[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
[March 10, 2006]
[Pages 441-456]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks at the National Newspaper Association Government Affairs 
Conference and a Question-and-Answer Session
March 10, 2006

    The President. Thank you very much. Jerry 
likes to give a short introduction. [Laughter] I appreciate you letting 
me come by to visit with you some, and I look forward to answering some 
questions you might have. You can't come to a newspaper deal without 
answering questions. [Laughter]
    First, I want to thank you all for being part of the backbone of 
democracy. You know, you can't have a democracy unless there is a free 
and vibrant press corps. I sometimes remind people I may not like what 
you print, but what you print is necessary to maintain a vibrant public 
forum where people feel comfortable about expressing themselves. And so 
thanks for what you do. I appreciate it very much.
    I also recognize that not all the press is located in the big cities 
in America. I remember running for the United States Congress in 1978. I 
came in second in a two-man race, by the way. [Laughter] And I remember 
people telling me, ``Whatever you do, you make sure you go knock on the 
door of the rural newspaper.'' If you're interested in finding out 
what's going on in the community, you not only go take questions, but 
you listen to what the people are saying. And I've never forgotten that 
lesson that good politics means paying attention to the people not only 
in the big cities but outside the big cities. It's one of the reasons I 
was grateful to accept your invitation. I'm looking forward to being 
here.
    A couple of thoughts on my mind--first, obviously, your businesses 
thrive when the economy is good. And part of our job here in Washington 
is to make sure the environment for entrepreneurship and small 
businesses and the farmers and ranchers of this country is a strong 
environment. And this economy of ours has overcome a lot. We've overcome 
a recession and an attack, a national emergency, corporate scandals, a 
war, natural disasters. And we've overcome it, and the reason I say that 
is because the statistics say it--not just the politicians--but 
statistics: 3\1/2\ percent growth last year. The national unemployment 
rate as of today is 4.8 percent. That's lower than the average rate of 
the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s. Today we just learned that we've added 243,000 
new jobs last month. That's about 5 million jobs over the past 2\1/2\ 
years. American workers are defying the pessimists. Our economy is 
strong. Productivity is up. Homeownership is up.
    The fundamental question facing folks here in Washington and at the 
State governments is, what do you do to make sure that the economy 
remains strong? My philosophy can be summed up this way: The role of 
government is to create an environment in which the entrepreneurial 
spirit flourishes.

[[Page 442]]

    I believe one of the reasons we're having the economic success we're 
having is because we cut the taxes on the people. I believe that when 
somebody has more money in their pocket to save, invest, or spend, the 
economy benefits. The tax relief we passed is working. Parts of it are 
set to expire. I'm reminding the American people that if the Congress 
doesn't act, you're about to get hit with a tax increase you don't 
expect and most people don't want. So for the sake of economic vitality, 
to make sure this economy continues to grow and to make sure America is 
competitive in a global economy, Congress needs to make the tax relief 
permanent.
    Now, some will say, ``Well, we've got to raise taxes in order to 
balance the budget.'' That's not the way Washington works. Washington 
will raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your money; 
that's how it works.
    The best way to balance the budget is to keep progrowth economic 
policies in place. In other words, keep the taxes low so the economy 
grows, which generates more revenues for the Treasury, and set 
priorities on the people's money. I've submitted a budget to the 
Congress which keeps us on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
    Setting priorities is a difficult task for some in Washington. Every 
program sounds worthwhile. Everybody's spending request is necessary. 
But Congress needs to set priorities, needs to be wise about the 
people's money. And if they need some help, they ought to give me the 
line-item veto, and that way we can bring budget discipline, help keep 
budget discipline in Washington.
    The long-term budget challenge is--it really has to do with 
mandatory spending, what's called mandatory spending. That's code word 
for Social Security and Medicare. Baby boomers like me are getting ready 
to retire. My retirement age happens in 2008, by the way, which is 
aligned perfectly. [Laughter] I talked about the issue last year. I'm 
going to keep talking about the issue. The job of a President is to 
confront problems--that's why you put me up here--is to deal with 
problems, not to pass them on or hope somebody else takes care of it.
    And we have a problem with Social Security and Medicare. We've got a 
lot of people retiring and not enough people paying into the system. 
We've been promised a lot of benefits, our generation, better benefits 
than the previous generation. And so Congress needs to join me in 
setting aside all the needless politics in Washington, DC, to come 
together and to present a solution to the American people so we can say 
we've done our job. I'm looking forward to working with Congress.
    I said it in the State of the Union: I want people at the table. I 
meant it. I want Republicans and Democrats to come to the table, to come 
up with a solution. Part of the solution is going to be--the best way to 
describe it is like an automobile; if you're speeding, you slow your car 
down to get to the speed limit. You don't put it in reverse. We can fix 
the problem. We can come together and show the American people we're 
capable of dealing in a bipartisan way.
    We also need bipartisanship when it comes to energy. I surprised 
some of you, and I'm sure some of my Texas friends here were somewhat 
surprised to hear me say, ``We're addicted to oil, and that's a 
problem.'' [Laughter] And it is a problem. It's an economic problem--
economic/security problem. When demand for fossil fuels goes up in India 
or China or elsewhere, it affects the price of gasoline in Granbury, 
Texas, Jerry.
    When I'm sitting around the Oval Office talking about national 
security matters and somebody says, ``Did you see what the Iranians said 
about consequences?''--really what they're talking about, I guess, is 
energy. So for national security purposes, we have got to become not 
addicted to oil.
    And there are ways to do this--really interesting ways, exciting new 
technologies.

[[Page 443]]

And Congress and the administration needs to work together to fund those 
new technologies. For example, it's possible to develop energy from saw 
grass. We know we can develop energy from sugar and corn; we're doing it 
in the Midwest. Those of you in the Midwest have seen the advent of the 
85 pumps. Well, we need to be able to get ethanol out of other forms of 
biomass. And it's coming; we're close to some breakthroughs. We want 
people driving cars from fuels grown in America; that's what we want.
    There's going to be hybrid batteries being developed that will 
enable you to plug in your car or your truck, and you'll be able to 
drive the first 40 miles on electricity. That's coming. It's called 
plug-in hybrid vehicles. That's going to be a part of making sure we're 
not addicted to oil.
    Same on the electricity front. We can use wind power and 
electricity. These are all coming to the market because of research. 
They're becoming competitive forms of energy. We need nuclear power, in 
my judgment. It's a renewable source of energy that doesn't create 
greenhouse gases. We're spending a lot of money, by the way, on clean 
coal technology. We've got 250 years of coal here in the United States 
of America, and we can--we're developing technology so that we can burn 
the coal cleanly. In other words, we've got a comprehensive strategy to 
get us off oil, and looking forward to working with both Republicans and 
Democrats to get this passed.
    One other issue, then I want to talk about the war on terror right 
quick; then I'll answer questions. Probably wondering whether I'm going 
to filibuster you. [Laughter]
    We've got to make sure our children have the skills necessary to 
fill the jobs of the 21st century. If you're interested in talking about 
No Child Left Behind, you can ask me about it. I'm a firm believer. I 
believe it's changing public education for the better because we're 
measuring. And we've got to use the same high standards that we've 
applied for reading in the early grades for math in the middle years, 
junior high. That's what we need to do.
    And we need to spend research and development money at the Federal 
level so that we're always on the leading edge of technological change, 
that the United States is the leader of the world, and that we've got to 
make sure the research and development tax credit is a permanent part of 
the Tax Code, recognizing two-thirds of research dollars comes from the 
private sector.
    One of the things--I guess what I'm telling you is, is that I don't 
fear the future for the United States because we intend to shape the 
future with good policies that keeps our economy flexible, 
entrepreneurial, that recognizes that small business is the backbone of 
job creation, that honors the contribution of our ranchers and farmers. 
I'm very optimistic about the economic future of the United States, and 
I'm looking forward to working with Congress to make sure the 
environment continues to encourage job growth.
    We're at war. I wish I could report to you we weren't at war; we 
are. There's an enemy that still lurks, that would like to do serious 
harm to the United States. Much of my thinking, the decisions I have 
made, all revolve around that fateful moment when we got attacked. As 
concerned citizens, I'm going to share with you a little bit about why I 
have made decisions I have made. I'll be glad to answer any question you 
have along those decisions.
    But I vowed after September--on September the 11th and after I would 
use all assets at our disposal to protect you. That is, by far, the most 
important job of the President, is to secure this homeland. There are 
lessons to have been learned after September the 11th. One of them is 
that we cannot take our security for granted. Listen, I understand that 
this is a different kind of war, and there are some in our country that 
may not believe there

[[Page 444]]

is a global war on terror. They may believe this is an isolated 
incident; I don't. I know we're at war with a jihadist movement that has 
got strategies and tactics to back up those strategies.
    So we cannot take our security for granted. And we must remain on 
the offense, and we are. We're dismantling Al Qaida. It takes time. But 
whoever is the President of the United States after me must always keep 
the pressure on Al Qaida.
    Secondly, we cannot let terrorists find safe haven. They found safe 
haven in Afghanistan, where they could plot and plan and attack. And 
therefore, it's very important for the United States to deny safe haven.
    Thirdly, when we see a threat, we've got to take it seriously and 
never allow it to materialize. The first choice of any President ought 
to be to deal with issues diplomatically. And we dealt with the issue of 
Iraq diplomatically--Security Council resolution after Security Council 
resolution after Security Council resolution, until 1441, when the world 
spoke with a united voice that said to Iraq: ``Disarm, disclose, or face 
serious consequences.'' Saddam Hussein chose 
otherwise. He was removed from power. And there's no doubt in my mind 
that the United States is more secure, and the world is better off 
without Saddam Hussein in power.
    And now we must achieve a victory in Iraq by helping this country 
defend itself, secure itself, and become an ally in the war on terror. 
The enemy we face has got a powerful weapon. They can't defeat us 
militarily. They do not have an ideology that is appealing to people. 
But they do have the capacity to kill innocent life, and they're willing 
to do so, all attempting to shake our will and cause us to leave the 
Middle East, so they can find save haven from which to launch attacks. 
That is what they have said. And as your President, it is important for 
me to see the world the way it is, the realities of the world, not the 
way some would hope it would be.
    We've got a three-part strategy in Iraq, that on the one hand says 
there is a--that politics can help achieve our objective. And the Iraqi 
people have said loud and clear--not in one election, but three 
elections during the past year--they want freedom. Eleven million people 
went to the polls in the face of terror and threats. There are some who 
are trying to, obviously, sow the seeds of sectarian strife. They fear 
the advancement of a democracy. They blow up shrines in order to cause 
this Iraqi democracy that is emerging to go backwards, to not emerge. 
That's what you're seeing on your TV screens. You're seeing the use of 
violence to try to create strife. And there's no question, this is a 
period of tension in Iraq.
    The Iraqi forces responded well, however, which is the second part 
of our strategy, and that is to let the Iraqis take the fight to the 
enemy. It's up to Iraq to make the decision. They made the political 
decision, and now it's up to them to make the decision to defend their 
own security against those who would stop the march of democracy. And 
after the shrine bombing, while there was no question about it, there 
was attacks; nevertheless, the Iraqi forces moved. In 16 of the 18 
Provinces, there was relative calm. And they performed, by and large, in 
good fashion.
    I know people in your parts of the world wonder how long the troops 
are going to be there. They're going to be there so long as the 
commanders on the ground say they're necessary to achieve victory. But 
they're coming home as the Iraqis are more likely to be able to take the 
fight to the enemy.
    And the third aspect is economic development. That includes wise 
reconstruction efforts, creation of a central bank, a sound currency, 
small businesses. And if we don't lose our nerve, I'm confident we'll 
achieve our objectives, and a democracy in the heart of the Middle East 
is going to help lay peace.

[[Page 445]]

    Part of winning this war on terror requires alliances. America has 
got a lot of friends in the war on terror. People understand the stakes. 
They understand that the bombings around the world were an indication of 
the plans that terrorists have for those of us who embrace freedom.
    Obviously, you've been reading about the UAE issue. And I want to 
make a comment on that, the port issue. I'm sure that the decision by DP 
World was a difficult decision, to hand over port operations that they 
had purchased from another company. My administration was satisfied that 
port security would not have been undermined by the agreement. 
Nevertheless, Congress was still very much opposed to it. My 
administration will continue to work with the Congress to provide a 
greater understanding of how these transactions are approved, in other 
words, the process, and how we can improve that process in the future.
    I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our 
friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East. In 
order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our 
relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle 
East. UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror. They are a key 
partner for our military in a critical region.
    And outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military 
ships than any country in the world. They're sharing intelligence so we 
can hunt down the terrorists. They've helped us shut down a worldwide 
nuclear proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan. UAE is a valued and strategic partner. I'm committed 
to strengthening our relationship with the UAE and explaining why it's 
important to Congress and the American people.
    Thank you for letting me come by. Be glad to answer some questions.
    Yes, sir.

South Dakota Abortion Legislation

    Q. Governor Mike Rounds signed a bill this week banning almost all 
abortions in South Dakota, sort of a frontal assault on the 
Constitution--[inaudible]. I wonder if you agree with this process that 
the State has taken.
    The President. As a former Governor, I fully recognize that State 
legislatures will vote on matters that they think expresses the will of 
the local folks. Obviously, this bill he signed will work its way 
through the court system, and maybe someday be given a fair hearing in 
the Supreme Court. I don't know. I can't predict to you the course these 
legal challenges will take. I can assure you, however, if it does make 
it to the Supreme Court, the two 
people I nominated and who were 
approved were not picked because of any litmus test. They will interpret 
laws based upon the Constitution, is what they'll do. And so I followed 
this in the newspapers. I haven't talked to the Governor about it.

Health Care/Association Health Plans

    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Yes, I meant to call on you first. I'm sorry. 
[Laughter] Don't hold it against the man from South Dakota.
    Q. After that long introduction I gave you, I figured you owed me 
something.
    The President. I do owe you one. [Laughter]
    Q. This organization and its members are vitally interested in the 
passage of association health plans. And we wonder what the 
possibilities are for that.
    The President. I appreciate that.
    Q. And then as the next questions come around, we'll just hand this 
microphone around. So thank you.
    The President. Look what you did. Fine with me. No, don't worry 
about it. I don't care. [Laughter] I don't have to deal with the guy. 
I'm fixing to leave. [Laughter] I'm going to go meet with President 
Toledo of Peru here after this.

[[Page 446]]

    The question is association health plans. First of all, I fully 
understand the pressures being put on small businesses because of rising 
health care costs. And therefore, good policy needs to address the 
rising cost of health care. I've got some ideas for you. I'll get to 
AHPs in a minute.
    I think it's very important that there be more transparency in 
pricing in health care. It's really the only industry, when you think 
about it, where somebody else decides whether the price is worthwhile. 
The consumer isn't directly involved in health care decisions; a third-
party payer is. And so there's really no interaction between the 
provider and the customer when it comes to health care.
    I'm a big believer in what's called health savings accounts because 
it puts consumers in charge of health care decisions. And we strongly 
urge small businesses to look at this vehicle.
    Secondly, the health care is an inefficient industry--when you 
really think about what information technology has done to your 
business, providing better productivity increases, as well as 
interesting challenges, by the way. The same productivity increases 
haven't happened in health care. I mean, you've got a guy writing down 
prescriptions by hand and/or files being written by hand, and doctors 
don't write so good anyway, which leads to medical error and 
inefficiencies.
    So information technology, which we're now advancing here at the 
Federal level in conjunction with providers throughout the country to 
develop a common vocabulary so that eventually there will be electronic 
medical records with ample privacy protections available, will help 
wring out some of the costs of health care.
    Health care costs are driven by frivolous lawsuits. Doctors practice 
defensive medicine in order to be able to withstand a court challenge. 
And a lot of times that practice of defensive medicine isn't necessary, 
except for legal reasons.
    Secondly, lawsuits cause premiums to go up, which causes price to go 
up. And therefore, I'm a believer in medical liability reform at the 
Federal level. I wasn't when I first arrived in Washington; I thought 
States should handle it okay. But the problem is, is that it's estimated 
that these lawsuits and defensive practice of medicine and the rising 
premiums cause us to spend about $28 billion a year in additional 
Federal money through Medicaid and Medicare and veterans' benefits. And 
so I'm for medical liability at the Federal level.
    Finally, AHPs makes a lot of sense. I am a strong backer. I believe 
small businesses ought to be able to pool risk across jurisdictional 
boundaries so they can get the same benefits from larger risk pools that 
big companies get. So I'm a believer in AHPs. I think we've got a pretty 
good chance this year--I hope so--to get it out of the--I know we got it 
out of the House; we've got to get it out of the Senate. So part of a 
comprehensive strategy for dealing with health care costs is to have 
AHPs as a part of a health care vision.
    Yes, sir.

Postal Reform

    Q. Mr. President, I've got a followup question about the small 
business--keeping small business healthy, that you referred to. Postal 
delivery rates are very important to community newspapers, much as you 
might know, I believe, Bonnie Mullens, of the McGregor Mirror and 
Crawford Sun down in your area. And we are----
    The President. She didn't call you 
to go after a subscriber, did she? [Laughter]
    Q. No, we just did a little research.
    The President. Okay, good. Smart man. That's called due diligence. 
[Laughter]
    Q. Postal reform, which has been going on in Congress for about 10 
years, was really pushed forward by a commission that you appointed, and 
it was passed overwhelmingly by both Houses. And we have this bill going 
to conference in April or

[[Page 447]]

May. There's some concern that the administration may want to oppose 
this bill or veto it if it's so-called not favorable to the Federal 
budget. But there are things in that bill that are very important to the 
newspaper industry. And part of that is the funding that keeps rates 
fair--because of some overpayment of military pensions--that we don't 
think should be put on the taxpayers, the rate payers. So we'd ask your 
support on behalf of us and Bonnie Mullens----
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. ----to support that bill as it's in the Congress if it comes to 
your desk, sir.
    The President. As you know, we do support postal reform. And as you 
accurately noted, we've got the process started, and we look forward to 
working with Congress on an acceptable bill.
    Frankly, this issue hasn't made it to my desk prior to me arriving 
at this meeting. And I'm mindful of the bill. I need to know more about 
the particulars before I make you a commitment one way or the other.
    Yes, sir.

Iraq/Spread of Democracy

    Q. Mr. President, what are our plans if civil war breaks out in 
Iraq?
    The President. Yes. Step one is to make sure--do everything we can 
that there not be one. Secondly, I believe the Iraqi people have made a 
choice. It wasn't all that long ago that 11 million people went to the 
polls. It may seem like an eternity, but that was last December that 
people defied assassins, car bombers, threats, and said, ``We want a 
democracy.''
    Secondly, the first real test for an interim government occurred 
when the Shias' shrine was blown up, the holy site. And while there's--
as I said earlier, there was--no question there was violence and 
killing, the society took a step back from the abyss, and people took a 
sober reflection about what a civil war would mean.
    I just got off of a teleconference with Ambassador Zal 
Khalilzad, as well as General Casey. They're obviously concerned about sectarian 
violence and the violence you see. They understand people are trying to 
create this tension, this ethnic tension. But they were also pleased 
with the response of the security forces. It wasn't perfect across the 
board. But nevertheless, in 16 of the 18 Provinces, I've mentioned that 
there was relative calm. Most of the violence was in the Baghdad area. 
It's the violence you're seeing on your TV screens.
    And so the purpose is to make sure that we continue to remind the 
interim government that the people want democracy. One of the keys is 
going to be to get a unity government up and running, a government that 
reflects the diversity of the country. We talked about that today. We 
want the Iraqis to make that selection, of course. They are the ones who 
got elected by the people. They're the ones who must form the 
government.
    But we are going to continue to remind them that the sooner they can 
get a unity government up and running, the more confidence the people 
will have in their future. So it's to take advantage of the desire of 
the Iraqis to live in a peaceful world and encourage government to 
continue to respond to fight off the desires of few people, fight off 
those who are trying to sow the seeds, and get a democracy going.
    It's very important for the people in the Muslim world to understand 
that we understand there's a--we're dealing with a--that we want them to 
have a democracy that reflects their histories and their traditions. 
Iraqi democracy doesn't have to look like the United States, nor should 
it. But it's also important for people around the world to recognize 
that there are such things as the natural rights of men and women.
    That's what we're founded on here in America. We believe in the 
universality of freedom. We believe people desire to be free, not just 
Americans, but universally. And that faith--at least my faith in the

[[Page 448]]

natural rights of men and women and the desire for people to be free was 
expressed at the ballot box. And it's that powerful statement that I 
believe will enable Iraq to develop a democracy.
    A democracy in Iraq is important. It's important to deny safe haven 
to Al Qaida. Zawahiri made it clear--
he's the number-two man in Al Qaida--that it's just a matter of time for 
America leaving. That's what he said. And the reason why that was 
important for him to say because they wanted to use Iraq as a place to 
plot/plan, as well as to spread their jihadist, their Islamist--radical 
Islamic view. They're totalitarians. That's what they are. And we've got 
to recognize them as such.
    And so it's kind of a long-winded answer to my belief that we will 
succeed, and we must succeed. And the reason I say we will is because 
the Iraqis want us to succeed. They want to succeed.
    There's a lot of talk about Iran. A free Iraq will inspire reformers 
in Iran. I believe the more women are empowered in the Middle East, like 
it's going to happen in Iraq, the more that will inspire others in the 
Middle East to demand their freedom.
    Now, if you don't believe freedom is universal, then I can 
understand skepticism about what I just said. But I reject that notion 
that freedom is only available to some of us. I believe liberty is 
universally desired. And I know it's in our interest to help democracy 
spread.
    I like to remind people about this historical parallel, and I've 
used it a lot. You've probably have heard it, so I beg your pardon for 
bringing it up again. But it's important for me to connect the idea of 
laying the foundation for peace with reality, and that reality is what 
we see in Europe today. There were two major world wars in Europe in the 
1990s--I mean, the 1900s. And today, Europe is free and whole and at 
peace. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that the nations of 
Europe are democracies. Democracies don't war.
    One of my best buddies in the international arena is Prime Minister 
Koizumi of Japan. What's interesting about 
that is my dad fought the Japanese--as did, 
I'm sure, your relatives, some of your relatives. And yet today I can 
tell the newspaper owners that I work with Koizumi to keep the peace. 
Democracy has the capacity to turn enemies into allies and cause, kind 
of, warring factions to come together. And it's hard work to help a 
democracy get hold, particularly if you had just left--lived under the 
thumb of a brutal tyrant, somebody who'd kill you in a moment--or get 
you killed in a moment's notice.
    Remember, we discovered mass graves of a lot of people in Iraq. This 
guy--Saddam Hussein was brutal for the people 
of Iraq. And there's a lot of tension and a lot of rivalry. One of the 
big issues we're going to have to deal with is to make sure that people 
don't take revenge outside the rule of law. Militias that are, kind of, 
seeking revenge. And at any rate, I'm just trying to share with you some 
of my--the philosophical tenets of the decisions I have made and my 
optimism about the future and my hopefully realistic assessment about 
the necessity for us to achieve our objectives.
    Remember, this is a global war on terror. We've got a strong ally in 
Pakistan fighting off Al Qaida. And Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of 
Saudi has committed itself to fighting Al Qaida. Lebanon is now becoming 
a freer democracy, although we've still got work there to make sure 
foreign influence is--allow the Lebanese democracy to grow. Libya made a 
decision to get rid of its weapons programs. And there's--positive 
things are happening, and they need to happen on a global basis because 
this is a global war on terror.
    Yes, ma'am.

Trade

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Many of the things that you've 
mentioned today are

[[Page 449]]

affecting the State. We have a high unemployment rate. And of course, 
much of our economy is dependent upon the automobile industry.
    The President. Right.
    Q. General Motors is having problems with their health care plans, 
their pension plans, and of course, the issue of gas is definitely one--
energy conservation. I know the auto industry has asked the 
administration for advice and for help in this problem. What role do you 
see the Federal Government playing in terms of some of the industries in 
the country that are partially problem-makers for your policies, as well 
for the people of our State?
    The President. People have asked whether or not private companies 
that have made pension promises should be relieved of their 
responsibility. And my answer is, if you make a promise, you've got to 
keep it--that if you said, ``I--company X, Y, Z--promise you this,'' 
it's up to the company to make good on the promise. I think that's a 
very important principle to state loud and clear.
    One of the real issues that affects Michigan and people in Michigan 
is trade. They're concerned about trade. They're worried that trade has 
only benefited our friends but not our country. Let me take a step back 
and tell you I'm a free trader. I believe it's very important for this 
country to be opening markets. I'm confident that if the playing field 
is level, that we can compete with anybody. And therefore, one of the 
things I've tried to assure the people of Michigan is that not only am I 
free trader, I believe the rules ought to be fair. In other words, I 
would hope that American people say, ``Just treat us fairly, and we've 
got the confidence to compete.''
    I know our farmers can compete. And for those of you who remember 
the price of soybean a couple of years ago, part of that is because we 
opened up markets. If you've got cattle men and women in your area, 
buying your newspapers, one of the things they constantly talk to me 
about is, ``Get those markets open; work with the Japanese to get that 
market open again.'' If you've got chicken growers--I remember one of 
the first discussions I had with Vladimir Putin in Russia was, ``You 
made some promises on our chickens; open up your markets like you said 
you would do.''
    My point is, is that opening markets is good, so long as we're 
treated fairly. So I've constantly reminded the Chinese leadership that 
intellectual property rights needs to be protected; your currency needs 
to be floated; treat our people fairly. That's all we want. Our 
manufacturers need to have a level playing field.
    And so I fully understand Michiganders' concerns about the trade 
arena. And I would think it would be a mistake if we become a 
protectionist nation. I thought so strongly about it that I put it in my 
State of the Union Address. I am worried about isolation and 
protectionism. To me, it's a lack of confidence in our ability to shape 
the future, and I think it would be wrong economic policy. And so I will 
continue to work to open up markets. But I fully am aware of the issues 
in Michigan.
    Yes, sir.

Gulf Coast Reconstruction

    Q. Mr. President, I publish in the southern and eastern suburbs of 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
    The President. There you go.
    Q. I know you've heard a lot of complaints from Louisiana and seen a 
lot of hands out. I would like to thank you for your personal interest 
and also for all the money. [Laughter]
    My Congressman, Richard Baker, came up with the idea of employing a 
Federal entity to buy out property in New Orleans and sell it back into 
commerce selectively. It seemed to have a political consensus in 
Louisiana from both parties. It got to your office and was rejected.
    The President. Correct.
    Q. Can you talk a little bit about the problems that you see with 
Richard's plan?

[[Page 450]]

And also, you're still about to send billions more down to us. How would 
you like to see that money handled, since you've been to us 10 times?
    The President. Well, thank you. First of all, I want to thank the 
people of Baton Rouge for being so generous to the evacuees. I want to 
thank my fellow Texans for being generous to evacuees, and I'm sure 
people throughout--I'll bet you most of you are involved with 
communities that said, ``Welcome.'' And that was a fantastic gesture of 
kindness by the American people, by the way.
    I felt like there was a better approach to the housing issue. He's 
talking about a good fellow, a really good guy named Richard 
Baker, came up with a plan that basically 
had the Government buying the property, getting developers to develop 
the property, and to the extent that money was not recovered, the 
Government would basically be the banker.
    Working with the folks--let me step back. Right off the bat, I knew 
it was important for Louisiana to develop its own plan, not have the 
Federal Government say, this is the--impose a plan, but to have the 
folks in Louisiana come up and develop a plan. We, obviously, have 
interfaced with them, because as you recognize, in kind of a cavalier 
way, ``Thanks for all the money.'' [Laughter] Well, not ``cavalier.'' 
You made sure you mentioned it, let me put it to you that way. 
[Laughter]
    And Louisiana had the Baker plan but also was developing another 
plan, as well, and one that we agreed to. Governor Blanco has put together a citizens group of 
distinguished people--good, honorable people--who are working closely 
with the group that Mayor Nagin put together, 
to develop a plan that will take CDBG money, and money I've requested in 
the supplemental, to basically have money that goes directly to the 
homeowner. I like that idea better than the Government moving in and 
becoming the bank, as opposed to the Government providing money for 
individual homeowners to make decisions.
    And the rules and the zoning laws attributable to that money are now 
being developed. But it's a very good concept, in my judgment. It's very 
important for Congress to make sure that the $4.2 billion, I think it 
was, request in the supplemental go to Louisiana, as I said down in New 
Orleans the other day.
    Step one in the recovery in New Orleans has got to be to make sure 
that the levees are strong enough--equal to or better than pre-Katrina--
in order for there to be confidence for the market, confidence for the 
homeowner to be able to rebuild in certain parts of New Orleans.
    Secondly, it's important that as the levees are rebuilt and people 
gain confidence, that there be a rational development plan in place. I 
think a lot of taxpayers really don't want to pay money for people to 
rebuild in an area that's likely to be flooded again. And the people of 
New Orleans understand that, and the people of Louisiana understand 
that. That issue is being addressed.
    Thirdly, it's very important that the Federal Government rebuild the 
infrastructure that we're obligated to rebuild in a timely fashion. 
Incredibly enough, the Slidell bridge, as I understand it, because of 
proper incentives, was built in record time, under budget. That may be a 
contradiction in terms when you hear a Federal official saying, ``under 
budget, on time,'' but nevertheless, I believe that's what the 
Governor told me.
    And so there is a comprehensive strategy in place that I'm 
comfortable with. Details need to be worked out, more details about 
dealing with the flood plain issue and how high the houses have to be 
rebuilt if people choose to rebuild there. I like the idea of funding 
people, of letting them make the decision.
    By the way, Mississippi--and I don't know if we've got any folks 
from Mississippi here--but if you've ever been to the gulf coast of 
Mississippi since the storm, you'll

[[Page 451]]

know what I'm saying--it looked like a bomb blast. It just leveled, 
absolutely wiped out a lot of homes and property and some lives along 
there. And they developed a plan too--their own plan.
    Louisiana is different from Mississippi. They came up with a 
Mississippi plan that has been funded. And they are now in the process 
of saying to homeowners, ``We're helping you rebuild your lives.'' I 
went to a home where the guy building--rebuilding it on the beach. I 
forgot how high he's got it up, but it's high enough to meet new 
standards, new building standards.
    Debris removal in both locations is--you just can't imagine how much 
debris was there. As you know, I'm not too poetic to begin with, so I'll 
probably not be able to describe it properly. Let me just say, it's a 
lot. [Laughter] I mean, a whole lot. And Mississippi has moved a lot of 
it off private and public land--I'm probably telling you more than you 
want to know.
    I'll just give you an interesting public policy dilemma. When we 
first got down there, the Government will remove debris off public 
property but not private--will pay to remove debris off public property 
but not private property. The simplest way to explain why not is, you 
start moving debris off private property, and the guy shows up and says, 
``Where's my million-dollar necklace?'' And so therefore, there needs to 
be a kind of a held-harmless statute, or a held-harmless agreement with 
local authorities. And so we've devised a perfectly legal way of saying 
that if you declare a health and safety hazard for particular blocks, 
then Government money will pay to clean up the land. A lot of 
Mississippi has been cleaned up because a lot of the local folks decided 
to take that tack.
    Now, the problem in Louisiana, as far as debris cleanup, is that--
like in the lower Ninth, a lot of people haven't come back to their 
homes yet to see the devastation. They've been displaced around the 
country. And until people are able to come home and until people are 
clear about what the rules will be and the funding mechanism will be, 
it's going to be--the debris removal will be slow. We've done a pretty 
effective job of cleaning debris off the public right-of-ways, public 
lands but not off the private lands. And so that's yet another deterrent 
to economic development.
    So all this is coming together. My point--the funding is coming 
together; the levees are coming together; the rules about reconstruction 
are coming--or rebuilding are coming together; and the debris removal, 
albeit slow at this point in time, waiting for people to inspect their 
houses, will probably accelerate when people realize there's a way 
forward--long answer to a complicated problem.
    We've got $100 billion that has been allocated for the region, which 
is going to create some interesting opportunities and further problems. 
One is going to be labor. People are going to be rebuilding down there a 
long time. If you're interested in making a living, go down there, and 
there will be a job. And we want the first people hired, of course, to 
be Mississippi people and Louisiana people. It's a great opportunity, by 
the way, for small business development. And I'm a believer--as you can 
tell, I'm an optimistic person. I believe that out of this terrible harm 
and grief is going to come a vibrant part--a vibrant economy.
    You know, sales taxes receipts are, I think, almost equal to what 
they were last year in Mississippi. It's amazing, isn't it? There's 
great resiliency to the American people.
    Anyway, thanks for asking. Yes, sir.

Democracy/Free Speech

    Q. Aurora, Colorado--and in our town a teacher was suspended for 
remarks critical of your State of the Union message, made the talk 
shows, et cetera--compared you to Hitler and--actually, I've heard the 
tape and he didn't; he said, ``Hitler-esque,'' but it's not the----
    The President. He's not the only one. [Laughter]

[[Page 452]]

    Q. And it's not the content that my question is about. My question 
is about your sense of the free speech right in the classroom or in 
public to criticize you without being considered unpatriotic.
    The President. Yes, I think people should be allowed to criticize me 
all they want, and they do. [Laughter] Now, what are you all laughing at 
over there? [Laughter] Don't cheer him on. [Laughter]
    Look, there are some certain basic freedoms that we've got to 
protect. The freedom of people to express themselves must be protected. 
The freedom of people to be able to worship freely--that freedom is 
valuable. I tell people all the time, you're equally American if you're 
a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. You're equally American if you believe in 
an Almighty or don't believe in an Almighty; that's a sacred freedom.
    The right for people to express themselves in the public square is a 
freedom. Obviously, there's limitations--if, for example, someone is 
inciting violence, or the destruction of property, or public--causing 
somebody harm. But the idea of being able to express yourself is a 
sacred part of our society. And that's what distinguishes us from the 
Taliban, and that's important for Americans to understand.
    We're in an ideological struggle. And one way for people to connect 
the ideological struggle with reality is to think about what life was 
like for people under the rule of the Taliban. If you didn't agree with 
their view of religion, you were punished. If you tried to send your 
little girl to school, you were punished. These people have a backward 
view. I don't believe--I believe religion is peaceful. I believe people 
who have religion in their heart are peaceful people. And I believe 
these people have subverted a great religion to accomplish a political 
end.
    And so thank you for bringing that up; I appreciate it. People say 
to me, my buddies in Texas, ``How do you handle all this stuff?'' After 
a while, you get used to it. [Laughter] But you have to believe in what 
you're doing, see. You have to believe in certain principles and 
beliefs. And you can't let the public opinion polls and focus groups, 
one, cause you to abandon what you believe and become the reason for 
making decisions.
    My job is a job where I make a lot of decisions. And I decide big 
things and little things. And there are certain principles to 
decisionmaking. You make decisions--you know, you have to make a lot of 
decisions. And you don't put your finger in the air to figure out how to 
make a decision, and neither should the President of the United States. 
And you have to know what you believe.
    Good decisionmaking rests on certain basic principles. I believe in 
the universality of freedom. I believe democracies lead to peace. I 
believe people ought to worship freely. I do believe there's an Almighty 
God that has spread freedom--making freedom available for everybody. I 
believe in private enterprise. I believe in free enterprise. I believe 
in high standards in education. These are basic beliefs that I'm not 
going to change.
    And I know some would like me to change, but you can't be a good 
decisionmaker if you're trying to please people. You've got to stand on 
what you believe. That's what you've got to do if you're going to make 
decisions that are solid and sound. And I understand some of the things 
I've done are unpopular, but that's what comes with the territory.
    If you're afraid to make decisions and you only worry about whether 
or not people in the classroom are going to say nice things about you, 
you're not leading. And I think we've got to lead. We've got to lead to 
spread the peace; we've got to lead to protect this country; and we've 
got to lead to make sure we're the preeminent economic power, so our 
people can benefit.
    Yes, sir.

[[Page 453]]

War on Terror/Iran/North Korea

    Q. Who do you think the biggest threat is: Iran, North Korea, or 
China?
    The President. Interesting question. The biggest threat to American 
security: Iran, North Korea, or China. Why did I call on you? [Laughter] 
No. It would be an Oklahoma guy, you know? [Laughter]
    The biggest threat to American security, short-term, is Al Qaida. 
They would like to attack us again. I think about Al Qaida and their 
potential to attack all the time--all the time. That's what you want 
your President doing. My job is to basically insulate people from some 
concerns. You don't risk capital if you're worried about an attack 
coming tomorrow. You don't go confidently about your business if an 
attack is right around the corner. I understand that. But I think about 
it a lot. So step one--I'm changing your question: Would you please 
order the threats?--Al Qaida.
    I said in an early speech there was an axis of evil, and it included 
Iran and North Korea. I said that, I think, help me out here, April--
2002 perhaps? Yes, State of the Union. If it's not 2002, it's 
April's [April Ryan, American Urban Radio 
Networks] fault, because she nodded her head. [Laughter] Relatively 
early in my Presidency.
    I did that because I'm concerned about totalitarian governments that 
are not transparent, that have stated their intentions to develop 
nuclear weapons. One of the real dangerous threats, of course, is the 
nexus of terrorist groups, nonstate groups that get a weapon of mass 
destruction, which is their stated objective. And so I'm concerned about 
that.
    I'm concerned about--I would say they're equal, Iran and North 
Korea, as for a security threat, because any time there's a 
nontransparent regime without a free press to hold people to account, it 
creates an unpredictability in the world. The Iranian President has stated his desire to destroy our ally, 
Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said, to their desire 
to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave 
national security concern.
    And therefore, it's very important for the United States to continue 
to work with others to solve these issues diplomatically--in other 
words, to deal with these threats today, and we are. We've got the EU-
3--which is Great Britain, France, and Germany--diplomatic lingo, 
sorry--are basically taking the position for the free world to the 
Iranians, that said, ``No nuclear weapon and no knowledge about how to 
make a nuclear weapon.''
    I talked to Vladimir Putin this week--
or the Foreign Minister from Russia this 
week, about making sure that we're--Russia says the same thing. In other 
words, we want the Iranians to hear loud and clear that the world is 
speaking with one voice when it comes to their capacity to develop a 
nuclear weapon. Remember now, the reason we are where we are is because 
they had agreed to international norms and then were caught not adhering 
to the international norms. In other words, they basically tried to pull 
one over on the world. And to me, that's a warning signal we've got to 
take seriously.
    Korea--the issue is one in which we tried to alter the relationship 
with the Koreans to be more than just the voice of the United States 
saying to the Koreans the same thing. And so we've now got China, South 
Korea, Russia, Japan, and the United States involved in what's called 
the six-party talks.
    Ultimately, I think it's very important for the people in those 
countries to be able to live in a free society. If you believe liberty 
is universal, then you would hope liberty would spread to those 
countries as well.
    The Chinese--you know, our relationship is a very interesting 
relationship with the Chinese. It's an amazing country, in many ways. 
It's a country that has got--it's got to create 25 million new jobs a 
year to

[[Page 454]]

stay even. Think about that. It's a country that has chosen the path, by 
and large, of markets and enterprise. They are an economic issue for us, 
and that's why we've got a huge deficit with them. And therefore, it's 
very important for the Government to, on the one hand, reject 
protectionism, but on the other hand, insist that their market is open 
and it be traded freely and fairly, like I answered the lady from 
Michigan. I don't view--China is a more--China is a strategic partner 
when it comes to trade, for example. And I can't say that about the 
other two countries. And so the relationship is different; it's a 
different relationship.
    He's giving me the hook, because I've got to go see President 
Toledo. But anyway--yes, ma'am.

No Child Left Behind Act

    Q. I represent the Tullahoma News, from Tullahoma, Tennessee. I have 
the very best job there. I'm the wife of the publisher.
    The President. Yes. I don't know if Laura 
would say the same thing. [Laughter]
    Q. But I wanted to know what you understand the complaints to be 
about your No Child Left Behind policy, and if you acknowledge those 
complaints as any weaknesses to the policy? How effective do you think 
that it is in spite of that?
    The President. No, good question. I'm glad you brought up No Child 
Left Behind. The complaint is that, ``How dare the Government cause us 
to measure''--one of the complaints--``Too much testing,'' you know. I 
heard that when I was the Governor of Texas. Jerry didn't editorialize there, I'm sure. [Laughter] Maybe 
you did.
    You know, ``How dare you test people who don't speak English as a 
first language.'' My answer to those concerns is that, how do you know 
if you don't test? How can you possibly tell whether a child is learning 
to read and write if you don't measure? When I was the Governor of our 
State, I was deeply concerned about a system where people would come to 
me and say, ``You know what? We're getting kids in college that are not 
very literate.'' This kind of, just--social promotion was the culture 
and the norm.
    If I were a newspaper owner, I'd want to make sure people could 
read. And one way to make sure people read is to measure early whether 
or not people can pass a test. I've heard people say, ``All we're doing 
is teaching the test; you're causing people to teach the test.'' And my 
answer to that is, teaching a child to be literate will enable that 
child to pass the test. There's something fundamental about literacy.
    Secondly, people said, ``We believe in local control of schools, and 
the No Child Left Behind Act is not local control of schools.'' I 
strongly disagree. I believe in local control of schools. The No Child 
Left Behind Act said, ``We're spending a lot of Federal money, 
particularly on Title I students; show us whether or not the money is 
being well spent.''
    We didn't say, ``Here's the curriculum you must use; here are the 
class sizes you'll have.'' We didn't say, ``We're going to design the 
test on your behalf.'' I fought off a national test, because I believed 
a national test would undermine local control of schools. All we said 
was, ``Measure, and post your scores for everybody to see, and that 
you've got to be meeting a higher standard.'' In other words, we're 
holding people to standards. So I believe the No Child Left Behind Act 
honors local control of schools.
    One of the classic debates that takes place at the local level is 
what curriculum to use. I'm sure some of you have been through the 
classic reading curriculum debates. They raged hot and heavy in the 
State of Texas for a while. And you'd have, this side would be yelling 
at that side. One way to make sure that your curriculum works is to 
measure. If a child is passing reading by using this curriculum, and 
another child is not passing reading when they use another curriculum, 
it provides a

[[Page 455]]

useful tool for the local newspaper, for example, to say, ``We told you 
so; the curriculum is not working,'' or, ``We told you so; the 
curriculum is working.''
    There's got to be accountability in the public school system. If you 
do not diagnose a problem, you can never solve the problem. And one of 
the things about No Child Left Behind which is important is that when we 
diagnose a reading problem early, there is supplemental service money to 
help that child be brought up to speed. That's why it's called No Child 
Left Behind. We believe every child can learn--every child. And 
therefore, this is a program that says we want accountability for the 
taxpayers' money. We'll provide extra help early on when we find a child 
who needs extra help. And it's working. That's the other thing that I 
would tell people. How do I know? Because we measure.
    There's an achievement gap in America that is not right. When you 
measure at the fourth grade, Anglo kids did fine; African American and 
Latino kids didn't. And that's not fair, and it's not right. And so 
we've essentially ended social promotion in the early grades and said, 
we're going to correct problems. And it's working because that gap is 
narrowing. And the reason I can say that is because we measure.
    Interestingly enough, when you, kind of, compare measurements 
internationally in math and science or math, we're doing fine in the 
fourth grade. We're falling off in the eighth grade. And so what I want 
to do is to apply the same rigor for reading that we did in the early 
grades to math in junior high. So in the eighth grades we get those 
scores and, kind of, lay that foundation for the sciences and the 
engineering--the physicists, so we can compete.
    I'm a strong believer in No Child Left Behind. My Secretary of 
Education, my good buddy, Margaret Spellings, who helped me put a similar program in place in the 
State of Texas, is now the Secretary of Education. She's obviously 
listening to complaints about certain aspects of AYP. But we're not 
going to undermine the basic tenet that says we believe in high 
standards; we believe every child can learn; and we're going to measure. 
And when we see the status quo is unacceptable, we'll challenge the 
status quo. That's what you need to, and I'm sure you are doing that. It 
ought to be unacceptable to opinion makers when you find illiteracy. And 
you ought to demand change, not only for your own self interest but for 
the sake of this country. And so thanks for asking the question.
    I've got to go. Listen, I'll be a diplomatic problem if I don't get 
over there on time. [Laughter] I'm honored you'd have me. Thanks for 
letting me come by and visit with you. God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 9:45 a.m. at the Wyndham Washington Hotel. 
In his remarks, he referred to Jerry Reppert, president, and Jerry 
Tidwell, vice president, National Newspaper Association; former 
President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; A.Q. Khan, former head of Pakistan's 
nuclear weapons program; U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Gen. 
George W. Casey, Jr., USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--
Iraq; Ayman al-Zawahiri, founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and 
senior Al Qaida associate; President Vladimir V. Putin and Minister of 
Foreign Affairs Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia; Gov. Kathleen Babineaux 
Blanco of Louisiana; Mayor C. Ray Nagin of New Orleans, LA; President 
Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; and President Alejandro Toledo of Peru.

[[Page 456]]