've come from the Last Chance Bar. [Laughter] Better than
    watching daytime TV, I guess. [Laughter] I appreciate your interest in
    your country. Looking forward to sharing some thoughts with you, and
    then I'll answer some questions.
        Before I get there, I do want to pay tribute to our wonderful men
    and women in uniform. Thank you for serving our country.
        You know, really one of the interesting things about being the
    President is to invite my guys, buddies I grew up with from Texas, to
    the White House. It's really neat to see how they react to the majesty
    of the White House and the Oval Office and the South Lawn and just the
    beauty of Washington. And most of them, after they get over the initial
    shock of seeing the White House, then come to the shock of wondering how
    in the heck I got there. [Laughter]
        But they--oftentimes, they ask me, they say, ``What's it like, being
    the President of the United States?'' And my answer to them is, first,
    it's a huge honor. But secondly, if I had to give you a job description,
    it would be a decisionmaker. I make a lot of decisions. I make some that
    you see that, obviously, affect people's lives, not only here but around
    the world. I make a lot of small ones you never see, but have got
    consequence. Decisionmaker is the job description.
        First of all, when you make decisions, you've got to stand on
    principle. If you're going to make decisions, you've got to know what
    you believe. I guess the best way to summarize me is I came from Texas,
    and I'm going back to Texas with the exact same values I had when I
    arrived in Washington, DC.
        In order to make good decisions, you've got to rely upon the
    judgment of people you trust. I'll never forget the first decision I had
    to make as the President. I wasn't even sworn in yet, and a fellow
    called me on the phone and he said, ``What color rug do you want to have
    in the Oval Office?'' [Laughter] ``You've got to be kidding me, man.''
    [Laughter] He said, ``No, what color rug would you like to have in the
    Oval Office?'' I said, ``I don't know.'' He

    [[Page 103]]

    said, well, it turns out that Presidents--you've just got to know,
    Presidents design their rugs. I said, ``Well, to be honest with you, I
    don't know much about designing rugs.''
        So I called--I delegated--that's one of the things you do in
    decisionmaking. [Laughter] I said, ``Laura, how
    about helping design the rug?'' [Laughter] Part of being a
    decisionmaker, though, is you've got to help--you've got to think
    strategically. And so I said to her--she said, ``What color do you
    want?'' I said, ``Make it say `This optimistic person comes here to work
    every single day.' '' You can't lead the Nation, you can't make good
    decisions unless you're optimistic about the future.
        So for the students here, as you take over organizations or head out
    of college and become involved in your life, you've got to be optimistic
    about--if you're going to lead somebody. Imagine somebody saying,
    ``Follow me; the world is going to be worse.'' [Laughter] That's not a
    very good organizing principle about which to lead people. I'm
    optimistic about our future, and the reason I am is because I believe so
    strongly in what America stands for: liberty and freedom and human
    rights and the human dignity of every single person.
        Sometimes decisions come to your desk unexpectedly. Part of the job
    of a President is to be able to plan for the worst and hope for the
    best, and if the worst comes, be able to react to it. On September the
    11th, the worst came. We got attacked. We didn't ask for the attack, but
    it came. I resolved on that day to do everything I can to protect the
    American people.
        You know, a lot of us grew up thinking that oceans would protect us,
    that if there was a threat overseas, it really didn't concern us,
    because we were safe. That's what history had basically told us. Yes,
    there was an attack on Pearl Harbor, obviously, but it was a kind of hit
    and run, and then we pursued the enemy. A lot of folks--at least, my
    age, when I was going to college, I never dreamt that the United States
    of America could be attacked. And in that we got attacked, I vowed then,
    like I'm vowing to you today, that I understand my most important
    priority. My most important job is to protect the security of the
    American people.
        I knew right after September the 11th, though, that the attack would
    begin to fade in people's memories. I mean, who wants to constantly go
    through life thinking that you're going to get hit again? Who wants to,
    kind of, relive those days in your memory? As a matter of fact, I asked
    the American people to go on about your life. But given the fact that
    it's human nature to forget or try to put in the past, put the pain in
    the past, I want to assure you and our fellow Americans, I'm not going
    to put it in the past. The threat to the United States is forefront in
    my mind. I knew that at times people would say, you know, ``It may be an
    isolated incident; let's just don't worry about it.'' Well, for me, it's
    not an isolated incident. I understand there is still an enemy which
    lurks out there.
        And so part of my decisionmaking process, part of it, as you see
    when I begin to make decisions to protect you, to do my number-one
    priority, rests upon this fact: that there is an enemy which is
    relentless and desirous to bring harm to the American people because of
    what we believe in. See, we're in an ideological struggle. It's very
    important for the students here to understand that there is an enemy
    which has an ideology, and they're driven by an ideology. They make
    decisions based upon their view of the world, which is the exact
    opposite of our view of the world.
        Perhaps the best way to describe their political vision is to remind
    you what life was like for people living in Afghanistan when the Taliban
    was running that country with Al Qaida as the parasite. If you were a
    young girl in that society, you had no chance to get educated. If you
    spoke out against the view of these folks, their religious view, you
    could be taken to the public square and whipped. In other words,

    [[Page 104]]

    there was not freedom. There wasn't freedom to worship the way you want
    to, just like we believe here in the United States of America. You can
    worship, you cannot worship in our country, and you're equally American.
    You can be a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, and you're equally American.
    It's the greatness of the United States of America which stands in stark
    contrast to what these ideologues believe.
        Their vision of the world is dark and dim. They have got desires to
    spread a totalitarian empire. How do we know? Because they told us. Mr.
    Zawahiri, the number two in the Al Qaida
    network, told the world such. He might not have wanted us to read that
    particular thing he was sending, but nevertheless, we did. And he said
    that, ``Here's our designs and our desires.'' In other words, these
    people have got an ideology and strategy to implement the ideology.
    They've got a--they have no heart, no conscience. They kill innocent
    men, women, and children to achieve their objective. These folks cannot
    be appeased. We can't hope that nice words will change their point of
    view.
        And so the decision I made right off the bat is, we will find them,
    and we will hunt them down, and we will bring them to justice before
    they hurt America again. But that requires a different kind of response
    than the old days of nations fighting nations. First of all, I want to
    step back and just tell you--I probably--I hope I say this more than
    once, but committing U.S. troops into harm's way is the last option of
    the President. It's the hardest decision a President can make. And so
    when I'm telling you I made the decision, you all have got to
    understand, I did not take that decision lightly. I knew the
    consequences, but I also believed that the consequences of not acting
    against this enemy would mean I wasn't doing my job of working with
    others to protect the United States of America.
        So we sent our men and women into harm's way, all volunteers. It is
    really important for the United States of America to have an all-
    volunteer army. The best way to keep people volunteering in the Army is
    to make sure they got good pay, good training, good equipment, and good
    housing for their loved ones.
        But since we're not able to track vast battalions or armadas, we've
    got to have intelligence, good intelligence, to help us locate the dark
    corners of the world where these people hide. A lot of the decisions I
    make and decisions future Presidents make will be based upon the
    capacity of our intelligence services to find the enemy and to
    understand the intentions of the enemy and to share information with our
    allies. This is a different kind of struggle and requires the best
    intelligence possible. That's why we're reevaluating, constantly
    reevaluating how best to use our intelligence services to be able to
    protect the American people.
        We've got to be strong in diplomacy. Secretary Rice, who is a great diplomat--she followed another
    great diplomat in Colin Powell--they're
    constantly working to remind people about the stakes. Just like part of
    my job is to educate the American people about the threats we face, at a
    lecture series such as this, our Government must constantly remind our
    friends and allies the nature of the enemy and the stakes that all free
    countries face. There's a diplomatic effort that's constantly going on.
        You can't run your network without money, and so we're working with
    our friends and allies to seize terrorist assets and choke off their
    funding sources. In other words, what I'm telling you is, we're using
    all assets at our disposal to protect you in a different kind of war. In
    order to make the right decision about how to win this war, it's
    important to understand the nature of the enemy and to take the enemy's
    word seriously and to understand their lethality and not let the kind of
    lull in the action lull us to sleep.
        Secondly, right after they attacked us, I laid out a doctrine, and
    it said, ``If you

    [[Page 105]]

    harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist.'' The
    reason I said that is because I understand that a terrorist network can
    sometimes burrow in society and can sometimes find safe haven from which
    to plot and plan. The perfect example of that was Afghanistan. For those
    of you who didn't pay much attention to the initial stages of this war,
    it became apparent to the world that Afghanistan became safe haven.
    You'll hear stories about people that went into Afghanistan to be
    trained: trained as to how to brutally kill people, trained in different
    methodologies, trained in how to communicate.
        So, in other words, the enemy was able to burrow in and felt safe
    and confident and secure. And I understood in this different kind of war
    that we had to make it clear to any country that if they harbored a
    terrorist, they would be held to account. And when the American
    President speaks, it's really important for those words to mean
    something. And so when I said to the Taliban, ``Get rid of Al Qaida,''
    and they didn't, I made the difficult decision to commit our troops, to
    uphold the doctrine that if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as
    guilty as the terrorist. And our kids went in, men and women alike, and
    liberated a country from the clutches of the barbaric regime, the
    Taliban.
        And today, today in Afghanistan--think about what has happened in a
    brief period of time--today in Afghanistan, there is a fledgling
    democracy. Al Qaida no longer has run of the country. The Taliban is
    routed. There's an elected Parliament and a President dedicated to
    democratic institutions.
        The doctrine still stands: If you harbor a terrorist, you're equally
    as guilty as the terrorists who commit murder.
        Thirdly--and this is very important for the students to understand,
    and others--because oceans no longer protect us, the United States of
    America must confront threats before they cause us harm. In other words,
    in the old days, we could see a threat and say, ``Well, maybe it will
    cause harm; maybe it won't.'' Those days changed, as far as I'm
    concerned. Threats must be taken seriously now, because geography
    doesn't protect us, and there's an enemy that still lurks.
        And so early in my first term, I looked at the world and saw a
    threat in Saddam Hussein. And let me tell you
    why I saw the threat. First of all, there was an immediate threat
    because he was shooting at our airplanes. There was what's called no-fly
    zones; that meant the Iraqis couldn't fly in the zones. And we were
    patrolling with British pilots, and he was firing at us, which was a
    threat, a threat to the life and limb of the troops to whom I'm the
    Commander in Chief. He was a state sponsor of terror. In other words,
    the Government had declared, ``You are a state sponsor of terror.'' And
    remember, we're dealing with terrorist networks that would like to do us
    harm.
        There's a reason why he was declared a
    state sponsor of terror: because he was sponsoring terror. He had used
    weapons of mass destruction. And the biggest threat that this President
    and future Presidents must worry about is weapons of mass destruction
    getting in the hands of a terrorist network that would like to do us
    harm. That is the biggest threat we face. Airplanes were horrible; the
    attacks of aircraft were horrible. But the damage done could be
    multiplied if weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of these
    people.
        The world thought Saddam Hussein had
    weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't just me or my administration. My
    predecessor thought he had weapons of
    mass destruction. And there's a logical reason why--the data showed that
    he would likely have weapons of mass destruction, and he'd use them. I
    told you, the last option for a President is to send troops into combat,
    and I was hoping that we could solve the issue, the threat, the threat
    to the United States by diplomatic means.
        So I went to the United Nations. Secretary Powell carried our message to the

    [[Page 106]]

    United Nations. It said--see, now, I actually gave a speech to the
    United Nations, you might remember, and I said to them, basically, how
    many resolutions is it going to take before this threat will take us
    seriously? I mean, we passed, I don't know, 14, 15 different
    resolutions. That's a lot of resolutions. Pretty soon, if you pass that
    many resolutions, somebody is going to say, ``Well, they may not mean
    anything.'' I want this body to be effective. It's important for the
    world, when it speaks, that people listen.
        And so we passed another resolution that said that Saddam is in--and it unanimously passed, and the reason why
    is because the world thought he was a danger. It said, ``Disarm,
    disclose, or face serious consequences.'' I'm the kind of fellow, when
    I--when we say something, I mean it, like I told you before. And I meant
    it.
        And so Saddam Hussein was given a choice.
    He chose war. And so we moved, and he was removed from power. And there
    is absolutely no doubt in my mind, America is safer for it, and the
    world is better off without Saddam Hussein.
        A lot of people, I understand, disagreed with that decision, and
    that's what democracy is all about. That's what we believe in; we
    believe you can disagree. There's a custom in our country for people to
    express themselves, and it's good. It's what makes us a great country,
    that people can stand up and tell people what's on their mind. And we're
    going to keep it that way. It's very important for those who didn't
    agree with the decision, though, to understand the consequences of
    success in Iraq. It's really important we succeed for a lot of reasons.
        And the definition of success, by the way, is for there to be a
    country where the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten the
    democracy, and where Iraqi security forces can provide for the security
    of their own people, and where Iraq is not a safe haven from which the
    terrorists--Al Qaida and its affiliates--can plot attacks against
    America.
        We got a strategy, and I'm going to keep talking about the strategy;
    it will yield a victory. And the strategy is political security and
    economic in nature. In economic, we're going to help them rebuild their
    country, help secure their oil supply so they'll have cash flow in order
    to invest in their people.
        On the political front, you've seen it; you've seen what happened in
    one year's time. It's just amazing, I think. I guess we take it for
    granted; some of us do. I don't. The fact that people have gone from
    living under the clutches of a tyrant who
    ordered the murder of thousands of his own citizens, to a society in
    which people last year started voting for an interim government, voting
    for a Constitution, and then voting for a permanent Government under the
    new Constitution. The Government is now--they're beginning to form.
        In other words, you're seeing a lot of sharp elbows, probably kind
    of like American politics seem to some people, a lot of throwing of
    sharp elbows. You didn't see a lot of elbows, political elbows being
    thrown under the tyrant, did you? That's
    because tyrants don't allow for the political process to evolve. But
    we're watching the political process evolve, made complicated by the
    fact that the terrorists still want to cause destruction and death as
    this Government is forming to try to stop it.
        We got to step back and ask why. Why would they want to stop
    democracy? And the answer: Because democracy stands for the exact
    opposite of their vision. Liberty is not their credo. And they
    understand a defeat to their ideology by the establishment of a free
    Iraq will be a devastating blow for their vision.
        And so the Iraqis are showing incredible courage. When somebody
    says, ``If you vote, I'm going to get you,'' sometimes people maybe say,
    ``Well, maybe I don't want to vote.'' Eleven million or so Iraqis went
    to the polls in defiance of these killers.

    [[Page 107]]

    It's a magical moment in the history of liberty.
        And then on the security front, our strategy can be summed up this
    way: As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. Look, we want the Iraqis
    to be prepared to take the fight to the enemy. Let me talk about the
    enemy, real quick, in Iraq. There are what we call rejectionists. These
    are Sunnis that kind of like the fact that they--even though a minority
    inside the country--had the upper hand for a long period of time with
    Saddam. And they're worried about whether or
    not a Constitution that says it will protect minority rights actually
    will protect minority rights. But the good news is, more and more Sunnis
    started to vote. And if you watch the news, they're beginning to
    negotiate; they're beginning to see a better way. In other words, the
    political process is beginning to marginalize the remaining elements of
    those who are trying to stop the progress.
        One of those elements is Saddamists. These are the thugs that kind
    of controlled the country. They loved power; they don't want to give it
    up. And they'd like to return to the good old days, which isn't going to
    happen.
        And the other group, of course, is the Al Qaida types--Mr.
    Zarqawi, who wants us to leave Iraq.
    They want us to get out of Iraq so Iraq can be a safe haven. It is their
    stated objective: Don't worry, take your time, keep killing the innocent
    because America will lose its will. That's what the enemy has said.
    That's their words.
        The way to defeat the enemy is for the political process to
    marginalize the rejectionists and for us to train the Iraqi forces so
    they can find the few that want to dash the hopes of the many. And
    that's what we're doing. Our strategy is twofold: We're on the hunt for
    the terrorists, and we're training Iraqis. And we're making decent
    progress. There are more and more Iraqi units in the fight. There's more
    and more country being turned over to the Iraqis. We got a lot of bases
    around Iraq, and more of those bases are being given to the Iraqi
    troops.
        This is the year that we'll not only continue to focus on the
    troops, we'll continue to train Iraqi police. We've seen some problems
    about what it means to have lived in a society where people want to seek
    revenge. In other words, they use their police--status as a police
    person to take it out on others because of past grievances. That's not
    acceptable to the United States of America, and it's not acceptable to
    most Iraqis either.
        And so part of the training for police is not only to give them the
    capacity to handle the enemy but to make sure they understand human
    rights and ethics involved with police work. And so that's what you'll
    be seeing. You're going to see more Iraqi troops in the fight and more
    police providing security. And as a result, our commanders on the ground
    informed me that they thought we could reduce our troop level from the
    168,000 that were there--165,000, more or less, that were there for the
    elections--below 138,000.
        Now, I want to emphasize something to you. You heard me say, ``Our
    commanders on the ground said.'' You see, sometimes in the political
    process, people feel beholden to polls and focus groups. You don't have
    to worry about me. I'm going to be listening to the people that know
    what they're talking about, and that's the commanders on the ground in
    Iraq. They'll make the decisions. They will give the advice. Conditions
    on the ground will dictate our force levels over the next year, but the
    strategy is what I said it is: We'll stay on the offense, and we'll give
    these brave Iraqis the skills and training necessary to defend their own
    democracy.
        Look, this enemy cannot beat us. They cannot defeat us militarily.
    There's no chance. The one weapon they have, which is a lethal weapon,
    is the willingness to kill people. I remember the story--and it just
    broke my heart to think about the young soldier that was giving candy to
    a

    [[Page 108]]

    kid, and they set off the car bomb next to the kids. I mean, it's just--
    I cannot describe to you how brutal these people are. And they
    understand that their scenes will get on TV.
        And I don't know if they can adequately understand the compassion of
    the American people, but we're compassionate. I told you one of the
    great beliefs of our country is every life matters, every person counts,
    whether it be a child here in America or a child in Iraq. And they
    understand. And so part of my decisionmaking process is to understand
    the strength of the enemy--the only strength they have--and continue to
    remind the people that is their only strength, and the only way we can
    lose is if we lose our nerve and our will. The American people are
    resolute. They are strong. And we're not going to lose our will to these
    thugs and murderers.
        In the long term--in the short term, we'll stay on the offense; in
    the long term, the way to defeat these people is to spread liberty. As
    you study history, I want you to watch the effects of freedom around the
    world. One of my favorite ways to describe my belief in the capacity of
    freedom to help achieve peace--not only security for the American people
    but peace--is to give people the example of my dad and me, in terms of Japan.
        My dad was an 18-year-old kid and went
    to fight the Japanese. I promise you, a lot of folks here's relatives
    did the same thing. They were called into action because the enemy had
    attacked us. They were the sworn enemy of the United States of America.
    It was a brutal war against the Japanese. Took a lot of lives--Japanese
    lives and American lives--to win that war. And today, like my recent
    trip to the Far East, I sit down with Prime Minister Koizumi, who is the Japanese Prime Minister, and talk about
    the peace. Now, think about that. I particularly want the students to
    think about what took place when 18-year-old President 41 was fighting
    the Japanese, and 59-year-old 43--that would be me--is talking to the
    Prime Minister of the former enemy about peace. And you know what took
    place? A Japanese-style democracy came to be.
        History has shown that democracies yield the peace. Europe is free,
    whole, and at peace because the nations are democratic. That wasn't
    always the case, obviously, in the 1900s. Two major wars were fought
    where a lot of Americans died, and yet systems and forms of government
    changed. And now Europe is completely different, in terms of security
    and peace. The Far East--I just mentioned the Japanese example. And
    that's what the enemy understands, and that's why they're so brutal and
    relentless. They understand the march of peace will be contagious. Part
    of my decisionmaking process is my firm belief in the natural rights of
    men and women, my belief that deep in everybody's soul is the desire to
    live free. I believe there's an Almighty, and I believe the Almighty's
    great gift to each man and woman in this world is the desire to be free.
    This isn't America's gift to the world; it is a universal gift to the
    world. And people want to be free.
        And if you believe that and if you believe freedom yields the peace,
    it's important for the United States of America, with friends, to lead
    the cause of liberty. I'm not saying to any country, ``You must have a
    democracy that looks like America.'' I am saying, ``Free your people.
    Understand that liberty is universal, and help lay that foundation of
    peace for generations to come.'' Someday, an American President will be
    sitting down with elected leaders from a country like Iraq talking about
    how to keep the peace. This generation is rising to the challenge. We're
    looking at history. We understand our values, and we're laying that
    foundation of peace for generations to come.
        We've also got to be diligent here at home. I'm getting ready to
    answer some questions. Laura said, ``Whatever you
    do, don't get too windy.'' [Laughter]

    [[Page 109]]

        We've created the Department of Homeland Security. We're
    reorganizing our intelligence services. I want you to know that every
    morning, I meet with the Director of National Intelligence or his Deputy,
    sometimes with the head of the CIA, and
    always with a briefer, CIA briefer that comes and gives me the latest
    intelligence and the analysis of intelligence. That's every morning in
    the White House, except for Sunday.
        And the reason I do is because I told you early that my job is not
    to be complacent; my job is to be on the lookout, along with a lot of
    other people, I want you to know. We've got 800,000 State and first-
    responders that have been trained. Security is strong at the airports. I
    hope they stop taking off the shoes of the elderly. [Laughter] I must
    confess, they haven't taken off my shoes lately at the airport.
    [Laughter]
        We're doing a lot of stuff, but I want to talk about two tools
    necessary to protect you. First, before September the 11th, our law
    enforcement and intelligence services weren't able to share information.
    For example, within the FBI, you had your law enforcement division and
    your intelligence division--and for a lot of reasons, if they had
    information about a potential terrorist, they couldn't share it. That's
    hard to fathom, but it's the truth. There was a wall built up, and
    there's a lot of reasons why the wall was built up, some of it
    historical, obviously, legal ramifications.
        And I didn't think you could ask our frontline officers to defend us
    if they didn't have all the tools necessary to share intelligence and to
    share information--by the way, tools which have been granted to use in
    tracking down drug dealers, for example. My attitude was, if it's good
    enough--these tools are good enough to find a drug dealer, then they
    ought to be good enough to protect us from the new threats of the 21st
    century.
        And so the Congress passed what's called the PATRIOT Act by huge
    majorities. They saw the threat, and they said, ``Wait a minute. Let's
    make sure that if we ask the administration and, more importantly,
    people in the administration to defend us, let's give them the tools
    necessary to defend us.'' Interestingly enough, the PATRIOT Act, some of
    its provisions, are set to expire. I like to remind people the PATRIOT
    Act may be set to expire, but the threats to the United States haven't
    expired. And exactly what has changed, I asked out loud, after the
    attack of September the 11th and today? Those tools are still needed for
    our law enforcement officers. I want you to know that this PATRIOT Act
    is under constant review, and there has been no documented abuses under
    the PATRIOT Act.
        In other words, Congress, in its wisdom when it passed the Act,
    said, ``We'll make sure that the civil liberties of the United States
    are protected as we give the tools to those who are asked to take the
    fight to the enemy, to protect us.'' Congress extended this PATRIOT Act
    to February the 3d. That's not good enough for the American people, it
    seems like to me. When they get back there, they need to make sure they
    extend all aspects of the PATRIOT Act to protect the American people.
        The threat still exists, is my message to members of both political
    parties. The tools, if they were important right after September the
    11th, they're still important in 2006. The enemy has not gone away.
        Let me talk about one other program--and then I promise to answer
    questions--something that you've been reading about in the news lately.
    It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. After the enemy
    attacked us and after I realized that we were not protected by oceans, I
    asked people that work for you--work for me, ``How best can we use
    information to protect the American people?'' You might remember, there
    was hijackers here that had made calls outside the country, to somebody
    else, prior to the September the 11th attacks. And I said, ``Is there
    anything more

    [[Page 110]]

    we can do within the law, within the Constitution, to protect the
    American people?'' And they came back with a program--designed a program
    that I want to describe to you. And I want people here to clearly
    understand why I made the decision I made.
        First, I made the decision to do the following things because
    there's an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I'm
    talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating
    between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States;
    and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an Al Qaida
    link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or
    not someone can be an Al Qaida affiliate or Al Qaida. And if they're
    making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to
    know why.
        This is a--I repeat to you, even though you hear words, ``domestic
    spying,'' these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a
    phone call of an Al Qaida, known Al Qaida suspect, making a phone call
    into the United States. I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I
    had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed Members of the
    United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts,Pat about this program. You
    know, it's amazing, when people say to me, ``Well, he was just breaking
    the law.'' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?
    [Laughter]
        Federal courts have consistently ruled that a President has
    authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence
    surveillance against our enemies. Predecessors of mine have used that
    same constitutional authority. Recently there was a Supreme Court case
    called the Hamdi case. It ruled the authorization for the use of
    military force passed by the Congress in 2001; in other words, Congress
    passed this piece of legislation. And the Court ruled, the Supreme Court
    ruled that it gave the President additional authority to use what it
    called ``the fundamental incidents of waging war'' against Al Qaida.
        I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means. It means
    Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the
    American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It said, ``Mr.
    President, you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to
    tell you how.'' And one of the ways to protect the American people is to
    understand the intentions of the enemy. I told you it's a different kind
    of war with a different kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls
    into the United States, we need to know why--to protect you.
        And that's the world in which you live. I view it as a chance for--
    an historic opportunity to make this place better for your children and
    your grandchildren, ``this place'' being the world. I'm just confident
    that if we don't lose our will and stay strong and that as that liberty
    advances, people may look back at this lecture and other speeches by
    people who profess the same devotion to freedom that I've had, and say,
    you know, maybe they're just right. Maybe America, that was founded on
    natural rights of men and women, is a ticket for peace. Maybe that kind
    of view--that every person matters, that there are such things as human
    dignity and the basic freedoms that we feel--that becomes a huge
    catalyst for change for the better. These troops are defending you with
    all their might, but at the same time, they're beginning to help change
    that world by spreading liberty and freedom.
        It's such an honor to be the President of the great country that we
    are, during such historic times, and I want to thank you for giving me a
    chance to describe to you some of the decisionmaking processes I've used
    to do my duty to defend the American people. God bless.
        Be glad to answer some questions if you've got some. Thank you. I
    think there's some people with microphones and all that, that are going
    to be out there. Anybody

    [[Page 111]]

    has any questions? Any boys from the Last Chance Bar got any questions?
        Q. [Inaudible] [Laughter]
        Q. Mr. President.
        The President. Thank you, yes. Yes, ma'am.

    Trade/Beef Industry

        Q. Mr. President, we salute what you have done, your aggressive
    stance on terrorism. But more than that, as you know, Kansas is a beef
    State. The number-one industry in the State of Kansas is beef production
    and beef processing. A strong beef industry indicates a strong Kansas,
    and it affects all of us. We sincerely appreciate your efforts in
    regaining our markets with Japan, your aggressive stance on trade. We
    support that tremendously. I wondered if you would just comment on
    what's happened recently.
        The President. Yes, well, thanks. Thank you for your leadership. We
    think we grow pretty good beef in Texas too. [Laughter] Now is not the
    time to compare, of course. [Laughter]
        Look, here's the thing: There's an interesting debate in the United
    States about markets, about whether or not we should aggressively seek
    markets or whether or not we should become protectionists. Protectionism
    means tariffs and policies that make it difficult for people to trade in
    the United States and for people in the United States to trade outside
    the United States. I'm a big believer in opening markets. There's a
    practical reason why. One is that we're 5 percent of the people, which
    means--in the world--that means 95 percent of the people are potential
    customers for U.S. farmers and ranchers and small businesses and
    entrepreneurs. And so what madam president--former president is
    referring to is that I have been very aggressive about opening up
    markets through trade agreements.
        I'm a little concerned about trade agreements, though, because it's
    more and more difficult to get them passed out of the United States
    Congress. It seems like they're becoming so political that people either
    are becoming protectionist or lose sight--are losing sight of the value
    about opening markets.
        Look, if you're a cattle raiser in Kansas, you want to be able to
    sell your product in Japan or South Korea or China. I mean, people want
    the beef. And the problem we've recently had, as you mentioned, reflects
    what is necessary to make sure that trade works. And that is, if there
    are problems, like in this case, some beef coming out of Brooklyn, I
    think it was, and if the Japanese balk at opening their markets, we have
    got to be aggressive about explaining to people why our beef is safe.
    And so part of being--part of making sure that the ranchers, in this
    case, see the benefits of open markets is when a market gets open, to
    work hard to make sure that market stays open if there happens to be a
    problem, or a short-term problem.
        Secondly is to make sure that we're treated fairly. And that part--
    when you see me arguing for trade agreements, a lot of times it means
    that a country is getting a better deal from us than we are from them.
    All I'm saying is, ``Look, just treat us the way we treat you. If we
    open up our markets for your product, you open your markets for our
    products.''
        And so my--and I believe, and this is going to sound--let me just
    say to people, as you study the economics of how to make sure this
    economy continues to grow, one way to do it is to make sure the markets
    are available, that there be a level playing field. I believe we can
    compete with anybody, anytime, anywhere, so long as it's fair.
        And obviously, one area where we're trying to keep those markets
    open is when it comes to beef. And we had the BSE, and one of the jobs
    of the Federal Government is to respond quickly to the BSE issue, is to
    try to settle people's nerves down so we can get those markets reopened.
    And when I went to see Prime

    [[Page 112]]

    Minister Koizumi, as well as President
    Roh in South Korea, one of the items I discussed
    was, ``You're missing out on some Kansas beef.'' [Laughter]

    Sudan

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. One of the things that both of our
    Senate delegation has worked tirelessly on is the situation in the
    Sudan. Sudan was, of course, slated to be the chair of the African Union
    next year, which is--they have tried, much like the United Nations, to
    do something. Does the United States have a larger role to play in the
    Sudan and the entire sub-Saharan African region?
        The President. Yes, great question. We have played an active--first
    of all, I do want to thank both Senators. I'm on treacherous
    ground here to kind of credit one versus the other, but I guess I will,
    since one of them is going to want a free meal going back to
    Washington--[laughter]--I guess both. Sam, I mean--Roberts is great on
    the issue, and Sam is the person I've been interfacing with the most,
    frankly, in the whole United States Senate, about his deep concern for
    life in the Sudan. Matter of fact, in the vehicle driving over here, he
    brought the issue up.
        We have got an important role to play and have played it. I don't
    know if you remember the Danforth Commission, where Jack
    Danforth, the former Senator from Missouri,
    was my Envoy to the Sudan to help resolve the North-South conflict. And
    there was a peace agreement in place. And the peace agreement was set
    back, unfortunately, because--well, it's still intact, don't get me
    wrong, but the implementation was delayed somewhat because of John
    Garang's untimely death--he was the leader of the south of Sudan. So the
    important thing there is that we showed, through diplomacy, that it's
    possible to resolve differences and to begin to reduce the abhorrent
    issue of slavery.
        As you now know, the issue in Sudan is--and by the way, one of the
    great strengths of this country is our faith-based programs that rose up
    in indignation about the slavery that was taking place in the Sudan.
    Much of the first wave of help that went into the Sudan--some of it was
    Government--most of it was the response of the private sector,
    particularly the religious communities.
        The issue now is Darfur. And when Colin
    was still the Secretary of State, he declared the policy of the U.S. and
    our deep concern that we are headed toward genocide. I think we're the
    only nation that has uttered those words thus far in Darfur. The
    strategy--and it's a very complex situation. It would take yet another
    lecture to give you all the kind of ins and outs. But suffice it to say
    that we are deeply concerned about poor folks who have been run out of
    their villages into refugee camps, who are still being threatened by
    Janjaweed militia and some rebellious groups that are trying to extract
    political gain through marauding and death and rape and destruction.
        We've empowered the AU, and this is what your question really kind
    of--part of your question leads to--to provide forces on the ground, to
    provide stability. And what he's referring to is that the Sudanese
    Government is going to be the head of the African Union--that's what AU
    stands for--which would then put them the titular head of the troops on
    the ground. And obviously, that should be of concern--concern to us. It
    is a concern to us, and it should be a concern to the AU nations.
        That issue has yet to be resolved as to whether or not Sudan will be
    the AU. This is an important issue. We will continue to work with
    Congress to provide aid, food aid, and help. We helped fly the AU troops
    into Sudan. We're watching it very carefully. We are considering
    different strategies as to how to make sure that there's enough
    protection, at least to get people help and protection and, at the same
    time, see if we can't try to broker the same kind of agreement we did
    North-South, with the

    [[Page 113]]

    Darfur and the Government. Thank you for asking the question.
        Yes, sir.

    Iran/China

        Q. What is your position, or would you comment on a long-term
    strategy with respect to the geopolitical ambitions of China and Iran?
        The President. Yes, great question. First, let me start with Iran.
    I'm deeply concerned about Iran, as should a lot of people be concerned
    about Iran. I'm concerned when the country of Iran, their
    President announces his desire to see
    that Israel gets destroyed. Israel is our ally. We're committed to the
    safety of Israel, and it's a commitment we will keep.
        Secondly, I'm concerned about a nontransparent society's desire to
    develop a nuclear weapon. The world cannot be put in a position where we
    can be blackmailed by a nuclear weapon. I believe it is very important
    for the Iranian Government to hear loud and clear from not only the
    United States but also from other nations around the world. I also want
    the Iranian people to hear loud and clear, and that is, we have no beef
    with you. We are worried about a Government that is transparent, whose
    aims and objectives are not peaceful. And therefore, we don't think that
    you should have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon.
        The diplomatic strategy is being led right now by what's called the
    EU-3: France, Germany, and Great Britain. And they're doing a good job
    of keeping together a common message to say to the Iranians that we
    expect you to adhere to international norm. The next logical step, if
    the Iranians continue not to adhere to international norm or the demands
    of the free world, is to go to the United Nations Security Council.
        At the same time, the development of Iraqi democracy is an important
    message to people inside of Iran. I told you what I believe. I believe
    everybody desires to be free. I believe women want to be treated
    equally. And I think that a message of democracy and freedom in that
    part of the world will embolden reformers. But this is a serious issue.
        China is--we have a complex relationship with China. Unlike with
    Iran, which we sanctioned a long time ago, we've got a lot of relations
    with China. We've got trade relations with China. We have got diplomatic
    relations with China. I've met with the Chinese leadership quite often
    and will tell you my personal relations with Hu Jintao are warm, warm enough to be able to sit with him in
    private and talk about things that matter to me. And one thing that
    matters to me is the freedom of the Chinese people.
        I think any time in the diplomatic arena, you want the President to
    be in a position where he can have a relationship where you can speak
    with candor and your words can be heard, as opposed to a relationship
    that gets so tense and so off-putting because of distrust. Nobody likes
    to be lectured in the public arena; let me put it to you that way. I
    don't like it, and I'm sure other leaders don't like it. And so I've
    worked hard to make sure that my personal diplomacy is such that I'm
    able to make certain points with the Chinese.
        One such point is that, you know, treat us the way we treat you.
    You've got a trade imbalance with the United States. And if we don't get
    it under control, there could be a backlash here. And therefore, we
    expect you to treat our products the same way we treat you. And by the
    way, if you happen to dump--choose to dump products, like in textiles,
    we'll hold you to account under our law.
        I talk about their currency with the Chinese. You've got to let your
    currency float. The market currency ought to be priced through market,
    not by government edict, which is--they're beginning to move a little
    bit on the currency, if you're paying attention to the issue.

    [[Page 114]]

        Now, I went to church in China. And I was a little nervous, at
    first, frankly, about a licensed church. I wasn't sure whether or not I
    was going to go to a church or not a church, and went--Laura and I went with a guy named Luis Palau. And I was impressed by the spirit I felt in the church.
    And after it was over, I told Hu Jintao, I said,
    you know, ``I'm a religious person, and the more free religion is in
    your country, the better off your society will be, and you shouldn't
    fear the church. You ought to come to the church. You know, you ought to
    see what I saw, which is peaceful people honoring something greater than
    themselves.''
        I would hope that China will continue to move in the--or move in the
    direction of human dignity. I talked to him about, of course, the Dalai
    Lama, talked to him about the
    Catholic Church's inability to get their bishops in. In other words,
    what I do is I press the freedom issue. We don't always agree with
    China, of course. It's a complex relationship, but it's one in which, in
    my judgment, it's best to be in a position where we can dialog and
    discuss things in order to keep relations on keel and keep peace in that
    part of the world.
        It's really interesting: Do you realize that it takes China 25
    million new jobs a year to stay even? Think about that--I'm out there
    blowing when we get 4 million in the past--since April of 2003--this
    guy needs to get 25 million a year. [Laughter] And
    Sam and I and PatPat and the Governor were talking about the Chinese demand for energy.
    One reason they've got such a huge demand for energy is because they've
    got to grow their economy, 25 million people a year. And their economy
    is just beginning to modernize, so they're using a lot of raw materials.
    I'm kind of wandering here, but--which says two things to me, by the
    way; it's called a filibuster--[laughter]--it says we've got to
    diversify away from hydrocarbons in the United States of America.
        When we were driving through the beautiful country coming here, I
    told the Governor and I told the two
    Senators I firmly believe a day is coming when we're going to be
    able to grow saw grass and convert that into energy. And secondly, we've
    got to share technology with China so that they become better users of
    energy and better protectors of the environment. It's a complex
    relationship that we spend a lot of time thinking about. And I
    appreciate your question very much. Hu Jintao is
    coming, I think, here pretty soon, to the United States. And as I say, I
    enjoy my visits--personal visits with him.
        Yes, ma'am.

    Iraqi Government

        Q. Hello, Mr. President. I am an American Iraqi Kurd. I would like
    to salute you and salute all the troops are freeing 27 million people.
    They are free.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. Mr. President, I would like to share this thought with all our
    Nation and everybody who is questioning what happened to the chemical
    weapons. Saddam burned 4,500 villagers. I lost more than 10 members of
    my family underground. We found their bones after, when we freed Iraq.
    Saddam himself and his people, his followers, they are chemical weapons.
    Please stop questioning the administration and their decision. It was
    the best decision anybody could take, freeing 27 million people.
        The President. Okay, this is a question and answer period.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. I hate to cut you off. You're on a roll, but what's
    the question?
        Q. Mr. President, all I could tell you, I have two members of my
    family--they are in the Iraqi Parliament. And both of them are women, my
    sister-in-law and my aunt. They are in the Iraqi Parliament. And I would
    like you to share this happiness with me and with all the Iraqi people.
    Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. Thank you. And here's my message--here's my message
    to your relatives in the Iraqi Parliament: Work to

    [[Page 115]]

    form a unity government, a government that includes the minorities in
    the country--a Shi'a, Kurd, and Sunni--no, no, no--[laughter]--no, no.
    [Laughter] Thank you. [Laughter].
        Q. My husband is Sunni. My mother-in-law was a Christian, Catholic--
    --
        The President. All right. [Laughter]
        Q. I have two kids----
        The President. Thank you. Got a question? Only in America. Hold on.
    [Laughter]

    Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom

        Q. I'm from the United Kingdom.
        The President. Welcome.
        Q. Thank you. Although I might be living here for a while now, and
    you haven't kicked me out, and I thank you very much for that.
    [Laughter]
        The President. Write your Senator. [Laughter] Anyway, go ahead.
        Q. Us British, we're a querulous people, and we know that we're one
    of your greatest supporters in the world, and Tony Blair, who I have the
    greatest respect for, is my leader. When you say, ``Jump,'' he says,
    ``How high?'' At least, that's the perception of many of the British
    people. And when he agrees and does your bidding, then it weakens him on
    the homefront at home. And many people enjoy this, but some of the more
    vocal ones will say, ``He's a yes-man.'' Have you discussed that with
    him, and do you have any----
        The President. I appreciate that a lot. First, I'm aware that that
    is a criticism of Tony, and I just strongly disagree with that. Frankly,
    it's demeaning to his character and his strength of conviction. But I've
    heard the criticism, and it's just simply not the case.
        Like you, I admire him a lot. He's an independent thinker. He and I
    share this interesting moment in history together, and we also share
    this deep belief that liberty will transform the world--it can transform
    the world. That's what we believe. In other words, there is a
    philosophical core of Tony Blair that I--belief, core beliefs that Tony
    and I share.
        You know, sometimes we disagree on tactics. We try to work through
    what we--we've had a lot of disagreements. I mean, a classic came on the
    Kyoto treaty. You might remember the treaty. I said I just wasn't going
    to support it. I didn't think it was good for the American economy; I
    thought there was a better way to go about being good stewards of the
    environment. He disagreed with me. There's a series of issues where we--
    International Criminal Court is another good example. I think the
    International Criminal Court is something we shouldn't join. I just
    don't want unelected prosecutors prosecuting our troops or our diplomats
    in a court overseas. Tony disagreed strongly.
        I can give you a series of examples where--but we agree
    strategically. And that's what's important. Look, I'm sorry that his
    relationship with me causes him political problems at home. Sometimes I
    can be a little allergic for people overseas, if you know what I mean.
    [Laughter] But I think I would classify our relationship as historic.
    You don't know this--I'm about to tell you something interesting--that
    we talk once a week, or try to. And it's a really interesting way to
    share just thoughts and concerns. And the British-U.S. relationship is
    unique. It's been unique in the past. It is unique today, and I'm
    convinced it will be unique in the future, for the good of the world.
        But, no, I'm very aware of the political difficulties he's faced. By
    the way, when you make hard decisions, like Tony has made, and frankly,
    I've made, it creates angst. I mean, the easy route would have been to
    do nothing and just hope for the best. And that's why I admire Tony.
    Tony is a person of great courage.
        I can remember--I'll tell you an anecdote--you didn't even ask, and
    I'm going to tell you. [Laughter] And it's been published in a book a
    guy wrote in Washington.

    [[Page 116]]

    Tony was very worried about his Government. You might remember when the
    second resolution--we had the first resolution; then there was an
    argument about what ``serious consequences'' meant--I guess that's what
    the problem was. I kind of knew what it meant. He knew what it meant.
    Others, all of a sudden, had a different view of ``serious
    consequences'' when Saddam chose to not deal
    squarely with the world and not deal with the inspectors. He was worried
    about his Government, and so was I. And I told him one time, I said,
    ``If you're worried about your Government''--I said, ``You don't want
    your Government to fall, and if you're worried about it, just go ahead
    and pull out of the coalition, so you can save your Government.''
        And he said to me, he said, ``I'm going to''--he said, ``I have made
    my commitment on behalf of the great country of Britain, and I'm not
    changing my mind.'' Basically, what he told me, he said, ``George,'' he
    said, ``politics--I'm not interested in politics; what I'm interested in
    is doing the right thing.'' And that's why I admire Tony Blair; he'll do
    the right thing.
        Good question. Yes, sir.

    President's Personal Values/Leadership

        Q. I have a question less with politics and more with leadership in
    general. You're in a situation where you're under a lot of flack,
    especially for your character. And that's something that, it seems to
    me, means a lot to you, as it does to many of us here. As a leader, as
    many of us are going to need to know here because we're going to be
    leaders in just a few years, what's the best way that you go about
    preparing yourself for attacks on your character, and how do you deal
    with others in those matters?
        The President. Yes, I appreciate that. I would summarize it: faith,
    family, and friends. I am sustained mightily by the fact that millions
    of citizens--for whom I'll never get to thank personally--pray for me.
    It's hard for me to describe why I feel that way, why I'm so sustained.
    I guess it's just called faith. And I'm sustained by my family. And
    there's nothing better than going home to somebody who understands and
    is sympathetic and is part of--we're working together. I mean,
    Laura's job is just as important as mine in many
    ways.
        The girls still love me. [Laughter] I really love them. And then there's my man,
    Barney, a little Scottish terrier. [Laughter] I say this--and
    Laura will be furious at me--he's the son I never
    had, you know? [Laughter]
        I believe in what I'm doing. And I understand politics, and it can
    get rough. I read a lot of history, by the way, and Abraham Lincoln had
    it rough. I'm not comparing myself to Abraham Lincoln, nor should you
    think just because I mentioned his name in the context of my
    Presidency--I would never do that. He was a great President. But, boy,
    they mistreated him. He did what he thought was right.
        A lot of politicians, a lot of Presidents have gone through some
    tough times in the Presidency, and I understand that. One of my biggest
    disappointments is the tone in Washington, DC. I've done my best to try
    to elevate the tone. I just--needless name-calling, to me, is beneath
    the dignity of the office of the President.
        I also make time in my day not only for prayer but also--and my
    family, but also for exercise. I found that part of keeping a positive
    outlook is to kind of burn off that excess energy, you know what I'm
    saying? [Laughter] I work out. I try to work out 5 or 6 days a week.
    It's really important--if you feel that's important for your life--to
    schedule your life. In other words, I have trouble with people saying,
    ``I'm so busy, I can't exercise.'' I don't think you're too busy for
    things that are important in your life, and you can figure out ways to
    make time in your life.
        And so I'm the kind of guy--I'm not running too well these days; I'm
    not running hardly at all. It's kind of like my knees are like tires,
    you know, and they're bald.

    [[Page 117]]

    [Laughter] I'm a mountain bike guy. And it's a fantastic experience.
        I think to answer your--summarize your question, is to make sure
    that you've got good priorities in your life. By having good priorities
    in your life, it helps you keep perspective on your life. And
    perspective is very important as you assume responsibility. Thanks for
    the question.
        Yes, ma'am.

    Associate Justice-Designate Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

        Q. Mr. President, I thank you for being here. I served under your
    father; he was my Commander in Chief during Desert Storm. And it was
    with great interest that I followed your campaign; my husband and I both
    are great fans of yours. I thank you for making the hard decisions, for
    making--not listening to the critics and keeping your campaign promises.
        And I've been following the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito.
    And I certainly hope he's confirmed. I think he's a good man.
        The President. Well, I appreciate that.
        Q. But I'd like to kind of know how it stands right now.
        The President. Yes, what's happening. First of all, I told the
    people--and thank you for your kind comments--and I told the people when
    I ran for President I would put people on the bench who would strictly
    interpret the Constitution--in other words, not use their position to
    write law. We've got legislators to write law; that's their job. The
    judges are to interpret law.
        And Sam has been one of the picks I made for the Supreme Court, Sam
    Alito. He's a very, very smart, capable man. When you talk to Sam Alito,
    you think, ``smart judge.'' He's written a lot of opinions. His judicial
    philosophy is clear, and his judicial temperament that is sound. That's
    why the American Bar Association gave him the highest possible rating.
    And now the question is, will Sam Alito be given an up-or-down vote on
    the Senate floor?
        I don't know whether or not in our history there's ever been a
    filibuster of a Supreme Court judge. One, years ago, according to--Sam,
    by the way, is on the Judiciary Committee and helps conduct the hearings
    in a way that I thought has brought dignity to the process.
        And so to answer your question, I don't know. You hear gossip about
    a filibuster, meaning a minority of Democrats--Senators could stop Alito
    from getting a vote. It would really--I didn't mean to slip; I'm not
    trying to be--[laughter]--I'm not taking political shots. It just so
    happens that it would be the Democrats who would try to not give him an
    up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. I think he deserves an up-or-down
    vote. I believe that if given an up-or-down vote, he'll be confirmed and
    the decisionmaking--you know, we're in the process now of hearing from
    the Democrat leadership.
        There are 14 Senators, 7 from both political parties, who have vowed
    to try to prevent a filibuster from taking place without extraordinary
    circumstances. In other words, if there is extraordinary circumstance,
    they would agree to a filibuster. There has been no sign of any
    extraordinary circumstance, except for this extraordinary thing: He's
    extraordinarily capable to serve on the Supreme Court. And so thank you
    for your question on Sam. It's going to come to a head here pretty soon.
    I think the vote in the committee is--Wednesday is the vote in the
    Judiciary? Tomorrow, yes. You don't have to worry about it in the
    committee--the floor possibly later this week. That's great.
        Okay, a couple more and then I've got to head back home. Yes, ma'am.

    Social Security Reform

        Q. Hi. First I'd like to say that when I was first able to cast my
    vote for President, it was my honor to vote for you--[inaudible]. Can
    you hear me?
        The President. I like that part. [Laughter]
        Q. My question is about Social Security.

    [[Page 118]]

        The President. Social Security?
        Q. Yes. What are your plans to make sure that it's still viable when
    all the students sitting here are of an age that it would make a
    difference in our lives? And also, do you have any advice for us to plan
    for the problems--[inaudible]?
        The President. I couldn't hear the question, so I'll put the words
    in your mouth. [Laughter] I guess you asked, is the system going to be
    viable when you get--yes? No. [Laughter]
        If I were you, I'd pay attention to the issue. And the reason why is
    because there's a lot of us getting ready to retire. There's a baby
    boomer bulge. I was born in '46, on the leading edge of what we call the
    baby boomers, and there's a lot of us getting ready to retire, which
    means you are going to have to pay for a lot more people in the system,
    plus we've been promised greater benefits than the previous generation.
    So the system is going to go broke unless we do something about it.
        Last year I talked about doing something about it, and the Congress
    didn't do anything about it. So this year I'm going to talk about doing
    something about it and the next year something about it and the next
    year something about it. I have a duty to confront problems and not
    hope, you know, and just kind of--shuffling them along. And so this is a
    big issue; both Medicare and Social Security are big issues. They're big
    issues for long-term deficits, and they're big issues for the
    individuals who are going to be having to pay in the system for people
    like me. And the fix isn't all that hard.
        What is first required is people setting aside needless politics in
    Washington, DC, and saying, ``Why don't we come together and get
    something done for the sake of a future generation?'' And we can make
    sure that this generation--that the up-and-coming generation--see,
    nothing changes if you're over 55. It's the young people paying into a
    broke system. By the way, they call it a Social Security trust; there's
    no ``trust.'' The money is paid, and it's spent on other programs, and
    all that's left in the Social Security is an IOU. And so it seems like
    to me that it's really important to kind of lay out all the facts on the
    table for people to determine whether or not there's a problem or not.
    And once they see a problem, then they ought to be calling on people on
    the phone, their elected representatives, saying, ``Do something about
    it.''
        And I believe we can fix this problem by slowing down the rate of
    growth of benefits, not cutting benefits; benefits will increase. But
    the promises have been just too great, and we need to be frank about it.
    And we need to be open about it to make sure that we save the Social
    Security system for our younger generation.
        I also happen to believe we have a fantastic opportunity to promote
    ownership in America. I believe younger workers ought to be able to take
    some of their own money and set it aside in a personal savings account.
    And the reason I believe that is, I think if you own an asset, it helps
    provide stability in American society. I am concerned that--I'm
    concerned at the low rate of return people get on their money through
    the Social Security--you know, quote, ``Social Security trust.'' I know
    the power of compounding rate of interest. For those of you studying in
    economics, look it up. It says money grows exponentially over time. And
    if you put your money in just a safe series of instruments, it will
    grow. If you start saving at age 20, it grows quite dramatically over
    time, and then that's your nest egg. It's what you call--it's a part of
    a Social Security benefit system. Again, those of us who are retiring,
    I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about younger workers being given
    an option.
        I'm also concerned about people in our society who've never owned
    anything. You know, I'm worried about--and I know that if you own--can
    you imagine a single mom working and able to put some of the money aside
    for herself if she wants and watch that grow with just safe investments
    over

    [[Page 119]]

    time, and when she retires, she's got a nest egg that she calls her own,
    that Government can't spend on another program, a nest egg that she can
    pass on to her loved one.
        I mean, ownership and the ability to pass wealth from one generation
    to the next is an important part of busting the cycle of poverty, for
    example. And so this is a great opportunity to think differently about
    this very important program. And I appreciate you bringing it up, and
    thanks for being concerned about it. You need to be.
        Yes, ma'am.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Do what?
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Yes, I'll look at it. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is
    your return address on there so I can write you back? No? Okay.
    [Laughter] Make sure I get that.

    Education

        Q. I was just wanting to get your comments about education.
    Recently, $12.7 billion was cut from education, and I was just wanting
    to know how that's supposed to help our futures?
        The President. Education budget was cut--say it again. What was cut?
        Q. Twelve point seven billion dollars was cut from education, and I
    was just wanting to know how is that supposed to help our----
        The President. At the Federal level?
        Q. Yes.
        The President. I don't think that--I don't think we've actually--for
    higher education? Student loans?
        Q. Yes, student loans.
        The President. Actually, I think what we did was reform the student
    loan program. We're not cutting money out of it. In other words, people
    aren't going to be cut off the program. We're just making sure it works
    better. It's part of the reconciliation package, I think she's talking
    about. Yes, it's a reform of the program to make sure it functions
    better. It is--in other words, we're not taking people off student
    loans, we're saving money in the student loan program because it's
    inefficient. And so I think the thing to look at is whether or not there
    will be fewer people getting student loans. I don't think so. And
    secondly, on Pell grants, we're actually expanding the number of Pell
    grants through our budget.
        But, great question. I think that the key on education is to make
    sure that we stay focused on how do we stay competitive into the 21st
    century. And I plan on doing some talking about math and science and
    engineering programs, so that people who graduate out of college will
    have the skills necessary to compete in this competitive world.
        But I'm--I think I'm right on this. I'll check when I get back to
    Washington. But thank you for your question.
        Yes, ma'am.

    First Lady Laura Bush

        Q. Again, I just wanted to thank you for coming. Your speech was
    very good. I'm a big admirer of your wife. I know that you said that
    your role as a President was as a decisionmaker, and I would like you to
    comment, please, on how your wife contributes to your decisionmaking
    process and how you confide in her. Thank you.
        The President. Yes, thanks. Yes, she's great. She keeps--she tells
    me when I'm out of line. [Laughter]
        First of all, Laura pays attention to what's going on. And so she
    offers her advice, and it's sound advice. She's a west Texas woman, born
    and raised in west Texas. Kind of a--I would say she brings common
    sense. Kind of remind people from here--reminds me of people here from
    Kansas, down-to-earth, no airs, commonsense point of view. And so I
    appreciate very much when she does give me her advice, which can be too
    frequent sometimes. [Laughter] Not true, honey. [Laughter]
        It's like the time--she tells the story about the time when I was
    running for Congress in 1978 in west Texas, and she

    [[Page 120]]

    criticized one of my speeches, and I ran into the garage door.
    [Laughter] But the best--I guess the best way to describe it is, one, I
    value her judgment, and I know it comes from her heart. And I appreciate
    the perspective she brings. Common sense is just a very important part
    of being a decisionmaker. There is something reassuring to me when I get
    advice from somebody who's got the best interests in mind, has got my
    best interests in mind, as well as just this kind of down-to-earth read
    on the situation. And that's how I view my advice from Laura.
        Plus, she does--I mean, I said some things--``wanted dead or
    alive''--and she said, you might be able to explain that a little--
    express yourself a little better than that, George W. [Laughter] And so
    we've got a great relationship. You know, when I married her, she really
    didn't like politics, and particularly--didn't care particularly for
    politicians either. And here she is, the First Lady of the United
    States. And she is good. Boy, I tell you, she's--when she speaks, she's
    very credible because she's a decent, credible person. And I love her a
    lot.
        Yes. Is that a Washington National hat?

    ``Brokeback Mountain''

        Q. Wisconsin, actually.
        The President. Okay, yes.
        Q. ``W'' is for Wisconsin. You're a rancher. A lot of us here in
    Kansas are ranchers. I was just wanting to get your opinion on
    ``Brokeback Mountain,'' if you've seen it yet? [Laughter] You would love
    it. You should check it out.
        The President. I haven't seen it. I'll be glad to talk about
    ranching, but I haven't seen the movie. [Laughter] I've heard about it.
    I hope you go--you know--[laughter]--I hope you go back to the ranch and
    the farm is what I'm about to say. I haven't seen it. [Laughter]

    Nuclear Proliferation

        Q. Mr. President, I have a question about the nuclear weapons the
    United States is keeping. It's around 3,000 nuclear weapons, so I want
    to know your opinion when you are going to destroy them.
        The President. Do what, now? I didn't hear what you said.
        Q. When you are going to----
        The President. I can't hear you very well. I'm sorry. I'm not trying
    to avoid the question; I just didn't get it.
        Q. United States has 3,000 nuclear weapons.
        The President. Three thousand nuclear weapons.
        Q. Yes. And I want to know your opinion about these weapons of mass
    destruction, that when the United States is going to destroy the nuclear
    weapons to prevail the peace in the world.
        The President. Got it. No, I appreciate it. One of the first things
    I did as the President was to negotiate a reduction of nuclear--
    deployable nuclear weapons with Vladimir Putin. Actually, I think we had 6,000 at the time, and we agreed
    to reduce our nuclear--deployable nuclear arsenals to between 1,700 and
    2,200. And we're in the process of doing that now. And then of course,
    there will be--another President can then evaluate where we are. So
    we're in the process of honoring what's called the Moscow Treaty.
        A couple of more, and then I've got to hop. Yes, ma'am.

    Immigration/Border Security

        Q. Mr. President--[inaudible]--I know that the relationship between
    United States and Venezuela is no good. That's not my problem. My
    problem is--or the question I have for you is what are you doing in the
    borders? You know, we try to secure the United States for terrorism, I
    know. So we're trying to secure the borders, but as well, some of us who
    are Hispanics and professional sometimes are denied the opportunity to
    work and advance in the workplace because we are minorities.

    [[Page 121]]

        What are you going to do? I represent--[inaudible]--what are you
    going to do provide the most secure job in which we serve the country,
    we serve the university? I can't complain in this university; I've been
    treated like royalty here. But when you work outside the university as a
    Hispanic, you are not look good enough because they think you come from
    Mexico.
        I come from Venezuela, which is a different country, but all of us
    are Hispanics, and all of us embrace ourselves in America because
    America is--North America, the United States, in Central and South
    America, where one continents embrace each other. So what are you going
    to do to provide opportunities for the Hispanics who come to this
    country legally, like I did or who are illegal here? We should help them
    to get legal here, not provide directly a green card, but help them to
    become legal in step by step----
        The President. Okay.
        Q. ----like all of us have done. Thank you.
        The President. Yes, I got the question. Immigration. [Laughter]
        First of all, bienvenidos. And we have an obligation in this country
    to enforce our borders. And there's huge pressure on our borders. We've
    got a long border, obviously, with Mexico and a long border with Canada.
    And the biggest, most problematic area right now is the border with
    Mexico--California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
        The issue is not only Mexican citizens who are coming across the
    border illegally, but it's other citizens who are coming across the
    border. And our obligation is to use a wise strategy to shut down the
    trafficking of anything illegal across the border. We're a country of
    law, and we must enforce the border. And we spend a lot of time in
    Washington, DC, analyzing the border issues and strategizing with
    Congress about how to do a better job including the following things:
    One, increasing the number of Border Patrol agents; two, increasing the
    use of technology on the border, so that you can see people coming,
    through drones, for example, and then be able to rally the Border Patrol
    to stop people from crossing--coming across.
        Some physical barriers, particularly in urban centers, are now being
    constructed. Some berms--there's parts of our border, where, literally,
    you can just drive across, I mean, there's nothing. You know, you just
    land, and in you come. And it's hard--the demarcation zone is different,
    and it makes it hard for people to enforce the border.
        Secondly, when we detain somebody at the border, we've got to have a
    rational policy to help back up the people we're paying to enforce the
    border. And by that I mean, if you're somebody from Central America, for
    example, caught coming into our country, that the policy has been to
    give you a notification to report back to a judge, and they'll hear your
    case. Well, guess what? A lot of them don't come back. They're here
    because they're trying to better their lives, and they're going to move
    into our society as best as they can. And they're not going to return
    back. So we're ending what's called catch-and-release, and we're
    beginning to provide more detention space for our Border Patrol to be
    able to say to people, particularly from Central America and South
    America, ``You've come illegally; we're sending you back home.''
        Thirdly, in terms of workers, we do have H1, H2B visa programs that
    we're constantly analyzing with the United States Congress. It makes
    sense that highly skilled workers, for example, be given work permits
    here in the United States if it helps us meet an economic objective. But
    I feel strongly that we need to take the worker program a step further,
    and I'll tell you why. I'm mindful that most people come here to work.
    There are a lot of people in your State dependent upon people coming
    here to work.
        I tell you, I used to say that--when I was Governor of Texas--family
    values

    [[Page 122]]

    didn't stop at the Rio Grande River. And people, if they could make 50
    cents and had mouths to feed or $5 and had mouths to feed, a lot of
    people would come to try find that $5 work. And so here's my position,
    and that is that if there is someone who will do a job an American won't
    do, then that person ought to be given a temporary-worker card to work
    in the United States for a set period of time.
        I do not believe that any guest-worker program ought to contain
    amnesty, because I believe that if you granted amnesty to the people
    here working now that that would cause another 8 million people or so to
    come here. I do believe, however, it is humane to say to a person,
    ``You're doing a job somebody else won't do; here is a temporary card to
    enable you to do the card.''
        The length of the stay here will be dependent upon the actions of
    the Congress. It's conceivable you could have a 3-year period with a
    renewal period. I've thought a lot about this issue; I just want you to
    know. And by the way, when you mention guest worker, a lot of people
    automatically spring to amnesty--all he wants to do is grant legal
    status--that's just not the case; I don't believe we ought to do that.
    But I do believe we ought to recognize there are people doing work
    others won't do.
        And there's a lot of good employers here in Kansas employing these
    people, and the employers don't know whether or not somebody is here
    legally or not, because what's happened is, a whole kind of industry has
    sprung up around people coming here. And it's inhumane. It's inhumane
    for the people being trafficked into the United States, and it's not
    fair to employers who may be breaking the law.
        And here's what I mean. You've got people being smuggled into the
    United States of America by these criminal networks. They're called
    coyotes--coyotes. And they're bringing them in the back of 18-wheelers--
    stuffing human beings to come and do work in America that Americans
    won't do, in the back of 18-wheelers. You've got a whole forgery
    industry up and running, you know? And so these guys show up with
    documents that--so the employer says, ``Well, you look legal to me.''
    They don't know whether they're legal or not legal.
        I think it is a--and I know that we've got a lot of our Border
    Patrol agents trying to catch people sneaking in the country. And so it
    seems like to me that why don't we recognize reality, give people worker
    cards on a temporary basis so somebody can come back and forth legally,
    with a tamper-proof card that will enable an employer to know whether or
    not they're hiring somebody who is illegal. And if we catch employers
    after that hiring somebody illegal, there's got to be a fine and a
    consequence.
        And so a compassionate way to enforce our border is to give people a
    temporary-worker card without granting amnesty. That's a long answer to
    a very important problem that is--now is the time for the United States
    to take it on squarely, in a humane way, that recognizes the situation
    and deals with it in an upfront way. And I want to thank you for your
    question.
        Look, I've got a dinner tonight. [Laughter] I'd like to be here for
    a longer period of time, but Laura is serving
    dinner for retiring Alan Greenspan, and I
    better not be late, otherwise all that advice, it will be kind of--have
    a little different tone to it. [Laughter] I've really enjoyed being
    here. I want to thank you for your courtesy for having me. Thank you for
    supporting a great university in Kansas State University.
        May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless our country.
    Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:51 a.m. in Bramlage Coliseum at Kansas
    State University . In his remarks, he referred to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius
    of Kansas; Jon Wefald, president, Kansas State University; President

    [[Page 123]]

    Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan; senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab Al
    Zarqawi; President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea; President Mahmud Ahmadi-
    nejad of Iran; President Hu Jintao of China; and President Vladimir V.
    Putin of Russia.