[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
[June 15, 2006]
[Pages 1139-1145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks at the Initiative for Global Development's 2006 National Summit
June 15, 2006

    Thank you all. Whatever successes this administration has had in 
combating global poverty, Colin Powell gets 
a lot of credit. I will spend some time talking about our responsibility 
as government to address global poverty. It's a responsibility we take 
seriously, and it's a responsibility that Colin Powell carried out in 
his distinguished tenure as the Secretary of State of our country. I 
want to thank you for being a friend, and thank you for your service to 
the country. He's a good man.
    Thank you all for allowing me to come by to speak. I appreciate the 
cofounders and the leaders of the Global Development effort. I want to 
thank you for having this summit. Thank you for being what I call social 
entrepreneurs, people who care about the plight of other people.
    The facts are these: Across the globe, more than a billion people 
live on less than a dollar a day. That should be a troubling statistic 
to all Americans. They lead lives of hunger; they lead lives of 
desperation. Every day is a struggle just to survive. That struggle 
ought to inspire us here in America. It's inspired you; it ought to 
inspire all our citizens.
    I want to thank you for lending your expertise and your funds to 
address problems alongside your Government. Colin said, ``You know, this is not a governmental effort; it's 
not a business effort; it's not an NGO effort; it's a combined effort by 
a lot of compassionate hearts to address a significant problem.'' And so 
I'm here to thank you for your commitment and to let you know, we're 
pleased to stand with you.
    I want to thank Susan Schwab, who 
traveled with me today. Maybe you don't know who she is, but you will 
soon, because she just got sworn in as the new Trade Representative for 
the United States. So who do you pick to be the Trade Minister? Well, 
you pick somebody who is a good negotiator, for starters, somebody who 
understands that opening markets is in our national interest and that 
when you open a market, you make sure--as we open our markets, you make 
sure you're treated fairly. That's what we want. That's all we want. We 
want to be able to tell the American people that free trade is good for 
our country, but fair trade means that it's responsible. And so she 
understands that. She'll be a good, hard negotiator, but she also 
understands something I understand, and that is, trade is one of the 
best ways to help lift people out of poverty. I'm going to talk about 
that in a little bit.
    I'm sorry Laura couldn't be with me here. 
She's a--she is a person who cares deeply about the suffering in places 
like the continent of Africa. When she travels, she brings the message 
to the people there that a lot of Americans care deeply about AIDS or 
care deeply about hunger or malaria. She sends her greetings. I'm lucky 
she said yes when I asked her to marry me. I think this country is lucky 
to have her as an ambassadress for the good hearts of the American 
people.
    I thank Bill Clapp and General 
Shalikashvili, former Senator Dan 
Evans, Bill Ruckelshaus, cofounders of the Initiative for Global 
Development. Thank you for being farsighted. Thank you for calling 
people to action. I thank the members who are here as well.
    I appreciate Ambassador Randy Tobias. 
He had a pretty easy job there in Indianapolis at one time. [Laughter] I 
asked him to--I asked him--I said, ``Look, Randy, you've got management 
skills, and you care; why don't you serve your country, see; why don't 
you come here to Washington, DC, and put up with all the rhetoric and 
the noise and the sharp elbows and do something for people around the 
world?'' And

[[Page 1140]]

he did. He ran the--he ran our HIV/AIDS initiative, and he did a really 
good job.
    America is on the leading edge of fighting HIV/AIDS, and one of the 
reasons we're effective is because of Randy Tobias. So I'm confident he wanted to leave--``See, I got a place 
in Montana where I can fish.'' I think you got one in Montana, don't 
you? Yes, he started talking about his fishing place in Montana. My 
answer was, ``You're not through yet.'' [Laughter] I said, ``You need to 
run USAID.'' It's an important part of helping deal with global poverty. 
It's an important part of our strategy. I want to thank you for staying 
on, and I want to thank you for your hard work and your vision. You 
represent the very best of corporate America. You get your skills; you 
make a living; and then you come and serve your fellow countrymen and 
the world. Randy, I really thank you for the inspiration and the example 
you've set.
    I'm going to talk about the Millennium Challenge Account. 
Colin mentioned it. The head of it is here 
today, John Danilovich. We were really 
kind of bureaucratic when we first got the thing set up. Like, we 
weren't moving money out the door, and Congress began to get nervous. I 
remember Colin was coming to the Oval saying, ``Look, it's a great idea, 
but we got to show some results here pretty quick.'' Danilovich 
understands the job is to be less bureaucratic and more forward-leaning 
when it comes to implementing the Millennium Challenge Account strategy. 
I want to thank you for taking on this important job.
    And I also want to thank my friend Rob Mosbacher, fellow Texan, who's running OPIC. Appreciate you serving 
the country. Thanks for coming up from Houston to serve.
    Here's what I believe: I believe to whom much is given, much is 
required. This country has been given a lot. We've got a great system; 
we've got wonderful entrepreneurs; and we're wealthy. We're wealthy 
because of the ingenuity of the American people. We're wealthy because 
there's risk takers. We're wealthy because we've got a fiscal system 
that encourages the private sector to flourish. We're wealthy because 
we're a country of rules and laws.
    I also believe that with prosperity comes an enormous 
responsibility. We have a moral duty to care for those who hurt here at 
home, and we have a moral duty to care for those--as best as we can for 
those abroad. That's part of the foreign policy of our country. It's a 
foreign policy that Secretary of State Powell helped implement--helped form and implement. We believe 
every person, no matter their income or economic status, bears the image 
of a Creator. That's what I believe. I believe every person, no matter 
their income or their status or where they live, has dignity of 
matchless value. And we believe that those who live in the most extreme 
poverty deserve this country's help.
    Fighting global poverty reflects this country's values. It serves 
our Nation's interests as well. It's the country's economic interest 
that we fight global poverty, because as developing nations grow in 
prosperity, they create better lives for their citizens and markets for 
U.S. products. It's in our security interests that we fight global 
poverty, because weakened, impoverished states are attractive safe 
havens for terrorists and tyrants and international criminals. We 
believe that young people without opportunities are susceptible to 
ideologies of hatred. And so by helping poor nations create a more 
hopeful future, we can not only build prosperity; we reduce the appeal 
of radicalism.
    Our values and our interests draw us to the same conclusion: The 
reduction of extreme poverty in our world must be a key objective of 
American foreign policy. And it is. And so today I want to talk to you 
about the need for us to expand trade, to promote freedom, and to reform 
the programs that we have in place, in order to achieve results, in 
order to say that--to the

[[Page 1141]]

American taxpayer, the money is not only being spent; it's being spent 
wisely.
    First, the strategy to defeat extreme poverty begins with trade. 
That's sometimes hard for some people to connect with. It's kind of a--
people don't quite understand why that's the case. One way to describe 
it, the value of trade, is this: The value of trade is more than 10 
times the value of foreign investment and foreign aid combined. In other 
words, prosperity as a result of trade is more likely, 10 times more 
likely, to have a positive effect on somebody living in a poor society 
than just investment and grants.
    History has shown what I'm talking about. Take the example of South 
Korea. It's probably hard for some to remember, back in the fifties, 
particularly if you were born in the sixties--[laughter]--but South 
Korea was one of the poorest nations in Asia. South Korea reformed its 
economy and opened its markets to the world. And today, export growth--
the capacity for people to find work in South Korea, for products that 
are sold elsewhere--has made this country the tenth largest economy in 
the world.
    India, for a long period of time, had restricted its markets. India 
opened its markets to global trade 15 years ago. It has doubled the size 
of its economy since then and created a middle class which is larger 
than the entire population of the United States.
    I don't believe these are isolated examples. The World Bank study 
found that developing nations that lowered their trade barriers in the 
1990s grew three times faster than those that did not. Economic growth 
is one important way to reduce poverty. It's the most effective way to 
reduce poverty. The best way to help millions mired in poverty is to 
expand the benefits of global trade. That's part of this 
administration's strategy.
    I asked Congress, and Congress granted trade promotion authority. It 
took a lot of work, as you recall, Mr. Secretary, but it was a necessary part of our capacity to expand 
trade. And since then, we've completed negotiations on free trade 
agreements with 15 nations on 5 continents with a combined population of 
200 million people.
    We've built on the success of the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act. For those of you who follow the economic vitality of Africa, you 
know that AGOA has been a very effective policy. It was put in place by 
my predecessor, President Clinton. And we 
signed into law the AGOA Acceleration Act. In other words, we took the 
step that President Clinton took and took it farther.
    And it's worked. That's what's important for our citizens to 
understand. Trade helps lift people out of poverty. Since AGOA's 
inception, U.S. imports from Africa have increased by 114 percent. Last 
year, over 98 percent of U.S. imports from AGOA-eligible countries 
entered this country duty-free. When somebody is able to sell a product 
into the United States, it means somebody is working. It means somebody 
has got a job. It means that people aren't reliant upon the Government 
to help them realize their dreams. This is like--AGOA has created new 
opportunities. Americans have got to understand that when we talk about 
trade, we're not only talking about enhancing economic growth and 
vitality; we're helping people get out of poverty. Trade is an important 
part of making sure that we implement this strategy.
    You know, the AGOA showed that bipartisan cooperation here in 
Washington is possible. And one thing you can help is to make sure that 
bipartisan cooperation on other trade agreements is possible in 
Washington, DC. If you're genuinely serious about reducing poverty, you 
need to help us make sure this Nation does not become a protectionist 
nation. The tendencies are to say, ``Let's just wall ourselves off from 
competition.'' But if we become a protectionist nation, if we lose our 
confidence and our capacity to compete in the

[[Page 1142]]

global economy, it will make it much harder to achieve the common goal 
of reducing global poverty.
    Now we're confronted with a really good opportunity, by the way, to 
deal with global poverty, and that is to complete the Doha round of the 
WTO negotiations. And it's tough sledding right now. You know, national 
interests seem to be kind of more important than a--than reducing 
barriers and tariffs across the world. You know, local politics has a 
lot to do with whether or not this Doha round is going to get completed, 
and I understand that. And I knew that going into the negotiations.
    And that's why at the United Nations last year, I made this pledge 
on behalf of the American people: We're ready to eliminate all tariffs 
and subsidies and other barriers to free flow of goods and services, and 
we expect other nations to do the same. That's what I said to get the 
Doha round moving. See, we're ready to make the move on agriculture and 
services and manufacturing, but we expect other nations to do the same 
thing. We expect other nations to give us market access. I want to be 
able to go to people here in the United States, producers, and say, ``We 
got you market access so you can compete fairly.'' And that's why we're 
going to get rid of the subsidies that now exist on the books.
    The Doha negotiations are at a critical moment. It is--in my view, 
countries in Europe have to make a tough decision on farming. And the G-
20 countries have to make a tough decision on manufacturing. And the 
United States is prepared to make a tough decision along with them. 
That's my message to the world.
    Susan's going to carry that message. I'm 
going to carry it to Europe next week at the EU summit. Now is the time 
for the world to come together and make this world a free trading world, 
not only for the benefit of our own economies but as an important part 
of the strategy to reduce poverty around the world.
    I think we have to expand freedom in order to reduce poverty. Free 
nations produce the vast majority of the world's economic output. Many 
of the worst dictatorships are some of the world's most poorest nations. 
I believe there's a correlation between prosperity and freedom. And this 
country of ours will continue to pursue an agenda that understands that 
human liberty is universal. It's just not a U.S. thing; it's its own--
liberty is something that everybody yearns for. And freer the world 
becomes, the more prosperous the world becomes and the more likely 
people will not be mired in poverty.
    Nations that build institutions that secure the rule of law and 
respect human dignity also are more likely to create an economic climate 
that fosters investment and growth. And so we support the rise of free 
and democratic societies across the world. And the story of freedom is 
one of the really, really interesting chapters of the 21st century, when 
you think about it. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Lebanon to Georgia to 
Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan, people have gone to the polls and elected their 
leaders. In the last 5 years, more than 110 million people have joined 
the ranks of the free. That's an astonishing development when you think 
about it. And it's a positive development for those of us who care 
deeply about global poverty.
    As more people gain their freedom, they will also gain the 
opportunity to build a better life. That's a fact of life. And so this 
country has got to be confident in our willingness, in our desire to 
help people--to help free people from the clutches of tyrants. I said in 
my second Inaugural speech, ``The goal of this country ought to be to 
end tyranny in the 21st century.'' I could have easily have said, ``One 
way to reduce global poverty is to reduce tyranny in the 21st century.''
    Free peoples need to do more than cast their ballots. We recognize 
that. Going to the polls is not the kind of freedom necessary to reduce 
global poverty. It's just

[[Page 1143]]

the beginning of a process to reduce global poverty. And so the United 
States has an obligation to help others build the institutions 
necessary--in a civil society--necessary to be able to deal in a--with 
the advent of freedom. And so we're helping new democracies build free 
institutions that are responsive to the people's needs. And we're doing 
so through organizations like the National Endowment of Democracy. We've 
worked to double its budget over the past 5 years. Those funds support 
programs that will help form civic organizations. We're helping 
dissidents become legislators. We're helping businesses in new market 
economies organize trade associations and chambers of commerce. It's the 
things we take for granted here in America, these funds are meant to do.
    It's one thing to promote trade; it's one thing to promote freedom, 
but we've got to recognize that our own aid programs have got to help 
complement those objectives. In other words, we want results from the 
money we spend. That's what the American people expect, by the way. See, 
when we talk about foreign aid, they expect the foreign aid to mean 
something. You know, I travel around a lot. I think about people out 
there that are working hard for a living, and they say, ``You know, 
you're spending this money overseas. Why?'' And the answer is, because 
not only do we have a moral duty, it's in our national interest to do 
so.
    But I've got to be able to tell them, as well, and anybody in 
elected office has got to be able to say, ``We're making a difference 
with the money, see; it's actually producing results.'' For decades, we 
provided aid with good intentions. We didn't always ask if we were 
getting good results. One of the great reforms of Colin Powell's tenure as Secretary of State is, he started asking, 
``What are the results of the programs; what are we achieving?''
    Since 2002, we've committed to increase the resources we devote to 
fighting poverty across the world. As Colin 
mentioned, since taking office, we more than doubled assistance around 
the world from 10 billion to 27\1/2\ billion. It's the largest increase, 
by the way, of foreign aid since the Marshall plan. And you get a lot of 
credit for that, Mr. Secretary. I remember you coming into the Oval 
Office saying, ``Let's put our hearts out there for people to see.'' And 
one way to do it is by increasing our budgets.
    I want to remind you what we're doing with that money. We're 
fighting HIV/AIDS, and we're helping countries fight malaria. We're 
expanding education for women and girls. We're rewarding developing 
nations that move forward with economic and political reform. And by the 
way, shortchanging these efforts--Congress has got to understand, in 
shortchanging these efforts, if they choose to do so in the 
appropriations process, they would undercut our long-term security and 
dull the conscience of our country. I urge Congress to serve the 
interests of America by showing the compassion of America and approve my 
full funding request for foreign assistance this year.
    And as we increase the resources, we'll increase accountability for 
those who have received American aid. In many poor countries, it's 
really important for all of us who are involved in this program to admit 
that corruption runs deep. And a lot of times, the assistance we have 
provided has been wasted or put in the pockets of corrupt officials. I 
know that's unpleasant for some to hear, but it's a fact. If we expect 
the people to support us in our efforts to be robust in our compassion 
overseas, then we've got to recognize that sometimes that money gets 
stolen and people don't get the results for the money that they expect.
    And so we decided to do something about it. We decided that our 
foreign policy ought to recognize true compassion as measured by real 
improvements, not just by the amount of money spent. And real 
improvement is the goal of our assistance.
    And so we've set up the Millennium Challenge Account. And it was set 
up

[[Page 1144]]

under the--in the State Department when Colin was there. And here's what it says, it says, ``We want to 
grant you money. We want to give assistance, but you've got to be 
responsible. You, the recipient, have got to be responsible for fighting 
corruption, embracing democratic government, encouraging free markets, 
and investing in the health and education of your people.''
    I remember when we put that out, it was a little controversial, as 
you remember. I don't see what's controversial in that. I don't see 
what's wrong with saying to a nation, ``You don't get any money if 
you're corrupt.'' Because we believe countries are capable of getting 
rid of corruption. I don't see what's wrong with saying, ``You've got to 
show real investment in education and health care in order to receive 
our money.'' I think that's a wise thing to ask. I think if part of the 
goal is to encourage economic development, we ought to say to countries, 
in return for U.S. aid, open your markets so you can enhance the 
prosperity of your citizens. Every nation that applies for a Millennium 
Challenge grant develops its own priorities and develops its own 
strategies. But one of the things we do--and this is what 
Danilovich does and his staff does--they 
develop clear goals that are measurable. So we say, ``This is what 
you're going to do? Fine. Show us as time goes on that you're doing 
it.''
    So far, eight nations have compacts in place that's worth over $1\1/
2\ billion. Additional 15 countries are now negotiating with the 
Millennium Challenge Account. And we're going to get the money out the 
door so long as they meet the criterion.
    But the point I'm trying to make to you is that wise use of 
Government monies can help us achieve objectives which lead to the 
reduction of global poverty. And so we're just through spending the 
money without asking for results.
    We're an optimistic nation. We believe countries have got the 
capacity to change; that's what we believe. We refuse to accept the 
status quo. It is time for other countries around the world to demand 
anticorruption regimes. If we're truly interested in reducing global 
poverty, those of us who are granting money need to stand up with a 
united voice and say, ``We're not going to tolerate corruption.''
    One of the things Randy Tobias and 
others are going to do at the State Department, they're going to apply 
the same principle I've just described to you to all our development 
aid. We're going to insist upon transparency and performance and 
accountability. We're going to ensure that every American aid dollar 
encourages developing nations to build institutions necessary for long-
term success. And we're going to help developing nations achieve 
economic independence. That's what we're going to do. We're going to get 
away from this notion about, kind of, just analyzing monies based upon 
percentage of this, that, or the other. We're going to be generous in 
our contribution and demand results in return.
    Now, what's interesting about the goal of eliminating poverty is 
that about 85 percent of American resources to the developing world come 
from the private sector. It's one thing for me to talk, and now I'm 
changing from what we're doing to encouraging you to continue doing what 
you're doing.
    The truth of the matter is, our generous Nation is--the generosity 
of our Nation is reflected in the private sector a lot. I think that's 
what makes us such a unique country. You know, government helps, and 
government does a lot. As I said, we've doubled aid, but what our 
private sectors do is--it's unbelievable, when you think about it.
    And corporate America has a responsibility. And for those of you who 
represent the NGOs and faith-based groups, thank you for joining the 
cause as well. This is a collaborative effort. Some of the best work in 
fighting poverty is accomplished in partnership with private 
institutions. The

[[Page 1145]]

Global Development Alliance has successfully built 400 worldwide 
alliances. That's good. You've leveraged about 1.4 billion of taxpayers' 
dollars to over $4.6 billion. In other words, you've taken the money 
we're spending as kind of a--I wouldn't call it a downpayment, but it's 
part of a way to really leverage your generosity.
    And you're making a difference in the lives of millions of people. 
I'm grateful for you. That's what I've really come to say. I've come to 
assure you that the effort to eliminate global poverty is an integral 
part of our foreign policy. And I think it needs to be a foreign--part 
of foreign policy after 2\1/2\ years, by the way. I think it needs to be 
a--I think it needs to be part of the calling of the United States in 
the 21st century.
    One of the moral objectives of our time--the great moral objectives 
of our time is to reduce poverty. I like what Alexis de Tocqueville said 
about America. He's a pretty interesting observer. Back in 1832, he 
captured a lot of the spirit of this country. He said this, he said, 
``When an American needs the assistance of his fellows, it's very rare 
that it be refused. When some unexpected disaster strikes a family, a 
thousand strangers willingly open their purses.''
    That was the America he saw in the 1830s. It's still got to be the 
America of the 21st century as well, but not only to help our fellow 
citizens here at home but for our national interests and our economic 
interests, and just to answer the call of our hearts, it ought to be our 
foreign policy. It ought to be the center of our foreign policy and the 
center of the social entrepreneurs in America.
    I want you to know that when disaster strikes, we move. We moved 
hard for the tsunamis, with a military presence that helped organize 
relief. When the earthquake came in Pakistan, we didn't hesitate; we 
moved. We know that when a neighbor needs assistance, that we have an 
obligation to help provide it.
    My assurance to you is that we will continue to stand with our 
brothers and sisters who are poor, to help as best as we possibly can, 
and I want to thank you for helping as well. God bless your efforts, and 
may God bless our country.

Note: The President spoke at 9:55 a.m. at the Willard InterContinental 
Washington.