[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]]