    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
    [July 19, 2007]
    [Pages 982-1000]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on the Federal Budget and a Question-and-Answer Session in
    Nashville, Tennessee
    July 19, 2007

        The President. Thank you all. Please sit down. Thank you all for
    coming. I'm glad you're here. Thanks, Darrell. Are you sure you want the Federal Government moving to
    Nashville? [Laughter]
        Thanks for the invitation. I've got some thoughts I'd like to share
    with you, and then if you've got some questions, I'd love to answer
    some. My job is the Commander in Chief, and my job is the educator in
    chief. And part of being the educator in chief is to help our fellow
    citizens understand why I've made some of the decisions I've made that
    are--have affected your lives. And so thanks for letting me come.
        Here we are in the Presidential ballroom--smart move,
    Darrell, to pick a Presidential
    ballroom. [Laughter] I'm sorry Laura is not with
    me. She is, first of all, a fabulous woman. She is a patient woman. And
    she is doing a marvelous job as the First Lady.
        I want to thank Ralph Schulz, the
    president and CEO of the Nashville Area Chamber. I thank the business
    leaders who have allowed me to come and visit with you. You do have an
    exciting city here. This, of course, is not my first time here. I can
    remember being here in the Opryland hotel complex when I was the owner
    of the Texas Rangers baseball team. And I can remember coming here for
    my mother and father's 50th wedding anniversary. They had a bunch of country
    and western singers sing to honor the 50th wedding anniversary, and it
    was a special time. And you're right: You've got a fabulous city here.
        I have just come from the Harrington's
    company, a small business here, the Nashville
    Bun Company. It was a--[applause]. And I know that some of the employees
    from the Nashville Bun Company are here. Thank you for being here today.
    It's quite an operation. It's a--I love going to small businesses
    because the small-business sector of our economy is really what drives
    new job growth. If the small businesses are

    [[Page 983]]

    doing well in America, America is doing well.
        And so I went by to see this operation, and I want to spend a little
    time talking about small-business growth, if you don't mind. And so I
    want to thank the Harringtons;
    they're good, solid Tennessee citizens who
    are entrepreneurs, risk-takers, dreamers.
        I don't intend to talk about this war against radicals and extremism
    in my remarks. If you've got questions, I'll be glad to answer them. I
    do want to, though, pay homage to those who wear the uniform. I'm
    honored to be with you. Thanks for serving the country.
        Cordia asked me in the limousine
    coming over here, ``Have you had any amazing experiences as the
    President?'' And, yes. [Laughter] I told her there's no more amazing
    experience than to meet those who have served in harm's way and to
    realize the strength of spirit of American citizens who volunteer during
    a time of danger. And one of the young men I have met during my
    Presidency--I did so in my home State of Texas--who is with us today, a
    man who is recovering from terrible injury but has never lost the spirit
    of life, Kevin Downs. He's a good man. We're
    going to get him some new legs, and if he hurries up, he can outrun me
    on the South Lawn of the White House. Proud that Kevin's mom and dad are here with us too.
        I want to spend a little time on the economy and, more particularly,
    the budget. You've got to worry about your budgets; we've got to worry
    about your budget too, since you're paying for it. [Laughter] There's a
    philosophical debate in Washington, and really it's kind of to calibrate
    how much money we need and how much money you need. Some say we need
    more of your money to expand the size and scope of government, or, they
    would argue, more of your money to balance the budget. Then there are
    those of me--like me in Washington who say, there's ample money in
    Washington to meet priorities, and the more money you have in your
    pocket, the better off the economy is. In other words, let me put it
    bluntly: I think you can spend your money better than the Federal
    Government can spend your money.
        Part of my job is to deal with problems. And I try to do so with a
    set of principles in mind. A principle is, you can spend your money
    better than the government can, but a further principle is, if you have
    more of your money in your pocket to save, invest, or spend, the economy
    is likely to--more likely to grow.
        We were confronted--this administration has confronted some
    difficult economic times, particularly earlier in this administration.
    There was a recession. There were the terrorist attacks that affected
    the economy in a very direct way. There were corporate scandals which
    created some thousand--uncertainty about us--our system that needed to
    be corrected. And we responded to those problems by cutting taxes.
        See, if you believe in the principle, the more money you have--and
    all of a sudden, you see some rough economic times, you act on the
    principle. So I worked with Congress, and we cut taxes on everybody who
    pays taxes. On one of these tax cuts, we said, okay, you deserve a tax
    cut, but you don't deserve a tax cut. It was the belief that everybody
    who pays taxes ought to get tax relief.
        And as you can see from this chart here, this is what the tax cuts
    have met--meant in 2007. But ever since they have been enacted, it has
    got the same type of effect. So if you're a average taxpayer, you're
    receiving $2,200 of tax relief. Some receive more; some receive less;
    but the average for all taxpayers is $2,216.
        See--and the fundamental question is, does it make sense to have the
    average taxpayer have that money in his or her pocket? I think it does
    for a lot of reasons. It encourages consumerism; it encourages
    investment; it enables people to be able to put money aside for a
    family's priorities.

    [[Page 984]]

    You don't want the government setting your priorities; you set your own
    priorities. And if college happens to be a priority of yours, if you
    want to save for your little guys coming up, here's some money for you
    to put aside. That's what the tax relief meant.
        There's obviously more tax relief for married families with children
    because there's the child credit. I thought it makes sense to say, if
    you've got a child, you ought to get credit for that child when it comes
    to the Tax Code to help you raise the children. You know, we put the--
    did something on the marriage penalty. Imagine a Tax Code that penalizes
    marriage. That's what the code did early on, and we mitigated the
    marriage penalty and the Tax Code. We ought to be encouraging marriage
    not discouraging marriage through bad tax policy.
        The Nashville Bun Company folks are organized so that they pay tax
    at the individual income tax level. A lot of small-business owners know
    what I'm talking about. If you're a LLC or a subchapter S, you don't pay
    corporate tax; you pay tax at the individual income tax rates so that
    when you cut taxes on all who paid income taxes, you're really cutting
    taxes on small-business owners as well. And if most new jobs are created
    by small businesses, it makes a lot of sense if you're dealing with
    economic problems to cut the taxes on those who are creating new jobs.
        The more money in the small business's treasury, the more likely it
    is they'll be able to expand. And when they expand, the more likely it
    is they'll be hiring new people. We also put incentives in the Tax Code
    that said if you purchase equipment--you're a small-business owner and
    you purchase equipment, like the English muffin rolling deal or whatever
    you want to call it--[laughter]--getting out of my lane here--
    [laughter]--we provide an incentive in the Tax Code to encourage you to
    purchase equipment. That not only helps your business become more
    productive and more competitive; the more productive and competitive you
    become, the more likely it is you'll be able to sustain growth and,
    therefore, continue hiring.
        But it also means that the English muffin manufacturing company--
    English muffin machine manufacturing company is more likely to have
    work. In other words, there's an effect; the Tax Code can affect
    commerce. And that's exactly what we did, and we cut the taxes, and it's
    worked. This economy is strong. Unemployment has dropped. Since April
    of--August of 2003, we've added over 8.2 million new jobs. Productivity
    is up. People are working.
        People are working. And that's what we want. We want people to say,
    I'm making a living for my family, and I've got more money in my pocket
    so I can make decisions for the best of my family. And I'm going to
    spend a little time, if you've got any questions, on how to keep it
    going strong.
        But I now want to talk about the budget. People say, you can't
    balance the budget if you cut taxes. That's one of the arguments in
    Washington, DC. I think all of us would like to balance the budget. But
    they're saying, ``I'm going to raise your money--raise your taxes so we
    can balance the budget.'' There's a flaw in that argument, and that is,
    most of the time they raise taxes on you, they figure out new ways to
    spend the money, as opposed to reckon it to deficit reduction. I've got
    a better idea that I want to share with you and share with the American
    people, and that is, the best way to balance the budget is to keep taxes
    low, growing the economy, which will yield more tax revenue into the
    economy. And it works, so long as you hold spending down. And that's the
    most important thing, is to keep taxes low and spending down.
        And I got a chart here I'm about to show you. Yes, there you go. And
    so I submitted a budget based upon no tax increases and being fiscally
    wise with your money. And here's the record of that plan. As you can see
    there, we had a deficit

    [[Page 985]]

    of $413 billion in 2004. This economy started picking up steam, kept the
    taxes low, and tax revenues started coming in, and then the deficit
    dropped to 318, and it dropped to 245, and it's anticipated it's going
    to be 205 in the year 2007. You can see the projection. We've done this
    without raising your taxes. We've done this by saying, keep taxes low;
    keep the economy growing; and be wise about how we spend your money.
        I project--we project if we can continue to have fiscal sanity in
    Washington, DC, that we'll be in surplus by the year 2012. That's where
    we're headed. And I believe we can do so without penalizing the small-
    business sector--or the large-business sector, for that matter. And
    particularly, we can do so without penalizing the families and the
    individual taxpayers in the country. But that's the argument.
        Now, the Democrats have submitted their budget. Put up the next
    chart. Oops, that's my budget. This is nondefense discretionary
    spending. This is what we propose, see. We go to Congress and say,
    here's our budget proposals. We're going to make sure our troops have
    what it takes to win this war against these extremists and radicals.
    That's what the American people expect. But this is--[applause].
        So this is my proposal, and I'd like to show you what the Democrats
    have proposed. Here's their proposal. They've added billions of dollars
    in new spending on the budget they submitted. The reason I'm--this is
    not a--I'm not bashing anybody. I'm just--what I'm here to do is educate
    you on the different approaches to how we're dealing with your money
    when it comes to the Federal budget. And as you notice, there is a--
    quite a disparity about the different approaches of how much money ought
    to be spent. You can't pay for the red lines unless you're willing to
    raise taxes on the American people. I would call that a return to the
    tax-and-spend days. I have showed you our budget to get to surplus, and
    it requires this level of increase in spending--the blue.
        The people now in charge of the House and the Senate have submitted
    their own budgets, their own blueprint for how we should spend your
    money, and it's reflected in the red lines. Now, you can't grow the
    economy fast enough to get to the red lines. And therefore, the only way
    to do so is to run up your taxes.
        I'd like you to see the next chart, if you don't mind. This is a--
    the tax increases inherent in a different approach. As you can see, will
    raise taxes 392 billion over 5 years and with a $1.8 trillion increase
    in taxes in order to make the budget projections that they have spent. I
    would warn the Nashville Bun Company to be very careful with this kind
    of approach because you can't keep making buns if the Democrats take all
    your dough. [Laughter]
        I don't disparage anybody; there's just a difference of opinion.
    Part of my job is to make it clear to people that there are choices to
    make. And people got to understand this budget process. You know, we're
    throwing around huge numbers in Washington, DC. And the reason I've come
    today is to clarify the difference of opinion so you can make your own
    choice about the right approach. I've obviously got my choice, but the
    American people need to know the facts so they can make up their mind as
    the best approach to dealing with the finances of the United States
    today and tomorrow and for the next decade to come. This is the tax
    increases that will be required under one vision of dealing with your
    money, and here's my view of what we ought to do on taxes--and of
    course, the comparison. [Laughter]
        We don't need to raise your taxes in order to balance the budget. We
    shouldn't raise your taxes in order to balance the budget. As a matter
    of fact, we ought to keep your taxes as low as possible to make sure
    this economy continues to grow. So you'll watch this budget process and
    the appropriations process unfold here. And it's

    [[Page 986]]

    really important for the leadership in Congress to pass the
    appropriations bills--that's the spending bills--as quickly as possible.
    There's 12 spending bills that are supposed to get to the President's
    desk.
        And they need to be passing these things; they need to be doing the
    people's business in Washington, DC. They need to have an honest debate
    about the appropriations for the different departments that they're
    dealing with--an open, honest debate. They ought not to be trying to
    slip special spending measures in there without full transparency and
    full debate; those are called entitlements. And they ought to be wise
    about how they spend your money. And they ought to get these
    appropriations bills to my desk as quickly as possible and not delay.
        Now, I will tell you that there's an interesting relationship
    between the President and the Congress. The President [Congress]* has
    got the right to initiate spending bills, and they do; they've got the
    right to decide how much money is spent. And I've got the right to
    accept whether or not the amount of money they spend is the right
    amount. That's what's called the veto. If they overspend or if they try
    to raise your taxes, I'm going to veto their bills.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So I'd like--that's why I appreciate you letting me come and give
    you a little budget discussion. And--but I thought it would be
    appropriate, if you don't mind, to answer some of your questions, any
    question; I'd be glad to answer them. I've been there for 6\1/2\ years;
    if I can't answer them, I can figure out how not to answer them.
    [Laughter]
        Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman.

    Health Care Reform/Energy

        Q. Your administration has been pro-small business. How do we
    continue that philosophy in Washington?
        The President. Look, here's the thing that the country--first of
    all, tax policy helps small businesses. It's--if a small-business owner
    has got certainty in the Tax Code that taxes will remain low, it causes
    people to be more interested in investment.
        The biggest issue I hear facing small-business owners, however, is
    health care. We got--a lot of small-business owners are really having
    problems dealing with the rising cost of health care. When I talk to
    risk takers and entrepreneurs, I find that people have a lot of anxiety
    about how to deal with health care for two reasons: one, whether they
    can afford it; and two, they have this great sense of obligation and--to
    their employees. In other words, they want their employees--really good
    CEOs or owners of small businesses care deeply about the life of their
    employees.
        There is a, as you can imagine--and this is the great thing about
    our democracy--there tends to be differences of opinion. And we got a
    big difference of opinion on health care. And I would like to tell you
    where I'm worried--my worries and my recommendations. I'm worried that
    there are people in Washington who want to expand the scope of the
    Federal Government in making health care decisions on behalf of
    businesses and individuals. There is a debate in Washington, DC, now
    taking place on whether or not to expand what's called SCHIP, which is a
    health care program designed primarily for poor children. I support the
    concept of providing health care to help poor children, just like I
    support the concept of Medicaid to help provide health care for the
    poor.
        The problem, as I see it, is this: that the people--some in
    Washington want to expand the eligibility for those available for SCHIP,
    in some instances up to $80,000 per family, which really means, if you
    think about it, that there will be an incentive for people to switch
    from private health insurance to government health insurance. I view
    this as the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the Federal
    Government on the health care system. Now, the Federal Government has
    got a huge role in

    [[Page 987]]

    health care--as I say, Medicare, Veterans Affairs, Medicaid, poor
    children. But I am deeply worried about--further expansion will really
    lead to the undermining of the private health care system, which would
    take the greatest health care system in the world and convert it into a
    mediocre health care system.
        Now, you can't--I am not only am I against what they're trying to
    do; I am for something else, and I'd like to share with you what it is.
    First, there is a common goal, and we all share the goal in Washington--
    is to make sure health care is available and affordable. If you're
    worried about available and affordable health care, there are some
    practical things you can do, like stopping these junk lawsuits that are
    running good doctors out of practice and forcing professionals to
    practice defensive medicine so they can defend themselves in a court of
    law.
        Secondly, small businesses ought to have the right to pool risk
    across jurisdictional boundaries. If you're a restaurant owner in
    Nashville, Tennessee, you ought to be allowed to pool risk. In other
    words, you ought to be allowed to put your employees in a larger risk
    pool with a restaurant, say, in Texas or in Minnesota. Part of the
    problem small businesses have is they unable to get the economies of
    purchase that big businesses are able to get because they have got such
    a small number of employees. And so we ought to be--encourage the
    pooling of asset--the pooling of risk so small businesses can buy
    insurance at the same discounts that big businesses get to do.
        Thirdly, I'm a strong proponent of health savings accounts. Health
    savings accounts are--is an insurance product that has got high-risk
    deductibles or high deductibles for catastrophic illness, plus the
    ability for an employee to be able to put money in--with employer's
    help--put money into the account tax free, save tax free, and withdraw
    money tax free. And the reason I am is because I believe one of the real
    problems we have in health care is that there is no market, in essence.
    In other words, somebody else pays your bills; we have a third-party
    payer system. I think you know what I'm talking about. You submit your
    claims; somebody else pays the bills.
        I don't know many of you have ever asked the doc, ``What's your
    price?'' Or, you know, ``How good are you?'' Or, ``What's your
    neighbor's price?'' You certainly do that in most aspects of your
    consumer decisionmaking; you think about price and you think about
    quality, but not in health care. And the reason why is, is that somebody
    else has been paying the bills under our traditional system. What health
    savings accounts do--and products like it--is that it puts the consumer,
    the patient in charge in the decisionmaking. And in order to make that
    effective, there needs to be more price transparency and more quality
    transparency in the marketplace. In other words, when people shop, it
    helps affect the cost of a good, or a service in this case.
        And so since we're such huge health care providers, one of the
    things we're working with is large corporations and entities to say,
    look, you've got to post your price to providers and hospitals. It
    creates some angst, but nevertheless, it is a much better alternative
    than the Federal Government making all decisions. So one of the things
    we're trying to do from a philosophical perspective is to encourage more
    consumerism in health care.
        Another thing that needs to happen in health care is there needs to
    be better information technology in health care. The way I like to make
    this point is that this is an industry that still--where a lot of the
    paperwork is still filled out by hand. Most businesses have been able to
    use these fantastic new technologies to be able to make their companies
    more productive--but not health care. You got doctors writing
    prescriptions. They don't know how to write very well anyway, and
    secondly, it's easy to lose paperwork.

    [[Page 988]]

        And so the health care industry lags behind when it comes to the
    modernization of--that a lot of other industries have been through by
    the advent of information technology. There's a role for the Government.
    Remember, we're huge providers of health care. The Veterans Affairs
    Department, for example, now has got electronic medical records for each
    person covered through Veterans Affairs. So somebody can just take your
    chip, show it into the--run it into the computer, and out comes the
    medical records. And they estimate that as we help develop a common
    language so that IT can take hold in the health care system, that we can
    save up to 30 percent of the costs in the current system.
        But finally, I want to share another idea with you. They've got--
    those folks up there who want to spread further government into health
    care have got their ideas--and you've got to beat a bad idea with a good
    idea, in my judgment. And I want to share with you another idea that
    seems to make sense.
        If you work for a corporation, you get your health care free.
    There's a tax break for you. If you're an individual, you have to pay
    for your health care. People are not treated the same in the Tax Code.
    If you're working for a big company, you come out pretty good when it
    comes to health care. It's a tax-free benefit. If you're out there on
    your own, you got to purchase your health care. It's an after-tax
    purchase. If you're working for a small business that has trouble
    affording health care and they have copayments, for example, a lot of
    times the employee is not treated as fairly in the Tax Code as someone
    who works for a larger company.
        And so I propose that we change the Tax Code, we treat everybody
    fairly. For example, if you're a married couple--a married couple, yes,
    you ought to get a $15,000 deduction, no matter where you get your
    health care, so long as you then use the savings to purchase health
    care. If you're single, you ought to get a $7,500 tax deduction. So it's
    like a mortgage deduction off your income tax. But it levels the playing
    field. And then what ends up happening is the market starts to respond
    as more individual decisionmakers are now able to use the fairness in
    the Tax Code to demand product.
        Part of the problem we have is there is no individual market that is
    developed. If you're out there trying to find your health care on your
    own, it's very difficult to find competitive--something that you can
    live with, something that's competitive. And we believe that changing
    the Tax Code will help. There are some in Congress who believe a better
    approach would be a tax credit. I happen to believe that deductions are
    a better way to go, but I know that either approach is better than the
    nationalization of health care. And so one of the real issues that we
    got--[applause]--anyway, thanks for the question.
        Don't get me started on energy. If you're a small-business person,
    you better worry about the cost of energy. And that's why I have said
    that it is in our national interest to diversify away from oil. It's in
    our national interest to promote alternative fuels, and I believe we can
    do so with current technology and new technology. It's in our national
    security interests that we're not heavily dependent on oil. I think you
    know what I mean by that. I mean, there's a lot of parts of the world
    where we buy oil that don't like us. That's not in the national security
    interest of the country.
        It's in our economic security interest to diversify because when the
    demand for crude oil goes up in a developing country, for example, it
    causes the price of crude oil to go up, unless there's a corresponding
    increase in supply. And when that price of crude goes up, it runs up the
    price of your gasoline. And therefore, it is interest--in our interest
    to promote ethanol, for example, or biodiesel as ways to power our
    automobiles. It also happens to be good for the environment that we
    diversify away from crude oil.

    [[Page 989]]

        On the electricity side, I'm a big proponent of nuclear power. I
    think if you're genuinely interested in dealing with climate change, you
    have to be a supporter of nuclear power because nuclear power will
    enable us to grow our economy. And if we grow our economy, it'll mean
    we'll be able to afford new technologies, and at the same time, there
    are zero greenhouse gas emissions.
        And so to answer your question--obviously, a little long-winded--
    [laughter]--is, good tax policy, good health care policy, and good
    energy policy will make it more likely that these--this small-business
    sector of ours will remain strong.
        Yes, sir. Go ahead and scream. You don't have to----

    Immigration Reform

        Q. Sir, thank you very much for your service to our country so far.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. We appreciate that very much.
        The President. Appreciate it.
        Q. My question is, in light of the immigration bill, I'm not
    understanding exactly how if, with the amnesty of this many people
    coming in and then with the still concern about the borders being
    somewhat porous, how do we really achieve your desired effect in this,
    which, you know, would be, I guess, for obviously taking care of them,
    but yet afford not to be a big bulk----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----sort of expense and the lack of the safety of the border?
        The President. Thank you for bringing that question up. It's a very
    important question that the Nation is confronting. You can sit down.
    [Laughter]
        Here are the commonsense objectives that need to be addressed when
    it comes to immigration. First, we need to enforce the border. A
    sovereign state--[applause]--it is the job of a state, of a nation, to
    enforce its borders. That's not an easy task. I'm real familiar with the
    border. I was a border-State Governor. I understand how difficult it is
    to fully enforce a border. But nevertheless, as a result of
    congressional action and the administration working with the Congress,
    we're making substantial progress on modernizing the border.
        Now--and the--you go down to Arizona, for example; you can't find
    the border. Man, it's just desert. It is, like, wide open desert. And so
    what you're beginning to see is new infrastructure, new technologies,
    some fencing, berms to prevent automobiles from moving, all aimed at
    making the Border Patrol agency, which we are now doubling on the
    border, more effective, okay? And we're making progress. The number of
    arrests over the last 12 months are down significantly. That is one way
    to measure whether or not people are making it into our country
    illegally. Last year, we arrested and sent back 1.1 million people on
    the southern border. Now, you divide that by 365. There is active
    participation on the border to do that which the American people expect
    us to do.
        Secondly, you're about to find--I think the country is about to find
    out that we're going to need hard-working, decent people to do jobs that
    Americans aren't doing. And it's--that is why, for the sake of the
    economy, I am--support a temporary-worker plan.
        There are people who are coming--look, let me start over. There are
    people in our hemisphere whose families are really hungry, particularly
    compared to the lifestyle we have in America, and they want to work to
    feed their families. And--but they're willing to do jobs Americans don't
    want to do. That's just--that's reality. Some say, ``Well, force
    Americans to do the jobs they're unwilling to do.'' Well, that's not the
    way the system works. And yet there are people willing to come, to get
    in the fields and the agricultural sector. There are people willing to
    pick apples in Washington, you know, hitting those vegetable fields in
    California. And they want to do so because they want to feed their
    families.

    [[Page 990]]

        And the interesting problem we have, sir, is that because they're
    motivated by the same thing you're motivated by, I suspect--love of
    family and desire to provide for your family--they will go to great
    lengths to get into the country. You think about somebody who's willing
    to get stuffed in the bottom of an 18-wheeler and pay one of these thugs
    that are smuggling them into the country to do work Americans aren't
    doing. So I've always felt like a temporary-worker program will be--
    recognize an economic reality and also help keep pressure off the
    border. It's a long, hard border to enforce.
        By the way, in my State of Texas, when it comes to the fencing, I
    would strongly urge those who advocate it not to go down there and go
    face to face with some of these Texas ranchers down there. They're
    really not interested in having the Federal Government on their
    property. See, most of our property down in Texas is private land. The
    farther you go west, it's Federal land.
        And the reason I say that, it just shows how difficult it is to do
    what some assume can be done, which is, like, totally seal off the
    border. One way to make it easier for our Border Patrol is to have this
    temporary-worker program with verifiable identification and say, yes,
    you can come for a limited period of time, and then you're going home.
        Now, the--I suspect I'm all right so far with some of those who
    worry about immigration reform. The other question is that--I'm not
    trying to elicit applause--[laughter]--the other question is, there are
    about 11 million people who have been here over time who are working--
    some not working--but they're here. And what do we do with them? Now,
    you--some would say that if you don't kick them out, that's called
    amnesty. I disagree.
        First of all, I think it's impractical to kick somebody out. I feel
    like if you make a person pay a fine--in other words, a cost for having
    broken our law--I agree with those who say that if you're an automatic
    citizen, it undermines the rule of law; I agree with that argument. I
    have a little problem with the argument, though, that says, if you pay a
    fine, if you prove you're a good citizen, if you've paid your back
    taxes, if you go home and reregister and come back, that you ought to be
    allowed to get in the back of the line. I don't think that's amnesty,
    but that's a lot of where the argument came.
        This is a difficult subject for a lot of folks. And I understand
    it's difficult. I was disappointed, of course, that the Senate bill
    didn't get moving. I think it's incumbent upon those of us in
    Washington, DC, to deal with hard problems now and not pass them on to
    future Congresses. And so, as you know, the bill failed, and I can't
    make a prediction to you at this point, sir, where it's going to head. I
    can make you a prediction, though, that pretty shortly, people are going
    to be knocking on people's doors saying, ``Man, we're running out of
    workers.'' This economy is strong. Remember, we've got a national
    unemployment rate of 4.5 percent. A lot of Americans are working, and
    there are still jobs Americans don't want to do. And the fundamental
    question is, will we be able to figure out a way to deal with the
    problem?
        Let me say one other point. I feel strongly about this issue. I do
    not like a system that has encouraged predators to treat people as
    chattel. We have a system that has encouraged the onset of coyotes--
    those are the smugglers--and they prey upon these poor people. And they
    charge them a lot of money to smuggle through routes. And as a result of
    that system, there is innkeepers that charge exorbitant fees. There's
    document forgers. You're a small-business guy out here in Tennessee, and
    you're trying to run your nursery or whatever it is, and somebody shows
    up--you're not a document checker; the Government can't expect the
    small-business owners to be able to determine whether or not the Social
    Security card has been forged or not. We

    [[Page 991]]

    need a new system. The system we've got is broken. And therefore, the
    fundamental question is, are we going to be able to deal with it?
        Let me say one other thing, and this is important for America to
    remember too. We have been a fabulous country when it comes to
    assimilating people. You know, ours is a country that has got such a
    fabulous spirit to it that the newcomer can come, work hard, obey law,
    and realize dreams. And that's what America has been about. And in my
    judgment, that's what America should always be about: the idea of people
    realizing dreams. And that's what--so the question people say is,
    ``Well, certain people can't assimilate.'' But there has been that
    argument throughout our history, that certain people of certain
    ethnicity or certain backgrounds can't assimilate. We must never lose
    faith in our capacity for people to assimilate. It's what has made us
    great in the past and what will make us great in the future.
        And so thank you for bringing up a tough subject for people in
    Washington.
        Yes, sir.

    Music Industry

        Q. Mr. President, Al McCree with Altissimo Records representing the
    music industry. Music is one of our largest exports the country has.
    Currently, every country in the world--except China, Iran, North Korea,
    Rwanda, and the United States--pay a statutory royalty to the performing
    artists for radio and television air play. Would your administration
    consider changing our laws to align it with the rest of the country--the
    world?
        The President. Help. [Laughter] Maybe you've never had a President
    say this--I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about.
    [Laughter] Sounds like we're keeping interesting company, you know?
    [Laughter]
        Look, I'll give you the old classic: Contact my office, will you?
    [Laughter] I really don't--I'm totally out of my lane. I like listening
    to country music, if that helps. [Laughter]
        You've got a question? Yes. You can yell at this thing.

    War on Terror/Progress in Iraq/Spread of Democracy

        Q. Mr. President, I appreciate your position on the war in Iraq.
    We've got a debate that's going on as much about should we stay or
    should we come home. Is there a way to change the tenor of the debate to
    determine how we win in Iraq?
        The President. Thank you. The hardest decision a President makes are
    the decisions of war and peace, are putting kids, men and women in
    harm's way. And I have made two such decisions after we were attacked.
    And I did so because I firmly believe we're at war with ideologues who
    use murder as a tool to achieve political objectives, and that the most
    important responsibility is to protect--for the Government is to protect
    the American people from harm and, therefore, went on the offense
    against these radicals and extremists.
        We went on the offense wherever we can find them; we are on the
    offense wherever we can find them. And of course, in two theaters in
    this global war, we have sent troops--a lot of troops into harm's way.
        Afghanistan still is a part of this war on terror, and a lot of the
    debate in Washington, of course, is focused on Iraq, as it should be.
    But I do want our fellow citizens to understand we've still got men and
    women in uniform sacrificing in Afghanistan, and their families are just
    as worried about them as the families of those in Iraq.
        The short-term solution against this enemy is to keep the pressure
    on them, keep them on the move, and bring them to justice overseas so we
    don't have to face them here. In other words, no quarter--[applause].

    [[Page 992]]

        I would just tell you, you can't hope for the best with these
    people. You can't assume that if we keep the pressure off, everything
    will be fine. Quite the contrary. When there wasn't enough pressure on,
    they were able to bunch up in safe haven and plot and plan attacks that
    killed 3,000 of our citizens. And they have been active ever since--not
    here on our soil, but they've got a global reach. They have been trying
    to kill the innocent.
        Of course, I made the decision to go in to remove Saddam Hussein. I
    firmly believe that this world is better off without Saddam Hussein in
    power, and I believe America is more secure.
        The long-term solution for your grandkids' sake is to defeat their
    ideology of hate with an ideology of light, and that's called liberty
    and democracy. The fight in Iraq is evolving. We've been through several
    stages in this difficult theater. First was the liberation stage.
    Secondly was a--the nascent political movement, reflected in the fact
    that 12 million Iraqis went to the polls under a modern Constitution.
    And then a thinking enemy, primarily Al Qaida, blew up--used their
    violent tactics to blow up holy sites of religious people trying to
    incent--incite sectarian violence, and they succeeded. In other words,
    at the end of 2005, when the 12 million people voted, and we were
    training the Iraqis to take more responsibility, I felt like we would be
    in a much different force posture as the year went on. That's what I
    felt.
        But the Commander in Chief always, one, listens to the military
    commanders on the ground, and two, remains flexible in the
    decisionmaking. The enemy succeeded in causing there to be murderous
    outrage. And so I had a decision to make, and that was, do we step back
    from this capital of this new democracy--remember, forums of government
    will ultimately determine the peace, and that a government based upon
    the principles of democracy and liberty is the best way to defeat those
    killers who incited this sectarian violence in Iraq, the same ones--
    people ask me, ``Are these really Al Qaida?'' Well, they have sworn
    allegiance to Usama bin Laden; what else are
    they? They are coldblooded killers who have declared publicly that they
    would like to drive us out of Iraq to develop a safe haven from which to
    launch further attacks. And I believe we better be taking their word
    seriously in order to do our duty to defend.
        And so we're now watching this democracy unfold. The decision I had
    to make was, do we continue to stand and help this democracy grow, or do
    we stand back and hope that the violence that was happening in the
    capital doesn't spread anywhere else? I made the decision that it was in
    our interest, the Nation's security interest, instead of stepping back
    from the capital, to actually send more troops into the capital to help
    this young democracy have time to grow and to make hard decisions so it
    can become an ally in the war on terror not a safe haven from which Al
    Qaida could launch further attacks.
        And it's hard work, and it's tough work. And it's tough work because
    there are ruthless people who have declared their intent to attack us
    again, trying to prevent success.
        And I can understand why the American people are tired of this.
    Nobody likes war. Nobody likes to turn on their TV set and see needless
    death at the hands of these extremists. But I want to remind our fellow
    citizens that much of the violence they're seeing on their TV screens in
    Iraq is perpetuated by the very same people that came and killed 3,000
    of our citizens. People sworn--not the exact same person; those are dead
    who got on the airplanes--but they have sworn allegiance to Usama, just
    like the killers in Iraq have sworn allegiance to Usama bin Laden. And so I listen to David Petraeus, and of course, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
    Secretary of Defense have made the
    recommendation to send more in.
        Victory is--I remember a guy asking me at one of these town halls,
    he said, ``Well,

    [[Page 993]]

    when are you going to, like--when are they going to surrender,'' or
    ``When is this thing going to end?'' He looked like an older fellow, I
    think, and it was like he was remembering the USS Missouri. This is an
    ideological struggle, more akin to the cold war. What makes it different
    is, is that we have an enemy that is murderous and is willing to use
    asymmetrical warfare.
        And so there is not a moment of ending. But there will be a moment
    in Afghanistan and Iraq where these Governments will be more able to
    support their people, more able to provide basic services, more able to
    defend their neighborhoods against radical killers. It's going to be a
    while though. And there's a lot of debate in Washington; yes, so how do
    you change the debate? Just keep talking about it. Today David
    Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, who is our Ambassador in Iraq, are briefing Congress about
    the difficulties we face and the progress we're making.
        Let me give you one example. I'm optimistic. We'll succeed unless we
    lose our nerve. We will succeed. Liberty has got the capacity to conquer
    tyranny every time. Every time we've tried, it has worked. It takes a
    while--[applause]--here's the definition of success. The enemy, by the
    way, defines success as, can they pull off a car bombing. If we ever
    allow ourselves to get in a position where it's ``no car bombings,
    therefore we're successful,'' we've just handed these killers a great
    victory.
        So there's a Province called Anbar Province, and this is the
    Province out in western Iraq, where it's mainly Sunni and where Al Qaida
    had declared its intention to really drive us out and establish a safe
    haven, with the declared intention of spreading--using it as a base to
    spread their ideology throughout the Middle East, as well as a safe
    haven from which to make sure that they inflicted enough pain on us that
    we actually help them by leaving. I know this is farfetched for some
    Americans to think that people think this way; this is the nature of the
    enemy. And they are an enemy, and they're real, and they're active.
        So Anbar Province was declared lost by some last November. And
    literally, we were--there was an intel report that came out, and the
    person was not very encouraging, and some of the press, it was the
    beginning of the end for the policy in Iraq. And we started working the
    issue hard. That's why I sent some more marines into Anbar Province. It
    turns out that people were sick and tired of Al Qaida. Al Qaida had no
    vision. You see, our citizens have got to remember that most mothers
    want their children to grow up in peace; that's universal. Most mothers
    want something--it's just something instinctive when it comes to
    motherhood and children, where they want a child to have a chance to
    succeed in life, to have a chance to grow up in a peaceful world.
        Well, it turns out that many people in Anbar hate violence. They
    want something better. They may not--they may distrust their central
    Government because it's new. Remember, Saddam Hussein sowed great seeds
    of distrust during his time as a tyrant. It takes time to get over
    distrust and to develop trust with a citizen.
        But there's something instinctive involved with people when it comes
    to normal life. And they got sick of this Al Qaida threat and bullying
    and torturing. These people don't remain in power because they're loved;
    they remain in power because they're feared. And all of a sudden, tribal
    sheikhs begin to turn on them. And Al Qaida is now on the run in Anbar
    Province. What's happening is there's two types of political
    reconciliation, one from the bottom up, where grassroots people just get
    sick of something, and with our help, they're dealing with the problem.
    And then there's reconciliation from the top down, as you watch
    Government wrestle with the different factions inside their legislature.
    And we expect progress on both fronts because the military can't do it
    alone. But the decision I made was that neither front

    [[Page 994]]

    will work, neither aspect of reconciliation will work if there was
    violence in the country's capital. And that's what you're seeing unfold.
        And so you'll see a debate in Washington, DC, here about troop
    levels and funding those troop levels. First, whatever the troop level
    is, it needs to be funded by the United States Congress. Our troops need
    all the support they can get when they're in harm's way. And secondly,
    most Americans, I hope, understand that the best way to make decisions
    on troop levels is based upon the sound advice of people in the field,
    not based upon the latest focus group or political poll.
        I'd like to share a story with you, and then I'll answer some
    questions. I'm not attempting to have just a few questions by giving you
    really long answers. It's called the filibuster. [Laughter] You know
    what's interesting about my Presidency, another interesting aspect of
    the Presidency, is the friendship I had with Prime Minister
    Koizumi of Japan and his successor, a man
    named Prime Minister Abe. What makes it
    interesting, to me at least, is the fact that my dad fought the Japanese as a young guy. I think he--I know
    he went in right after high school, became a Navy fighter pilot, went
    overseas, and fought them. They were the sworn enemy. He was willing to
    risk his life, like thousands of others did, because the Japanese were
    our bitter enemy.
        And here we are, 60 years later or so, that I am at the table with
    the leader of the former enemy working to keep the peace, whether it be
    in North Korea, or--[applause]--let me finish here--or thanking the--or
    working with the Japanese who committed self-defense forces to help the
    young democracy in Iraq because they understand the power of liberty to
    be transformative. Liberty has got the ability to change an enemy into
    an ally. Liberty has got a powerful ability to transform regions from
    hostility and hopelessness to regions of hope. And it's hard work, and
    it takes a long time, but it has been repeated throughout modern
    history, whether it be on the continent of Europe or in the Far East.
    And it can happen again if Americans don't lose faith in the great power
    of freedom.
        And so this is an interesting time. We're in the beginning--trying
    to get to your question--we're in the beginning of a long ideological
    struggle that's going to take patience, perseverance, and faith in
    certain basic values. I'm a big believer in the universality of liberty.
    I believe deep in everybody's soul--I'll take it a step further--I
    believe in an Almighty, and I believe a gift from that Almighty to each
    man, woman, and child is the desire to be free. And I believe that
    exists in everybody's soul is the desire to be free. I wasn't surprised
    when the 12 million people showed up. I was pleased, but I wasn't
    surprised, because I believe, if given a chance, people will take a--
    will choose liberty. Now, having a form of government that reflects that
    is hard work, and it takes time. And not every democracy, of course,
    will look like us, nor should it. But there's just some basic principles
    inherent in free governments that will enable us to be more likely to be
    secure and peaceful over the next years. And that's what I've been
    thinking about.
        Yes, sir.

    Border Security/War on Terror

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Thank you, sir.
        Q. ----the last, I'd say about 15 or 20 minutes about terrorism and
    Al Qaida, and I expect--[inaudible]--feel very bullish when it comes to
    that subject. But what I want to know is, this is an open society,
    right? It's supposed to be open society. People come from every which
    way, most of them very decent and stuff, but like you say, Al Qaida and
    the terrorists. What about the borders? I always see on TV they jumping
    the borders, Spanish people jumping at borders, and could it be some
    time--

    [[Page 995]]

    it could be Al Qaida jumping the borders----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----with--[inaudible]--or anything. Our borders are not secure,
    like they should be, I don't think. I mean, it's up to you; you're my
    President. I'm supposed to ask you.
        The President. Okay, you are. [Laughter] Well, listen, thank you
    very much for that. Listen, the reason--one--a reason to have a
    verifiable temporary-worker card is to make it more likely that if Al
    Qaida does try to come across the border illegally, that we can catch
    them.
        You ask a very good question. The other half of the equation, by the
    way, in securing the homeland, is to take measures necessary to catch
    people--know who's coming in and why, and catch them before they come
    in. It's a very legitimate question. On one hand, we stay on the
    offense; in the long run, defeat their ideology with a better ideology.
    But we got to secure the homeland, and we're working hard to do so. One
    of the interesting management challenges was when we merged these
    different Departments all into the Department of Homeland Security, and
    I must say, it's gone pretty well. It's hard to take separate cultures
    and merge them into a common culture, working for a common purpose,
    but--it takes time again--but we're making good progress on that, we
    really are. Are we perfect? No. Are there flaws? Yes. But we're making--
    can I say, the country is more secure than it was before 9/11?
    Absolutely.
        Now it's interesting, sir. I have made some--I made one--a couple
    controversial decisions about how to better find information about who
    might be coming to our country so that we can anticipate. The best way
    to be able to protect ourselves from Al Qaida--no question, good border
    control, but it's through good intelligence as well. I mean, if we can
    learn intention before somebody begins to make a move, we're more likely
    to be able to say we're a lot more--we'll be able to say we're a lot
    more secure.
        And that's why one of the controversial programs that I suggested
    was that we take a known phone number from one of these Al Qaida types
    or affiliates--and you can find them. We get them all kinds of ways.
    We're picking people up off the battlefield, for example, in one of
    these theaters I just describe to you. They may have a laptop. On the
    laptop might be some phone numbers. Off the phone numbers may be
    somebody else's. I mean, there's ways to get information as a result of
    some of the operations we have taken overseas. And my attitude is, if we
    do have a number of a suspected Al Qaida and/or affiliate and that
    person is making a phone call to someone in the United States, we ought
    to understand why; we ought to know.
        And so the reason I bring this up to you is that, yes, enforcing the
    border and being wise about how we enforce the border is an important of
    trying to detect--find out whether terrorists are coming into our
    country to inflict harm. Same with airports. You got to take off the
    shoes? Well, there's a reason. It's because we're doing our job that you
    expect us to do about--trying to affect the security of all ports of
    entry. But as well, we're beefing up our intelligence and trying to get
    a better handle on the actions somebody may be taking before they do so.
        It requires enormous cooperation. We spend a lot of time in your
    Government working with other nations. Curiously enough, as a result of
    Al Qaida's activities in other countries, it's caused people to say, ``I
    think we better work together more closely.'' And we do. There's a lot
    of information sharing that goes on between governments; a lot of
    intelligence sharing that goes on. And there's better communication now
    between the intelligence services and the law enforcement services. And
    one of

    [[Page 996]]

    the reasons why we had to pass the PATRIOT Act was because there was a
    prohibition about people sharing information between intel and law, and
    that made no sense in this new world in which we live.
        I just want to assure you that I fully understand the need to make
    sure assets are deployed properly to protect you, and I fully understand
    the need to safeguard the civil liberties of the United States of
    America. One of the worst things that would happen is this enemy, in
    trying to respond to them, would force us to lose part of our very soul.
    And I believe we're able to achieve the--take the necessary steps to
    protect you and, at the same time, protect the civil liberties that
    Americans hold so dearly to their heart.
        Yes, ma'am.

    U.S. Foreign Aid/Situation in Darfur

        Q. Okay, thank you.
        The President. The price is right. [Laughter]
        Q. Come on down. [Laughter] I am here representing--Nashville is a
    strong city of lots of communities of faith, and as a part of that,
    there are lots of people going back and forth and caring about the
    people of Africa. And I want to first thank you; I know that your
    administration has taken lots of initiative on AIDS and malaria nets,
    and we really appreciate that. And then I--my hard question is, what we
    can we do to stop the genocide in Darfur?
        The President. Thank you very much. For starters, the fact that
    Americans care about people in faraway lands is a great testimony to our
    compassion. I believe good foreign--you've heard about one aspect of our
    foreign policy--two aspects, really, when you think about it. One is the
    combination of military and diplomatic assets trying to achieve
    objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Another is the working
    coalitions. And by the way, there are a lot of other countries in
    Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't get nearly the credit they deserve, but
    a lot of other people besides us understand that this is the beginning
    of a long ideological struggle, and now is the time to make the hard
    decisions so little guys in the future don't have to deal with the
    consequences of that.
        The other aspect of foreign policy is, I believe to whom much is
    given, much is required. And people say, ``Well, we got plenty of
    problems in America. Why do you worry about something going on
    overseas?'' First of all, we're wealthy. We're spending enormous sums of
    money. If we set proper priorities, we can not only help our own
    citizens, but I believe it helps our soul and our conscience, and I
    believe we have a moral obligation to help others.
        And so when it comes to--let met talk about HIV/AIDS. A lot of
    people don't know what we're doing. And the United States has really
    taken the lead in saying to other nations, here is a problem that we can
    help solve, and therefore, follow us. We picked 17 of the most deeply
    affected nations, most of which are on the continent of Africa, and you
    provided $15 billion to get antiretroviral drugs in the hands of faith
    givers, community givers, nurses, to save lives. And in 3 short years,
    the United States of America has taken the lead to getting
    antiretroviral to people, and it's gone from 30--50,000 people to over
    1.1 million people receiving antiretroviral drugs.
        It is--conditions of life matter in this struggle, by the way,
    against extremists and radicals. Where you find repressive forms of
    government, you're likely to find somebody who's frustrated. So they can
    become recruited by these cynical murderers and then become suiciders.
    Or where you find disease and pestilence or hunger, the conditions of
    life matter at whether or not the future of the world is going to be
    stable.
        We're very much involved in a Malaria Initiative--Laura is really active in that--where the Government is
    spending $1.6 billion aiming to get mosquito nets and sprays and
    information to save lives. There

    [[Page 997]]

    are too many young babies around the world dying from something that we
    can prevent, and it's in the national interest to do that.
        Interestingly enough, a lot of the deliverers, those who are
    delivering the help are the--are from the faith community, people who
    are volunteering their time saying, what can I do? How can I love my
    neighbor? And it's really heartwarming.
        She asked about Darfur. First, we--as this administration has
    proven, it's possible to achieve some success in Sudan with the north-
    south agreement that we were able to achieve with Ambassador
    Danforth at the time. We are now making--
    working to make sure that holds by insisting that the revenue-sharing
    agreement of the oil on Sudan is effective. She's referring to Darfur.
        I made the decision not to send U.S. troops unilaterally into
    Darfur. The threshold question was, if there is a problem, why don't you
    just go take care of it? And I made the decision, in consultation with
    allies, as well as consultation with Members of Congress and activists,
    that--and I came to the conclusion that it would--it just wasn't the
    right decision.
        Therefore, what do you do? And the--if one is unwilling to take on
    action individually, then that requires international collaboration, and
    so we're now in the United Nations. And it doesn't seem--I talked to Ban
    Ki-moon about this, and this is a slow, tedious
    process, to hold a regime accountable for what only one nation in the
    world has called a genocide, and that is us.
        Now we have taken unilateral moves other than military moves. I
    have--we have put serious economic sanctions on three individuals and--
    that are involved with--two with the Government, one with one of the
    rebel groups. We have sanctioned 29 companies that are involved in
    Sudan. In other words, we're trying to be consequential. We're trying to
    say that, you know, change, or there's consequences.
        By the way, the same approach we're dealing with Iran on: We are
    going to continue to press you hard until you change your behavior. And
    so my challenge is to convince others to have that same sense of anxiety
    that you have and that I have about the genocide that's taking place.
        Ban Ki-moon actually gave a pretty
    encouraging report when he talked about--see, the idea is that if
    countries aren't going to--willing to do it unilaterally, in our case,
    or other cases, then we try to get the AU force that's in place to get
    complemented by further peacekeepers to the U.N. And that's what we're
    working on. Good question on a tough, tough issue.
        Yes, sir. There you go. Don't mean--you can sit down or stand up.

    Border Security

        Q. I personally admire the way you've conducted the Government, and
    I admire your backbone, where you just stand and take a position. I'm
    not happy about the influx from Mexico. Seems that far too many came
    over in waves. I know that during the days of San Jacinto that they were
    fighting, using rifles and everything, but this is the first time I've
    ever seen an influx like this to try to take over our country. Now then,
    thirdly, when they do these polls to determine how you're rated, how
    come, if they have 1,000 people, they call 750 Democrats and only 25
    Republicans? [Laughter]
        The President. Thank you. I thought when you started talking about
    Texas history, that you were going to say we couldn't have existed
    without Tennessee. That's where I thought you were headed, you know.
    [Laughter] You're a Texan? Where are you from?
        Q. Waco.
        The President. There you go. Right at Waco, Texas.
        Q. This young lady in the red dress over here--[inaudible].

    [[Page 998]]

        The President. There you go. Your daddy. Well, as you know, Crawford
    is not very far from Waco, same county.
        Let's see, yes, ma'am. You guys got--one of them uniformed guys got
    a question? No. Okay. I'm proud to be in there with you.
        Q. Mr. President, welcome to Nashville.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. And I want to thank you for the appointments or the nominations
    for our Supreme Court. That will be a wonderful legacy for you.
        The President. Thank you.

    Texas Border Patrol Agents

        Q. My question to you is this. There are two border guards presently
    in jail. The Tennessee General Assembly passed a resolution, with 91
    votes in the house and 30 in the senate, asking our Tennessee delegation
    to support--to go to you asking for a pardon for these two men that were
    tried, where information was left not with--was kept back from their
    trial. And there's also a resolution in the house, H.R. 40, with a
    number of our Tennessee delegation signed on to that. Will you pardon
    these men that are unjustly imprisoned?
        The President. I'm not going to make you that kind of promise in a
    forum like this. Obviously, I am interested in facts. I know the
    prosecutor very well, Johnny Sutton. He's a
    dear friend of mine from Texas. He's a fair guy. He is an even-handed
    guy. And I can't imagine--well, you've got a nice smile, but you can't
    entice me into making a public statement--[laughter]--on something that
    requires a very--I know this is an emotional issue, but people need to
    look at the facts. These men were convicted by a jury of their peers
    after listening to the facts as my friend Johnny Sutton presented them.
    But anyway, no, I won't make you that promise.
        Yes, ma'am.

    President's Legacy

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry--[inaudible]--as the mother of a
    6-month-old named after Sam Houston, a great person----
        The President. You've got to be kidding me, awesome, yes. Is it
    Houston or Sam?
        Q. It's Houston----
        The President. There you go.
        Q. ----because we wanted somebody that was a great representative of
    both Tennessee and Texas within our family. But while your Presidency
    has been important to me, personally, I want to know about your legacy,
    and I want to know what one policy would you hope would affect your
    predecessor and he would continue on what maybe you might not be able to
    finish by the time your term ends.
        The President. Thank you. Freedom agenda--the only way to secure
    America in the long term is to have great faith in the spread of
    liberty. And it's--I really view it as the calling of our time. People
    have--some people have said, ``Well, he is a hopeless idealist to
    believe that liberty is transformative in a part of the world that just
    seems so difficult.'' But I would like to remind fellow citizens that we
    have had this sense of difficulty in parts of the world before, where
    liberty has been transformative.
        And so it's--I might--look, first of all, let me talk about
    Presidential legacies. I'll be dead before--long gone before people
    fully are able to capture the essence of--the full essence of a
    Presidency. I'm still reading books about George Washington. My attitude
    is, is they're writing about 1, 43 doesn't need to worry about it. So
    it's--[laughter]. And so you know what the lesson is in life? Just do
    what you think is right. Make decisions based upon principle. And that's
    the only way I know to do it. I mean, I've disappointed this lady in the
    red, I'm confident, because I won't tell her--but I can only tell you
    what I think is the right thing to do. It's the only way

    [[Page 999]]

    I know how to live my life. And it's--for youngsters here, it's just
    like--it's really important not to sacrifice principle to try to be the
    popular person. It's important to--[applause].
        Yes, sir. Semper Fi, there you go.

    Media/War on Terror

        Q. Semper Fi. First of all, Mr. President, I want to thank you,
    personally, for your support for our veterans. My son was lost in Iraq,
    and I want to thank you----
        The President. Well, thanks.
        Q. ----very much for your strength.
        The President. Thanks. Thanks for sharing that.
        Q. I also wish that there was some way that, as the press makes so
    much to do about what goes on in areas around--pretty much a 50-mile
    area around Baghdad, which is pretty much where everything is going on,
    if there was some way to offset that with all of the great things that
    are going on. I have had communication with a gentleman by the name of
    Azzam Alwash, who is from Nasiriyah area, and what's going on there, the
    building of water sheds and the building of new items and the fact that
    they're building colleges in the Kurd area.
        I wish that there was some way that your administration could offset
    the negative press by a consistent influx of very positive press that's
    going on in the majority of that country. Is there some way that could
    be done?
        The President. Well, thanks. I'm asked that a lot by people. The
    interesting thing about this fight in Iraq is that the families and the
    troops have got a really different view, in many ways, than a lot of
    other folks do, because they're firsthand--they see what's happening.
    And it's--I hear from--I talk to our people in the field a lot, talk to
    people who have been to the field a lot, and these stories of just
    incremental change that add up to something different over time, they're
    just--it's just--they're prevalent. The best messengers are the people
    who are actually there.
        What's interesting about the world in which we live is, there's no
    question there's the electronic media that people watch, but there's
    also the blogosphere. You're on it, I know; you're hearing from people,
    your son's comrades that are constantly e-mailing you. There's a lot of
    information that's taking place that is causing people to have a
    different picture of what they may be seeing on TV screens. See, this
    enemy of ours is very effective; they're smart people. They're effective
    about getting explosions and death on TV screens, and they know it
    affects Americans because we're good people; we're compassionate; we
    care about human life. Every life matters. And therefore, when human
    life is taken through a car bomb, it causes people to say, is it worth
    it? Does it matter what happens over there?
        See, one of the interesting things about this war I forgot to tell
    you is, unlike, say, the Vietnam war, that if we fail in Iraq, the enemy
    won't be content to stay there. They will follow us here. That's what's
    different about this struggle than some of the others we're had. What
    happens overseas matters.
        We ask this question a lot about how we can do a better job. As I
    say, Ryan Crocker and David
    Petraeus are briefing today. It's good to
    have them on TV, on these talk shows and stuff like that, but they've
    also got a job to do. And they're very credible people, because they see
    firsthand what's going on. But they've got a lot of work to do over
    there as they command these troops.
        I hope you're doing okay. I'll tell you something interesting in
    meeting with the families of the fallen. I get all kinds of opinions, of
    course. But one of the most universal opinions I get is one, I'm proud
    of my son; two, he was a volunteer; and three, do not let his life be in
    vain, Mr. President; you complete the mission. [Applause] Thank you,
    brother.

    [[Page 1000]]

        All right, guess what? You got to get to work. [Laughter] And so do
    I. Thank you all for giving me a chance to come and visit with you. I
    found this to be an interesting exchange. I appreciate your questions. I
    hope you have a better sense for why and how I have made decisions that
    have affected the individual lives of our citizens, as well as the life
    of our Nation. I'm an optimistic person. I believe that those decisions
    were not only necessary, but I firmly believe they will yield the peace
    that we all want; peace of mind and peace of heart. God bless you.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:35 a.m. at the Gaylord Opryland Resort
    and Convention Center. In his remarks, he referred to Darrell Freeman,
    Sr., executive committee chairman, Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce;
    Cordia Harrington, chief executive officer, the Bun Companies; Al
    McCree, owner and chief executive officer, Altissimo! Recordings; Usama
    bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; Gen. David H.
    Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Secretary
    of Defense Robert M. Gates; former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
    John C. Danforth; Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations;
    and Johnny Sutton, U.S. District Attorney for the Western District of
    Texas. A participant referred to Azzam Alwash, director, Eden Again
    Project. A portion of these remarks could not be verified because the
    tape was incomplete.