    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book II)]
    [October 3, 2006]
    [Pages 1758-1765]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at a Reception for Congressional Candidate John T.
    Doolittle in El Dorado Hills, California
    October 3, 2006

        Thank you for coming. Thanks for the warm welcome. It's good to be
    in El Dorado County. [Laughter] I can see why you live here. It's a
    beautiful part of the world. And I'm honored to be standing here with a
    man who has done a fine job as a Member of the United States Congress,
    John Doolittle.
        He was telling me on the way in, you did a pretty good job filling
    the hat--[laughter]--and I want to thank you for doing that. He deserves
    your support. He's a straightforward, honest, decent man with a lot of
    common sense. That's what we need in Washington, DC, a lot of common
    sense. And I'm proud to be standing with John Doolittle, and I
    appreciate Julie, and I appreciate his family.
        I'm also proud to be here with the Congressman from the next
    district, and that would be Dan Lungren.
    Dan, thank you for coming, and I'm glad you brought Bobbi with you. I also appreciate Doug Ose, a former Congressman. Doug is with us, a good friend of
    mine; I'm proud to be with him.
        The truth of the matter is, old John, when he's thinking about who
    could come and speak, really didn't want me first. [Laughter] He had
    somebody else in mind for this event--not
    Barbara--[laughter]--Laura. That shows good
    judgment. [Laughter] Laura sends her best to the Doolittles. She, like
    me, strongly believes John deserves to be reelected to the United States
    Congress. And we want to thank you for doing that.
        By the way, I know I'm not very objective, but I think Laura is a fabulous First Lady. I know she's a great wife and
    a fabulous mother, and she's got to be the most patient woman in
    America. [Laughter]
        I believe strongly that our philosophy represents the philosophy
    that is the most hopeful for all Americans. I believe our philosophy is
    one that works, because we've seen it work. Take, for example, the
    economy. I want you all to remember that the past 5 years, this economy
    has been through a lot. It's been through a recession, corporate
    scandals; it's been through a terrorist attack on the United States. The
    economy had to endure the fact that I decided to protect this country by
    going on the offense against the terrorists, and so we had a war in
    Afghanistan and a war in Iraq, and natural disasters we had to deal
    with, high energy prices. And yet the economy of the United States is
    the envy of the industrialized world. People are working. The
    entrepreneurial spirit is strong. Our farmers and ranchers are doing
    well. Small businesses are growing. Productivity is up.
        Something happened, and what happened was, we cut the taxes on the
    working people and the small-business owners. Our philosophy is that the
    more money you have in your pocket, the better off the economy is. We
    like it when you've got more money to save, spend, and invest. We know
    that when you save, spend, or invest, the economy grows.
        That stands in stark contrast to our opponents, the Democrats. They
    believe they can spend your money better than you can. And make no
    mistake about it, one of the fundamental differences of this campaign

    [[Page 1759]]

    is what will the tax rates look like. If you vote Republican, we're
    going to keep the taxes low. If the people vote Democrat, the Government
    is getting into your pocket and spend your money on your behalf.
        Now, you might not--listen carefully to the rhetoric in this
    campaign. You see, we've got these tax cuts in place, and a lot of them
    are going to expire. So when you hear people say, ``Well, we're not
    going to extend the tax cuts,'' that really means they're going to raise
    your taxes. It's like saying to somebody, just giving them a raise and
    say, ``Well, I'm going to take the raise away from you.'' That's not a
    raise.
        In order to make sure this economy continues to grow, in order to
    make sure the entrepreneurial spirit remains strong, in order to make
    sure our small-business sector continues to lead economic growth, we
    need to make the tax cuts permanent. And John Doolittle understands
    that. He knows it loud and clear. He stands on principle in Washington,
    DC. He trusts you with your own money.
        You'll hear these--all kinds of excuses about why they want to raise
    your taxes. Perhaps the one you hear the most of is, well, we just need
    to raise your taxes to balance the budget. The problem is, that's not
    the way Washington, DC, works. I've been up there long enough to know
    how it works. They'll figure out new ways to spend your money when they
    raise your taxes. They'll have more money to spend on pet projects. The
    best way to balance the budget is to keep taxes low, grow the economy,
    which yields more tax revenues, set priorities with your money, and be
    fiscally sound. And that's what we're going to continue to do.
        And the single biggest priority to spend with your money is to make
    sure our troops have all the equipment, training, and support they need
    to do their job. And Congressman John Doolittle understands that. And
    I'm proud to say that by working with people in the Congress like
    Congressman Doolittle, our military is well-funded and the esprit de
    corps is high. I can't tell you how great it is to be the Commander in
    Chief of such wonderful people, men and women who, in the face of
    danger, said, ``I volunteer to serve the United States of America to
    protect our freedoms.'' Our military is great, and we intend to keep it
    that way, for your sake.
        I couldn't help but notice there's a lot of farmers and ranchers in
    this part of the world. I strongly suggest making sure you've got a
    Congressman in Washington, DC, who understands how important it is to
    have a strong agricultural sector. I personally believe that when the ag
    sector is strong, our economy is strong. And I know full well we've got
    to have a strong agricultural sector for national security reasons. John
    Doolittle understands farming, and he understands ranching, and he's
    representing you well in the United States Congress.
        Speaking about national security, we got to make sure we become less
    dependent on foreign sources of oil. There's a complacency, I'm sure,
    that's going to start setting in here because gasoline prices are low.
    And I'm glad they're going down. I'm glad for the sake of the working
    people in the United States. I'm glad for the sake of the farmers and
    ranchers. I'm glad, for the sake of those who make a living on the
    highways, that the price of gasoline is going down. But that doesn't
    lessen the national security consequences of being dependent on foreign
    sources of oil.
        And so I look forward to working with John Doolittle to fund
    research and development on technologies that will enable us to drive
    automobiles with ethanol or to be able to have new batteries that will
    enable you to drive the first 40 miles on electricity--and your car is
    not going to have to look like a golf cart--[laughter]--or eventually
    powering your automobiles by hydrogen. And this is coming. We're
    spending a lot of your money on research to enable this country to
    become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, and in the meantime, we
    need to be exploring for oil

    [[Page 1760]]

    and gas in environmentally friendly ways right here in the United States
    of America.
        There's a lot of issues I look forward to working with Congressman
    Doolittle on: making sure our education system continues to hold people
    to account; making sure the health care system empowers patients and
    providers--and not the Federal Government--when it comes to making
    decisions for you; making sure we get legal liability for our doctors.
    We got too many junk lawsuits that are running good doctors out of
    practice, which is running up the cost of your medicine.
        And I look forward to working with John to make sure our faith-based
    and community-based initiative still has support in the United States
    Congress. Let me tell you something about this country. The great
    strength of America is not in our military or not in the size of our
    wallets but exists in the hearts and souls of our fellow citizens. I am
    proud of and complimentary of the fact that thousands of our citizens
    volunteer on a daily basis to feed the hungry, find shelter for the
    homeless, without one single law. People hear that call to love a
    neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself. And it's changing
    our country, and it's saving souls. And the Federal Government ought not
    to fear the influence of faith in our society, but we ought to welcome
    faith-based and community projects to help solve America's most
    intractable problems.
        There's going to be a lot of domestic issues we will be working on.
    But by far the biggest issue of this campaign and the biggest issue
    confronting the Federal Government is this: the security of you, the
    security of the United States. Make no mistake about it, there's an
    enemy that still lurks, an enemy that still plans, an enemy that still
    plots, an enemy that still wants to hurt the United States of America.
    These are ideologues bound by a hateful ideology. They can't stand what
    America stands for.
        We believe strongly in the right of people to worship any way they
    see fit. As a matter of fact, one of the great strengths of the United
    States of America is you're equally American if you're a Muslim or a Jew
    or a Christian or a Hindu or an agnostic or atheist. You have a right to
    choose in the United States of America, and that right is a sacred
    right. But that's not the case with these ideologues. If you don't
    worship the way they want you to worship, there's penalty, and harsh
    penalties at that. They don't believe in the public square. They don't
    believe in people being able to dissent. They're bound by this ideology,
    and they've got objectives. And their objective is to drive the United
    States from parts of the world so they can spread their ideology
    throughout the Middle East in the form of a caliphate.
        I like to remind people that we're in the ideological struggle of
    the 21st century. It's a struggle between good and evil. It's a struggle
    between moderate people and extremists. It's a struggle between those
    who believe in democracy and those who support tyranny. And the
    decisions that we make today will affect the security of the United
    States and affect the type of world your children and grandchildren live
    in.
        These are historic times, and they're tough times, and they require
    steady leadership from the United States of America. And I need steady
    support in the United States Congress to protect this country. After 9/
    11, I came to these conclusions: One, that in order to protect you, in
    order to defeat this enemy of hatred, that we must stay on the offense.
    We must defeat the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at
    home. I concluded that where we find people harboring these terrorists,
    they should be judged equally as guilty as the terrorists. And the
    Taliban found out what the United States meant when they refused to turn
    over Al Qaida. And today, because of the actions of our coalition in
    Afghanistan, terrorist training camps and safe havens have been
    eliminated, 25 million people now live in freedom, and the world is
    better off for it.

    [[Page 1761]]

        And of course, the great debate is Iraq. The debate you'll hear a
    lot of talk about is, what should the United States of America do in
    Iraq? The first thing I would ask the Democrats is, do they truly
    believe the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? And if so, they need to say it loud
    and clear, because I know full well that this state sponsor of terror, a
    person who had used weapons of mass destruction, a person who invaded
    his neighbors, the sworn enemy of the United States, someone who was
    shooting at U.S. pilots, someone who defied the United Nations
    resolution, removing him from power has made America safer and the world
    a better place.
        The debate is active and alive, and that's good. You hear people in
    Washington, DC, say that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. I
    believe it is a central front in the war on terror, and I believe we
    must defeat the enemy and help that young democracy succeed in order to
    make sure this homeland is more secure. But don't believe me. Just
    listen to the words of Usama bin Laden or
    Zawahiri, the number two in Al Qaida.
    They have loudly proclaimed that Iraq is central to their ambitions.
    They have made it abundantly clear that they will continue their
    murderous ways to drive us out of Iraq so they can establish safe haven
    from which to launch further attacks.
        They want a capacity to be able to topple moderate governments who
    do not subscribe to their view of the world. Imagine a world 20 or 30
    years from now where moderate governments have been toppled, where
    extremists are battling for power in the Middle East, where these
    killers have got control of oil resources, which they would use to
    punish the free world economically if the free world didn't concede to
    their demands. Imagine that kind of world in the midst of which was a
    country with a nuclear weapon aiming to--and vowing to--destroy our
    close friend Israel. If that world were ever to exist because the United
    States of America lost its nerve during this battle in Iraq, history
    would look back and say, what happened to them? How come they couldn't
    see the problem? How come they lost their nerve and left a generation of
    Americans to deal with a troubled world?
        Now is the time to confront this group of killers and these
    extremists. Now is the time to defend the United States of America by
    defeating the enemy overseas. Now is the time to stand with the 12
    million people who demanded their liberty. Now is the time to help young
    democracies and moderates around the world, so when history looks back,
    they can say they did their duty and they laid the foundation of peace
    for a generation to come.
        The challenge of defending you here at home is immense because we've
    got to be right 100 percent of the time, and the enemy has only got to
    be right one time. And that's why, after 9/11, I called upon the
    Congress to make sure that those responsible for defending you have got
    all the tools necessary to do so. I worked with Congress to pass the
    PATRIOT Act to break down walls that prevented the intelligence services
    from talking to the criminal justice, the law enforcement personnel. I
    can't explain very well why that was the case. I'm sure you're wondering
    how come somebody who gathered intelligence in the United States
    couldn't share that same information with law enforcement, but
    nevertheless, that's the way it was.
        You cannot defend this country unless all branches of government
    have the capacity to talk to each other, to share information. This is a
    different kind of war. This isn't a war measured by the number of
    platoons or size of a navy. This is a war in which we must find about
    the intentions of the enemy and take care of them before they come and
    hurt us.
        And so therefore, our people need the tools necessary to protect
    you. And that's why I established the terrorist surveillance

    [[Page 1762]]

    program to monitor terrorist communications coming into this country and
    out of this country. Listen, after 9/11, we created the program with the
    Central Intelligence Agency to detain and question key leaders that we
    picked up off the battlefield. When I said, we're going to give these
    people tools, those are the kind of tools I was talking about.
        On each of these programs--the PATRIOT Act and the terrorist
    surveillance program and the legislation to authorize aggressive
    interrogation of terrorists--the Democrats say they share our goals, but
    when it comes time to vote, they have consistently opposed giving our
    personnel the tools they need to protect us. And this is an issue in
    this campaign.
        The issue in this campaign is which party, which group of
    individuals have got the will and the foresight necessary to give our
    professionals the tools necessary so they can do the most important job
    facing our Government, and that is to protect you from further attack.
    Time and time again, the Democrats want to have it both ways. They talk
    tough on terror, but when it comes time--when their votes are counted,
    their softer side comes out. [Laughter]
        You don't have to worry about Doolittle. [Laughter] He understands
    the stakes. He understands the cause.
        If you've got a second, I'd like to review these three acts and the
    legislative history in the hopes of clarifying the differences between
    how we think and how the other people think. First, on the PATRIOT Act:
    In the weeks after 9/11, we passed this vital law, and in the 5 years
    since, it has proved invaluable to stopping further attacks. In other
    words, it's worked. The law enforcement community has used the law to
    break up terror cells or prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters
    in California and Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia,
    Ohio, New York, Oregon, and Florida.
        In 2001, the vote in the United States Senate was 98 to 1. And then
    5 years later, when the bill came up for renewal, the Senate Democrats
    filibustered it. That's Washington-talk for trying to kill it. They
    didn't want it to go forward. As a matter of fact, the Senate Democrat
    leaders, when they were filibustering, said, ``We
    killed the PATRIOT Act.'' And a reporter said
    whether that was something to celebrate--does that really make sense to
    celebrate that maneuver? And his answer was, ``Of course it is.''
        See, there's a difference of opinion in Washington, DC. It's a
    difference of opinion in this campaign and campaigns around the country.
    As a matter of fact, saying they were for the PATRIOT Act and then
    working to kill the PATRIOT Act kind of reminds me of another campaign.
    [Laughter] We may be heading back to the old days. Finally, the
    filibuster died, and I signed the law, and the United States of America
    is safer because of it.
        I know you're familiar with the program of the National Security
    Agency called the terrorism surveillance program that I installed. I did
    so to protect you. The philosophy behind the program is pretty clear,
    pretty simple to understand: If Al Qaida or an Al Qaida associate is
    calling into the United States, we want to know why. We want to know
    their intentions. We want to be able to prevent an attack.
        People say, ``Well, how do you know they're Al Qaida?'' Well, a lot
    of times, we're picking up information on the battlefield--say, one of
    these people we pick up has got a phone number on their possession, and
    it happens to be a U.S. phone number. I think it makes sense--I don't
    care whether you're Republican or Democrat or independent--for the
    United States--[laughter]--wondering why somebody would be calling that
    phone number. [Laughter]
        Last week, when the legislation providing additional authority for
    the terrorist surveillance program came before the House of
    Representatives, 177 Democrats voted

    [[Page 1763]]

    against listening in on terrorist communications. See, it's a clear
    position. It's a clear signal of how they view the world in which we
    live. I'm not saying these people are not patriotic; they are. I'm not
    saying they don't love America; they do. They just see the world
    differently, and it's an important issue in this campaign, as to how we
    see the world.
        I see the world as a dangerous place. I see the world with enemies
    coming to try to hurt us. I see our most important job is to protect
    you. And therefore, we will give our folks on the frontline of terror
    the tools necessary to do so.
        I want to spend a little time on this CIA program. I set up the
    program to detain and question key terrorist operatives and leaders who
    were captured on the battlefield. You see, a captured leader may have
    some information that will help protect you. You know, they may know
    plans; they may understand what plots are underway. And I know that our
    security depends on getting this kind of information.
        In the past 5 years, the good and decent professionals of the CIA
    have worked tirelessly to get information from captured terrorists that
    enabled us to stop new attacks on the homeland. In other words, we were
    able to get vital information that we can act on to protect you. Every
    American has got to understand the importance of this program.
    Information from the terrorists questioned by the CIA helped break up a
    cell of Southeast Asian terrorist operatives that had been groomed for
    an attack on the United States. The program helped us stop an Al Qaida
    cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States. It
    helped stop a planned strike on a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, prevent
    a planned attack on the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. It helped foil a plot
    to hijack airplanes and fly them into Heathrow or London's Canary Wharf.
        In other words, from this program, we got vital information that
    enabled us to act to protect you. Were it not for this information from
    the terrorists questioned by the CIA, our intelligence community
    believes that Al Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching
    another attack against the United States.
        Last week, the Congress held a vote on the future of this program.
    The choice before every Member was clear: Should the CIA program
    continue or not? Congress voted to continue the program, thankfully, for
    the security of the country. I'm looking forward to signing this bill
    into law. And I thank John Doolittle for his strong support in helping
    getting that bill out of the United States House of Representatives.
        In this campaign season, this vote tells us a great deal--the vote
    on this bill tells a great deal where the two parties stand. In other
    words, you can get rid of all the rhetoric and you can look where the
    parties stand. In the House of Representatives, 160 Democrats, including
    the entire Democrat leadership, voted against continuing this program.
    Eighty percent of House Democrats want to stop a program that has
    provided invaluable intelligence that has saved American lives.
        In the Senate, 32 Democrats, including every member of their Senate
    leadership save one, voted to kill the program, which means that about
    three-quarters of the Democrats in the Senate, including both of the
    Senators from the State of
    California, voted to stop the men and women
    of the CIA from continuing a program to get information from terrorists
    like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed about
    planned attacks on the United States of America.
        We just have a fundamental difference, and it's a key difference for
    all Americans to look at and listen to. During the debate on the Senate
    floor, one senior Democrat, their ranking
    member on the Judiciary Committee, compared the brave Americans who
    question the terrorists to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. I believe this exposes a dangerous mindset on the part
    of Democrats in the United States Congress. You can't defend America if
    you can't tell the

    [[Page 1764]]

    difference between brave CIA officers who protect their fellow citizens
    and brutal dictators who kill their citizens.
        I'm not making any of this up. [Laughter] Another Senate
    Democrat said that allowing the CIA to go
    forward with its program to question the most dangerous terrorists we
    have captured would, in this person's words, ``diminish the security and
    safety of Americans everywhere.'' We just have a different mindset, a
    different view of the world. If they feel safer without this program,
    the Democrats in the Senate need to explain to the American people which
    of the attacks that the CIA program stopped would they have been willing
    to let go forward.
        Protecting your country is the number-one priority as far as I'm
    concerned, and it's the number-one priority as far as Congressman
    Doolittle is concerned. We must see the world the way it is and stay on
    the offense and bring these people to justice before they hurt any
    American citizen.
        But there is a different point of view in Washington. The House
    Democratic leader, right here from the State of
    California, summed up her party's approach to the midterm elections this
    way: She said, ``This election shouldn't be about national security.''
    Well, I think it's about national security, and I think when the people
    take a good look about the dangers confronting the United States of
    America, they'll think it's about national security. Democrats take a
    law enforcement approach to terrorism that means America will wait until
    we're attacked again to respond. That's kind of a pre-9/11 mentality,
    and it's not going to make this country any safer.
        We believe that we're in a war and that we must prevent attacks from
    happening in the first place by staying on the offense. If you want
    leaders in Washington who understand the enemy we face and will give our
    folks the tools necessary to protect you, if you want people in
    Washington who are not going to sit back and wait to be attacked again,
    you make sure you send people like John Doolittle back to the United
    States Congress.
        I'm an optimistic fellow. I believe strongly in my heart of hearts
    that not only will we secure this country, but we will do the hard work
    necessary to help moderates and reasonable people and people who long
    for peace in the Middle East achieve their dreams. When we find young
    democracies attacked by extremists, we'll help them survive. When we
    find liberty challenged in dark corners of the world, we'll stand with
    those reformers and those reasonable people who are anxious to see the
    extremists defeated and marginalized. This is the call of the 21st
    century. This is the challenge for our generation. And I'm confident--
    I'm confident that our generation will rise to that challenge. And when
    history looks back, they will say, job well done.
        Thanks for coming. God bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 2:12 p.m. at the Serrano Country Club. In
    his remarks, he referred to Julia Harlow, wife of Rep. John T.
    Doolittle; Bobbi Lungren, wife of Rep. Daniel E. Lungren; former
    President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al
    Qaida terrorist organization; and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, senior Al
    Qaida leader responsible for planning the September 11, 2001, terrorist
    attacks, who was captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003.

    [[Page 1765]]