    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
    [July 10, 2007]
    [Pages 926-945]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the Greater Cleveland Partnership and a Question-and-Answer
    Session in Cleveland, Ohio
    July 10, 2007

        The President. Thank you, sir. Thank
    you, Fred. Thanks for having me. Thank you, Fred. Thanks for coming.
    Thanks for having me. It's a smart marketing tool, you know, all the
    cameras. [Laughter] I thought for sure the largest chamber of commerce
    was in Texas, but I guess not. [Laughter]
        I'm thrilled to be back in Cleveland. I've had a fascinating day. I
    went to a small business that is on the cutting edge of changing the way
    we're going to consume energy. I just came from the Cleveland Clinic,
    which is one of the most fabulous hospitals in America.
        I do want to spend a little time talking about our economy, talking
    about health care and energy policy that will be an integral part of
    making sure the economy continues to grow. I'd like to spend a little
    time talking about the war against extremists and radicals. And I'd like
    to answer some of your questions, if you have any.
        Before I do, I want to tell you, Laura sends
    her best. She's arguably the most patient woman in America. [Laughter]
    She's a fabulous First Lady and a great mom. I love her dearly, and she
    told me to say hi to you all, so, hi. [Laughter]
        I appreciate Joe Roman, who works with
    Fred. Thanks for setting this deal up.
    Appreciate the chance to come and visit with fellow citizens here in
    Cleveland. I'm the Commander in Chief; I'm also the educator in chief.
    Part of my job is to explain the philosophy behind the decisions that I
    have made. I'm honored you'd give me a chance to do so.
        I'm traveling with a good man, the Congressman from this area--one
    of the Congressmen from this area, Steve LaTourette. Proud to be with you, Congressman. Thank you for your
    time. State Auditor Mary Taylor is here. Thanks
    for being here, Mary. I met the mayor of
    Cleveland across the street at the hospital. I was proud to be with him.
    I thank him for his time, for taking time out of his day. I thank Toby
    Cosgrove of--doc, thank you for
    being here--from the hospital there across the street. I thank the docs,
    by the way, for taking time to show me some amazing technology.
        Let me first talk about our economy. It's--our economy is changing,
    and it's strong. I remember back to--early on in my administration when
    we were confronted with some very difficult times. There was a
    recession; the economy had gotten overheated, and it was correcting. And
    then we got hit by an enemy that killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens
    which--such an attack obviously would have an effect on the economy.
    Then there were some corporate scandals that had a psychological effect
    on our economy. I mean, people were beginning to worry about the system
    where people were not upholding the law, taking advantage of the
    situation, taking advantage of shareholders.

    [[Page 927]]

        And yet we acted and cut taxes--and cut them hard because I
    believe--[applause]--because one of the philosophical drivers of this
    administration is, is that if you have more money in your pocket to
    spend, save, or invest, the economy is more likely to grow. In other
    words, there's always a conflict in Washington about how--what's the
    proper amount of money in Washington and what is the proper amount of
    money in your pocket. I'm one of these fellows that err on the side of
    trusting people to spend their money more than trusting government. And
    therefore, we cut--[applause].
        I'm not trying to elicit applause--thank you, but--[laughter]--and
    our plan has worked. I don't know if you noticed last month that we
    added another 132,000 new jobs. We've added over 8 million new jobs
    since August of 2003. Entrepreneurship flourishes when people have got
    more capital in their pocket.
        One of the interesting things about the tax cuts that we proposed is
    that a lot of the tax cuts were aimed at small businesses. One of the
    statistics that makes our economy interesting and, I believe, robust is
    that 70 percent of new jobs are created by small-business owners. And
    that's an important thing for our fellow citizens to remember,
    particularly those in Congress who are thinking about something to do
    with the Tax Code.
        Most small businesses are subchapter S corporations or limited
    partnerships. In other words, they pay tax at the individual income tax
    rate. So therefore, when you cut income taxes on everybody who pays
    taxes--in other words, when you lower the rates, it affects the ability
    of small businesses to keep capital, in other words, keep more of what
    they earn. And when a small business keeps more of what they earn, it is
    more likely that business will expand. And therefore, when you hear me
    say that 8 million new jobs have been created since August of 2003, I
    might as well have said, as well, the small-business sector of America
    is strong. And the best way to keep it that way is to keep taxes low.
        And now we're going to have a debate on that in Washington. And
    that's going to be the interesting philosophical argument. You'll hear
    people say in Washington, ``Well, we need to raise taxes in order to
    either pay for new programs or balance the budget.'' I happen to believe
    we can balance the budget without raising taxes if we're wise about how
    we spend your money. And we're proving it possible.
        Tomorrow I'm going to talk about the size of the deficit. I'm not
    going to guess what that will be, but I can predict it's going to be
    substantially lower than it was 3 years ago. And we didn't raise your
    taxes. We kept your taxes low, which caused the economy to grow, which
    yielded more tax revenues. And because we set priorities, the deficit is
    shrinking.
        And the big fight in Washington is going to be whether or not the
    budgets that the Congress is trying to now pass is going to go through.
    It's not; I'll veto them if they're excessive in spending. I'm not going
    to let them raise your taxes. I think it would be bad for the economy. I
    think it would be bad for entrepreneurship.
        Let me talk about health care, since it's fresh on my mind.
    [Laughter] The objective has got to be to make sure America is the best
    place in the world to get health care, that we're the most innovative
    country, that we encourage doctors to stay in practice, that we are
    robust in the funding of research, and that patients get good, quality
    care at a reasonable cost.
        The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private
    insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America.
    After all, you just go to an emergency room. The question is, will we be
    wise about how we pay for health care? And I believe the best way to do
    so is to enable more people to have private insurance. And the reason I
    emphasize private insurance, the best health care plans--

    [[Page 928]]

    the best health care policy is one that emphasizes private health. In
    other words, the opposite of that would be government control of health
    care.
        And there's a debate in Washington, DC, over this. It's going to be
    manifested here shortly by whether or not we ought to expand what's
    called SCHIP. SCHIP is a program designed to help poor children get
    insurance. I'm for it. It came in when I was the Governor of Texas. I
    supported that. But now there are plans to expand SCHIP to include
    families--some proposals are families making up to $80,000 a year. In
    other words, the program is going beyond the initial intent of helping
    poor children. It's now aiming at encouraging more people to get on
    government health care. That's what that is. It's a way to encourage
    people to transfer from the private sector to government health care
    plans.
        My position is, we ought to help the poor, and we do through
    Medicaid. My position is, we ought to have a modern medical system for
    the seniors, and we do through Medicare. But I strongly object to the
    Government providing incentives for people to leave private medicine,
    private health care to the public sector. And I think it's wrong, and I
    think it's a mistake. And therefore, I'll resist Congress's attempt to
    federalize medicine.
        I mean, think of it this way: They're going to increase the number
    of folks eligible through SCHIP. Some want to lower the age for
    Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a--I wouldn't call
    it a plot, just a strategy--[laughter]--to get more people to be a part
    of a federalization of health care. In my judgment, that would be--it
    would lead to not better medicine but worse medicine. It would lead to
    not more innovation but less innovation.
        And so--but you got to be for something in Washington. You can't be
    against the federalization; you've got to be for a plan that enhances
    the relationship between doctor and patient, and that's what I'm for.
    Here's what I believe in: One, I believe in health savings accounts as
    an alternative to the federalization of medicine. It gives people the
    opportunity to save, tax free, for routine medical costs and, at the
    same time, have a catastrophic health care plan to back them up.
        I like the idea of people making decisions that are--that will, one,
    enhance their health and, two, save money. The doc told me that--we were looking at one of these
    brilliant heart guys working for him. You're not going to believe the
    technology in this hospital, by the way. If you're a Cleveland resident,
    you ought to be proud of this hospital. It's unbelievable.
        He said something pretty
    wise, though. He said, ``You can have all the technology that man can
    conceivably create, but if you continue to smoke, we're going backwards.
    If you're not exercising, if you're not taking care of the body
    yourself, all the technology isn't going to save your life.'' In other
    words, there is a certain responsibility that we have as citizens to
    take care of ourselves. And a health savings account actually provides a
    financial incentive for you to do that.
        I believe in plans that enable small businesses to congregate across
    jurisdictional lines so they can afford insurance, afford spreading risk
    just the way big corporations can do. In other words, one way to control
    costs is to enable small businesses, many of which are having trouble
    affording insurance, to pool risk.
        I'm a strong believer in medical liability reform. We've got a legal
    system which is driving up the costs of medicine because docs are
    practicing defensive medicine, and driving good doctors out of practice.
    And it makes no sense to have a legal system that punishes good
    medicine. And therefore, I strongly believe that the Congress ought to
    pass Federal medical liability insurance for our doctors and our
    providers.
        I believe in information technology. The first time I came to
    Cleveland Clinic, we were talking about how to modernize our hospital
    systems and our doctors' offices

    [[Page 929]]

    into the 21st century. Perhaps the best way to describe the problem is,
    we've got too many doctors still writing out prescriptions by hand. Most
    of them can't write to begin with. [Laughter] And then they pass the
    file from one person to the next. That's inefficient in this new era. I
    mean, technology is changing the way we live; it ought to be changing
    the way medicine operates. And it is at Cleveland Clinic. I envision the
    day, one day, when all of us will have our own medical electronic record
    that will be safe from snoopers. In other words, it will be private but
    will make health care more efficient.
        Cleveland Clinic did something interesting. I went to four different
    stations, and after every station, they gave me an outcomes book. In
    other words, ``We're willing to be measured,'' says the good
    doc. There ought to be
    transparency in medicine. How many of you have ever actually tried to
    price a medical service? Probably not many. How many of you have ever
    said, ``Gosh, I wonder whether this health care quality is better than
    the neighbors.'' I doubt any of you have--many of you have done that.
    Why? Because the system is not geared toward that. Somebody else pays
    your bills. If you really think about it, and you're working, say, for a
    company in America, and they provide a health care plan for you, there's
    a third-party payer. Well, if somebody else pays the bills, why do you
    care what the cost is at the time of purchase?
        In other words, the whole plan has got to be to bring more
    accountability into health care, to make the consumer more responsible
    for making proper and rational decisions. That's what accountability
    does. And I applaud you for that, Doc. That's what transparency in pricing means. In other
    words, you would be able to shop for price.
        But the system, by the way, the tax system does not enable the
    individual to be incented to buy insurance in the private sector. If you
    work for a company and you get insurance, you get a good tax benefit. If
    you're an individual and buy insurance, you don't get the same tax
    benefit. That doesn't make any sense. The Tax Code needs to be reformed.
    The Tax Code ought to treat everybody equally when it comes to health
    care. And therefore, one proposal, one way to deal with that is
    something I talked to the Congress about, and said, if you're a married
    person and you're working, you ought to get a $15,000 deduction, just
    like a mortgage deduction, from your income whether you're working for
    corporate America or you're working on your own, whether you're working
    for a small-business owner or you're looking for a job.
        And that way, you begin to make sure the Tax Code is a level playing
    field. And that way, an individual market begins to grow because you
    have got an incentive at that point in time to go out and purchase
    health care. As a matter of fact, you won't get your deduction unless
    you purchase health care if you're in the individual market.
        The whole point I'm trying to make is, there's an alternative to the
    federalization of health care. It doesn't make a nice, neat sound bite.
    It's not something that's easy to sell: what do you care about making
    sure you expand SCHIP, which sounds nice and cozy? But nevertheless, it
    is an alternative that will work, and it is working right here in
    America today.
        The technological changes in the hospital across the street have
    been amazing. The quality of care has been fantastic. There's just more
    we can do to make sure we continue to be the leader, without wrecking
    the health care system.
        Energy--in order to keep this economy strong--and we do have a
    strong economy--not only have we added 8.2 million new jobs since August
    of 2003, interest is low; inflation is down. I mean, this thing is
    buzzing. There are some parts of the country that are hurting. The
    manufacturing sector up here isn't doing as well as other parts of the
    country. However, I

    [[Page 930]]

    would remind you that the unemployment rate in Ohio is 5.8 percent. Is
    that perfect? No. Is it better than it has been? You bet it is.
        But the--one of the issues to make sure that we continue to grow
    strong in the years to come is energy. I mean, we're just too dependent
    on oil. I know that sounds hard for a Texas guy to say. [Laughter]
    You're probably wondering whether I mean it. [Laughter] I do. It's a
    national security issue, to be dependent on oil from parts of the world
    where some of the folks don't like us. It's an issue that's got to be
    dealt with--now.
        There's an economic security issue when it comes to being dependent
    on oil. When the demand for crude oil goes up in a place like China
    because of economic growth, it causes the international price of oil to
    go up, which affects the gasoline price here in Cleveland, Ohio. That's
    the way it works. High crude oil prices yield to higher gasoline prices.
    And therefore, there's an economic issue for being dependent on oil.
        And there's an environmental cost for being dependent on oil. When
    we're burning carbon, it creates greenhouse gases, which is an issue
    that we need to deal with. So we have a fantastic opportunity to do
    something different for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our
    national security, and for the sake of the environment.
        Today I went to a fascinating, little company here that is building
    hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen is the input, water is the output, and in
    the meantime, your car is going. Hydrogen fuel cells are coming. And
    there's a role for the Federal Government to--spending your money to
    promote new technologies to enable us to become less dependent on oil
    and better stewards of the environment.
        Imagine one day being able to drive your car with hydrogen as its
    power source and water driblets as the output of your engine. And that
    day is coming. Now, it's down the road a little bit, but nevertheless,
    it is a part of a comprehensive plan to make sure we become less
    dependent on oil. In the meantime, when it comes to powering your cars,
    I want to tell you, I'm a big believer in having our farmers grow a
    product that will enable us to drive our cars. I think it makes sense to
    spend your money to invest in new technologies or to research new
    technologies, so that when a fellow grows switchgrass, for example, that
    grass can be processed into ethanol, which can power your automobile.
        Now, I don't know if you know this or not; we're up to about 7
    billion gallons of ethanol being produced and used in America. That's up
    from 2 billion 3 or 4 years ago. That's a good deal, if you're
    interested about energy independence, because that energy is coming from
    corn growers here in America. The problem is, we're growing a lot of
    corn for ethanol, which means the price of corn is going up for the pig
    farmer. So we've got to relieve the pressure on the pig farmer--
    [laughter]--well, not all--everybody--but pig farmer is paying--use a
    lot of corn. And therefore, we're spending money on technologies. And I
    believe more and more people are going to be using ethanol to power
    their automobiles.
        It's happening in the Midwest a lot now. Cellulosic ethanol
    breakthroughs will mean that we're going to be having ethanol produced
    from wood chips or switchgrasses, which means the market will spread
    across the United States, which will make us less dependent on oil. And
    by the way, the exhausts from ethanol are a lot cleaner than the exhaust
    from hydrocarbon-based fuels.
        We need to be promoting nuclear power. If you're really interested
    in the environment, like a lot of people are, then we ought to be
    promoting a renewable source of energy that emits no greenhouse gases.
    And one of the places where your government is spending money and is
    part of this comprehensive plan to change our energy mix is to figure
    out a better way to deal

    [[Page 931]]

    with the waste, nuclear waste. And I'm a big believer in reprocessing
    and fast-burner reactors, which is fancy words for, we can burn down the
    fuel, reuse it, burn it down to less volume and less toxicity.
        We've got 250 years of coal, at least, in America. If we're
    interested in becoming less dependent on foreign sources of energy, we
    ought to be using energy here at home in a wise way. But coal can be
    dirty, and therefore, we're spending a lot of your money on developing
    clean coal technologies.
        And my only point to you is, is that one of the reasons I've come to
    Cleveland is to herald some of the new technologies. As a matter of
    fact, a fellow came up to me at this place, and he said, ``Now, you're a
    wind person.'' I said, ``Well, yes, you know, I--a lot of hot air
    here.'' [Laughter] And he said, ``We got a new industry evolving here:
    windmills.'' That's fine. I support that. I think it makes a lot of
    sense. It makes us less dependent on foreign sources of oil. And that's
    an--important for making sure this economy continues to grow.
        So my stop here has been really aimed at heralding technology. You
    got to be optimistic about America's future because of some of the great
    technologies that are taking place. And two of the areas where
    technology is really going to change America for a long time coming is
    in the energy field and in the medical field.
        I want to talk about this war we're in. First of all, I regret I
    have to tell you we're in war. I never wanted to be a war President. I--
    now that I am one, I'm going to do my--the best I can to protect
    America.
        My mind changed on September the 11th, 2001. It changed because I
    realized the biggest responsibility government has is to protect the
    American people from further attack and that we must confront dangers
    before they come to hurt us again. That's one of the really valuable
    lessons of September the 11th, is to recognize that oceans can't protect
    us from an enemy that is ideologically driven and who will use murder as
    a tool to achieve their political objectives.
        Some in America don't believe we're at war, and that's their right.
    I know we are and, therefore, will spend my time as the President doing
    the best I can to educate people about the perils of the world in which
    we live and that we have an active strategy in dealing with it.
        First, the enemy--these folks aren't isolated folks, you know; they
    just kind of randomly show up. They have an objective. They believe as
    strongly in their ideology as I believe in ours. They believe that they
    have a obligation to spread a point of view that says, for example, if
    you don't worship the way we tell you to worship, there will be a
    consequence; just like I believe we have an obligation to defend a point
    of view that says, what matters is the right for you to choose your
    religion, and you're free to do so in the United States of America.
        They believe that they can use--they have no value for human life,
    see. That's what distinguishes them from us in another way. They will
    kill a Muslim, a child, or a woman in a moment's notice to achieve a
    political objective. They are dangerous people that need to be
    confronted.
        And that's why, since September the 11th, our policy has been to
    find them and defeat them overseas so we don't have to face them here at
    home again. Now, that is a strong--a short-term strategy because the
    long-term strategy has got to be one that marginalizes these extremists
    and radicals by promoting an alternative ideology, I like to say, an
    ideology based on light, an ideology that promotes hope, an ideology,
    when given a chance, has worked every time to lift people's spirits. And
    that's the ideology based upon liberty, the chance for people to live in
    a free and open society.
        And it's hard work. And this war is on a multiple of fronts. One
    front is Afghanistan. And the front that is consuming the

    [[Page 932]]

    American people right now is Iraq. And I fully understand how tough it
    is on our psyche. I fully understand that when you watch the violence on
    TV every night, people are saying, is it worth it? Can we accomplish an
    objective? Well, first, I want to tell you, yes, we can accomplish and
    win this fight in Iraq. And secondly, I want to tell you, we must for
    the sake of our children and our grandchildren.
        You know, I was very optimistic at the end of '05 when 12 million
    Iraqis went to the polls. I know it seems like a decade ago. It wasn't
    all that long ago that, when given a chance, 12 million people voted. I
    wasn't surprised, but I was pleased; let me put it to you that way. I
    wasn't surprised because one of the principles on which I make decisions
    is that I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe that freedom
    belongs to every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. As a
    matter of fact, to take it a step further, I believe it is a gift from
    an Almighty to every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. And
    therefore, I wasn't surprised when people, when given the chance, said,
    I want to be free. I was pleased that 12 million defied the car bombers
    and killers to vote.
        Our policy at that point in time was to get our force posture in
    such a position--is that we would train the Iraqis so they would take
    the fight to those who would stop the advance of democracy, and that
    we'd be in a position to keep the territorial integrity in place and
    chase down the extremists. That was our policy. We didn't get there in
    2006 because a thinking enemy--in this case, we believe Al Qaida, the
    same people that attacked us in America, incited serious sectarian
    violence by blowing up a holy religious site of the Shi'a. And then
    there was this wave of reprisal.
        And I had a decision to make. Some of Steve's colleagues--good,
    decent, patriotic people--believed the best thing for the United States
    to do at that point in time was to step back and to kind of let the
    violence burn out in the capital of Iraq. I thought long and hard about
    that. I was deeply concerned that violence in the capital would spill
    out into the countryside. I was deeply concerned that one of the
    objectives of Al Qaida--and by the way, Al Qaida is doing most of the
    spectacular bombings, trying to incite sectarian violence. The same
    people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now
    bombing people, killing innocent men, women, and children, many of whom
    are Muslims, trying to stop the advance of a system based upon liberty.
        And I was concerned that the chaos would more enable them to--more
    likely enable them to achieve their stated objective, which is to drive
    us out of Iraq so they could have a safe haven from which to launch
    their ideological campaign and launch attacks against America. That's
    what they have said. The killers who came to America have said, with
    clarity, ``We want you out of Iraq so we can have a safe haven from
    which to attack again.''
        I think it's important for the Commander in Chief to listen
    carefully to what the enemy says. They thrive on chaos. They like the
    turmoil. It enables them to more likely achieve their objectives. What
    they can't stand is the advance of a alternative ideology that will end
    up marginalizing them.
        So I looked at consequences of stepping back, the consequences not
    only for Iraq but the consequences for an important neighborhood, for
    the security of the United States of America. What would the Iranians
    think about America if we stepped back in the face of this extremist
    challenge? What would other extremists think? What would Al Qaida be
    able to do? They'd be able to recruit better and raise more money from
    which to launch their objectives. Failure in Iraq would have serious
    consequences for the security of your children and your grandchildren.
        And so I made the decision, rather than pulling out of the capital,
    to send more

    [[Page 933]]

    troops in the capital, all aimed at providing security, so that a
    alternative system could grow. I listened to the commanders that would
    be running the operation--in this case, the main man is a man named
    General David Petraeus, a smart, capable
    man who gives me his candid advice. His advice: ``Mr. President, is--we
    must change the mission to provide security for the people in the
    capital city of Iraq as well as in Anbar Province in order for the
    progress that the 12 million people who voted can be made.'' That's why
    we've done what we've done.
        And we just started. He got all the
    troops there a couple of weeks ago. He asked for 20-something thousand
    troops, and I said, if that's what you need, commander, that's what you
    got. And they just showed up. And they're now beginning operations in
    full.
        And in Washington, you got people saying, stop. And here's my
    attitude about this--and I understand there's the debate, and there
    ought to be a debate in our democracy, and I welcome it. I welcome a
    good, honest debate about the consequences of failure, the consequences
    of success in this war. But I believe that it's in this Nation's
    interests to give the commander a chance to fully implement his
    operations. And I believe Congress ought to wait for General
    Petraeus to come back and give his
    assessment of the strategy that he's putting in place before they make
    any decisions. That's what the American people expect. They expect for
    military people to come back and tell us how the military operations are
    going.
        And that's the way I'm going to play it as the Commander in Chief.
    I'll be glad to discuss different options. I mean, the truth of the
    matter is, I felt like we could be in a different position at the end of
    2005. I believe we can be in a different position in a while, and that
    would be to have enough troops there to guard the territorial integrity
    of that country, enough troops there to make sure that Al Qaida doesn't
    gain safe haven from which to be able to launch further attacks against
    the United States of America, enough troops to be embedded and to help
    train the Iraqis to do their job.
        But we couldn't get there without additional troops. And now I call
    upon the United States Congress to give General David Petraeus a chance to come back and tell us whether his
    strategy is working. And then we can work together on a way forward.
        In the meantime, the Iraqis have got to do more work. This coming
    week, I'll be presenting a--to the Congress a list of some of the
    accomplishments and some of the shortfalls of their political process.
    They've asked us to report on 18 different benchmarks. That's what the
    Congress said in this last supplemental spending bill. They said, come
    back here in mid-July and give us an interim report as to whether or not
    any progress is being made in Iraq. And that's what we'll be doing. So
    at the end of this week, you'll see a progress report on what's been
    happening in Iraq--and then in September, a final report on the
    benchmarks that I accepted and that Congress passed.
        And so that's the challenge facing the country. And it's a
    necessary--in my judgment, it's necessary work. I wouldn't ask a mother
    or a dad--I wouldn't put their son in harm's way if I didn't believe
    this was necessary for the security of the United States and peace of
    the world. And I strongly believe it. And I strongly believe we will
    prevail. And I strongly believe that democracy will trump
    totalitarianism every time. That's what I believe. And those are the
    belief systems on which I'm making decisions that I believe will yield
    the peace.
        You know, it's really interesting, in my position, I obviously have
    a unique view of things at times. And one of the most interesting views
    that I've been able to--of history that I've been able to really focus
    on is our relationship with Japan. I've told

    [[Page 934]]

    this story a lot because I find it to be very ironic.
        When my dad was a young guy, right out
    of high school, he joined the United States Navy, became a Navy torpedo
    bomber pilot and fought the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy of the
    United States of America. And he, like a lot of other young people, gave
    it their all. And a lot of people died on both sides of the war. As a
    matter of fact, it was--the Japanese, as you rightly know, was the last
    major attack on the United States prior to September the 11th, 2001.
    Some 60 years later, I'm at the table talking about the peace with the
    Japanese Prime Minister, Prime Minister Koizumi.
        I find that to be an inspiring story and a hopeful story. It's a
    story about this ability of liberty to transform enemies into allies.
    It's a story about the ability for those who fought to become partners
    in peace. Prime Minister Koizumi and now
    Prime Minister Abe are close friends of mine in
    the international arena. We talk about the spread of democracy in the
    troubled part of the world because we both have seen the effects of
    democracy in our own relationship.
        I've got great faith in the power of liberty to transform the world
    for the sake of peace. And the fundamental question facing our country
    is, will we keep that faith?
        Thanks for letting me come and visit with you. And now I'll be glad
    to answer some questions.
        Main guy, first question. Sure, okay. [Laughter]

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Appropriations

        Q. Well, this may seem like it was rigged, Mr. President----
        The President. Okay.
        Q. ----but there are people----
        The President. There have been a few rigged questions in my day.
    [Laughter] I'm not telling you which way they were rigged though.
    [Laughter]
        Q. Mr. President, like this world-class health care institution,
    NASA Glenn is one of the crown jewels, along with the talented people
    there, in our new economy crown. As you know, we recently won the crew
    exploration vehicle contract. We're very happy about that. Given all the
    competing demands for resources in Washington, what kind of funding do
    you see for NASA and its mission going forward?
        The President. Yes. That's a awkward question to ask a Texan.
    [Laughter] I think that NASA needed to become relevant in order to be--
    to justify the spending of your money, and therefore, I changed--helped
    changed the mission from one of orbiting in a space shuttle--in a space
    station to one of becoming a different kind of group of explorers. And
    therefore, we set a new mission, which is to go to the Moon and set up a
    launching station there from which to further explore space.
        And the reason I did that is I do want to make sure the American
    people stay involved with--or understand the relevance of this
    exploration. I'm a big--I support exploration, whether it be the
    exploration of new medicine--through, like, NIH grants--the exploration
    of space through NASA. I can't give you the exact level of funding.
        I would argue with you that we got a lot of money in Washington--not
    argue, I'll just tell you, we got a lot of money in Washington.
    [Laughter] And we need to make sure we set priorities with that money.
    One of the problems we have in Washington is that unlike the books I saw
    at the hospital--of which, you're on the board--that said ``results,''
    we're not very good about measuring results when we spend your money. A
    lot of time, the program sound nice; a lot of time, the results don't
    match the intentions.
        So one of the things I've tried to do through the OMB is to be
    results-oriented, and when programs don't meet results, we try to
    eliminate them. And that's hard to do. Isn't it, Steven? Yes. But, no--I believe

    [[Page 935]]

    in exploration, space exploration. And we've changed the mission to make
    it relevant. Thanks.
        Yes, sir.

    Relations With the Muslim World/U.S. Foreign Policy and Diplomacy/War on
    Terror

        Q. Mr. President, I'm originally from Pakistan.
        The President. Pakistan, good.
        Q. When I travel there, my friends over here say that I'm crazy to
    go back----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. And when I'm there, the people over there say I'm crazy to go
    back. [Laughter]
        The President. You're, like, in between a rock and a hard place,
    brother. I mean----
        Q. That's right, that's right. My question for you is, what are we
    doing with public diplomacy to change the minds and the hearts of a
    billion and a half Muslims around the world?
        The President. Yes. I appreciate that; great question. First, let me
    say that I'm confident your answer is, I love living in America, the
    land of the free and the home of the brave, the country where you can
    come and ask the President a question and a country where--are you
    Muslim?
        Q. Yes.
        The President. ----where you can worship your religion freely. It's
    a great country where you're able to do that. Go ahead and sit down.
    Have you made a living?
        Q. Yes, I do----
        The President. ----a country where can come and make a living
    regardless of your background. [Laughter] Seriously, it's a great thing
    about America. If you dream and work, you can achieve. And we need to
    keep it that way.
        His question is a good question. A lot of people in the Muslim world
    believe that the United States is at war with Islam, that the response
    to the attack on our country was one where we attacked somebody based
    upon their religion. And I, for one, obviously need to battle that image
    because we're not facing religious people; we're facing people whose
    hearts are filled with hate, who have subverted a great religion.
        Most Muslims reject the kind of violence perpetuated on innocent
    people by Al Qaida. I happen to believe--I just don't--believe they're
    religious people who murder the innocent to achieve political
    objectives.
        And so step one is to make it clear that we reject radical and
    extremism and murderers, not reject a great religion. Step two is to
    encourage people like you to go to Pakistan. You're more credible than I
    am amongst your pals there. You can say, ``You're not going to believe
    America. You're not going to believe the country where people from all
    different backgrounds, all walks of life, can live in freedom.''
        And I don't exaggerate to you, because the best diplomacy we have is
    when citizens travel overseas and/or people come here to America. One of
    the problems we faced when it came to diplomacy, public diplomacy, right
    after 9/11 is, we shut her down. You couldn't get in this country,
    particularly, perhaps if you were from Pakistan. I mean, this country
    said, ``Whoa, we got a new world,'' and therefore, it was, stop a lot of
    student visas. You might remember, some of the kids that flew those
    airplanes were on--here as students. And we did what most Americans
    expected us to do--made sure we inventoried where we were so we could
    best protect the American people.
        And we've learned a lot since then. So I'm pleased to report to you
    that, working with Condi--and it's her main
    responsibility--is that we've got now more students coming to America
    from other countries, but through a much better screening process. I
    can't think of a better way to help change people's attitudes about our
    America--about America than having them come here and see for
    themselves.

    [[Page 936]]

        One of the big issues we have, of course, is the public airways.
    There's a lot of television stations in the Middle East who spread some
    of this propaganda. It's easy to kick America around. And Karen
    Hughes is now the head of public diplomacy
    in the State Department, and we spend a lot of time trying to figure out
    how to counter the false and negative message about America with the
    true story of our country.
        And so we're on a multiple of fronts: visits, exchanges, better
    messaging. We've got to be careful about our language here, and I am. As
    a matter of fact, interestingly enough, right after September the 11th,
    one of the first places I went was to a mosque--or, actually, an Islamic
    center there in Washington, DC. I went back to the same center 50 years
    later--50 years after Eisenhower, Ike, dedicated it, to send a message
    about America.
        But we've got a lot of work to do on that front. It's a great
    question. Pakistan, by the way, is a--Musharraf is a strong ally in the war against these extremists.
    I like him, and I appreciate him. I'm, of course, constantly working
    with him to make sure that democracy continues to advance in Pakistan.
    But he's been a valuable ally in rejecting extremists. And that's
    important, to cultivate those allies.
        See, again I repeat to you--and this is hard for some Americans to
    understand--we are at the beginning stages of a major ideological
    struggle that will affect the security of the United States. And it's a
    struggle between moderation and extremists. It's a struggle between
    radicals who kill and rational people who want to live in peace.
        Most Muslim mothers want their children to grow up in peace; they're
    just like mothers in the United States. There's some universal
    characteristics of people. And the fundamental question facing us as a
    country is, will we have wise policies that confront these extremists?
    And the first step toward wise policy is recognizing they exist and
    we're at war with them.
        And it's--look, I spend a lot of time thinking about this issue.
    That's what you pay me to do. And I'm briefed every day about threats on
    the homeland. And we--you should be grateful to--the fact that there are
    a lot of good, good, honorable people, either at home or overseas, doing
    everything in their power to protect you.
        I wish I could report that this thing, this threat, this struggle,
    is going to end shortly; it's not. That doesn't mean we have to have
    kinetic action all the time. But it does mean America must not lose
    faith in our values and lose sight of our purpose. And that's going to
    be the challenge facing this country.
        I'm worried about isolationism. I'm worried about people saying,
    it's not worth it anymore; it's too hard; let it happen over there; it's
    not going to affect us. It will affect us. And frankly, I'm worried
    about protectionism, where people say, it's too hard to trade, let's
    just wall ourselves off from the rest of the world.
        Anyway, it's a long answer to a good question.
        Yes, ma'am.

    Immigration Reform

        Q. Mr. President, I know immigration has been a big problem in the
    U.S. And what is your next step with the immigration bill?
        The President. Yes, thanks. [Laughter] I view it as--no, it's a
    great question. No, I appreciate that. Actually, I view it as a great
    opportunity. And thank you very much for that question. As you know,
    I've had a difference of opinion with people in both political parties
    on this issue. I felt like now is the time to address the immigration
    issue and not just pass it on and hope it gets better.
        I believe in rule of law, and therefore, I know that the Federal
    Government needs to enforce law. One law is--one part of the law is,
    don't sneak into our country. And therefore, we have been aggressive at
    border security, which is making sure we

    [[Page 937]]

    modernize our border. You've probably never been down there; I grew up
    down there. It's a big border. And it's really long, and in parts of it,
    between Arizona and Mexico, you don't know where the border is. There's
    no--it's like desert.
        Secondly, there is a powerful force in the world, and it's called
    parenthood. And when you're poor and you got mouths to feed and you got
    an opportunity to put some money on the table--food on the table, you're
    going to come if you can see that opportunity. And you'll do everything
    you can to get here to put food on the table. I used to say, family
    values don't stop at the Rio Grande River.
        And so you shouldn't be surprised that a whole industry has sprung
    up where people get stuck in the back of an 18-wheeler or--and come to
    work. That troubles a lot of Americans; I understand. What I'm telling
    you is, it's hard to enforce this border, but we're doing a better job
    of doing it.
        I happen to believe the best way to really enforce the border,
    however, is to recognize that people are coming to do work Americans
    aren't doing, and therefore, there ought to be a way for people to do so
    in a rational way. That's why I supported what's called a temporary-
    worker plan that said, you can come and do a job an American is not
    doing, on a temporary basis, so you don't have to sneak across the
    border. In other words, one way to take pressure off the border is to
    have a way for people to come here on a temporary basis legally.
        Now, Steve was telling me--I was
    telling Steve--we're doing a good job, by the way. If you notice in the
    papers today, the arrests are down. In other words, fewer people are
    coming. Last year, by the way, we arrested and sent back across over a
    million people. In other words, there's a lot of action down there. It
    may not look like it or sound like it on your radios or TVs, but there's
    a lot of work going on.
        There's a lot of nursery people up here in this part of the world, I
    understand. But one of these days, these nursery people are going to
    say, ``We can't continue to grow our business because we can't find the
    workers.'' Americans are--I don't know what the proper terminology is
    for nursery worker--pruning, that's a--we'll try pruning--[laughter]--
    planting, planting--starts with a ``P.'' [Laughter] The question is, can
    they find enough workers? I was talking to a fellow today at lunch. He
    said, ``We need more high-skilled workers here in Cleveland, H-1B
    visas.''
        The system isn't working, is what I'm telling you. It's a great
    question, by the way. The system--and I'm glad you asked it--the system
    isn't working. And I felt it needed to be fixed and went to Congress--
    and, by the way, the other question is, what do you do with the 12
    million people already here? There's 12 million people, they estimate,
    here illegally. Some of them have been here a long time. Some of them
    been good citizens. You may even know some of them. They've raised kids.
    Some of the kids were born here, went to college, good, productive
    citizens in America. What do you do with them? You kick them out? I
    mean, I didn't think that was practical. As a matter of fact, I know
    it's not practical. Or you make them a citizen off the bat? No, you
    don't do that. That's called amnesty. That says, okay, fine, you broke
    the law; there's--you get rewarded. You can't have that kind of system.
        And so I supported a system that said, you pay a fine if you've been
    here that long; you show you're not a criminal; you show you paid your
    taxes; you go back home to touch base, to apply for the right to get in
    line--not ahead of somebody who has been trying to get here legally, but
    in line.
        Anyway, it didn't work. And we'll have to see whether or not the
    forces that recognize we've got to do something for the sake of the
    economy and sake of the border continue to mount, because there wasn't

    [[Page 938]]

    the political will in Washington to get anything done on a comprehensive
    basis. And that's what happens sometimes in politics.
        One of the things I try to remind people in Congress is this--I've
    told this story a lot as well. You get stuck on a story when you're
    President; you generally stay on it. [Laughter] Anyway, I was at the
    Coast Guard Academy, giving a graduation speech there. And the number-
    one guy in the class, his grandfather was a
    migrant worker from Mexico. And he talked with such unbelievable pride
    about a country where a fellow can come to do jobs Americans weren't
    doing, to work, and here his grandson is, speaking in front of the
    President, talking about a bright future.
        We should never lose confidence in the ability for this great
    country to assimilate people into our culture. I think it's healthy that
    people come to America with a dream. I think it's healthy that people
    say, ``Just give me a chance, and I'll work my heart out so a next
    generation can succeed.''
        And so in my line of work, ma'am, you just lay out what you think is
    right. I'm not the kind of fellow to tell you--I don't run focus groups
    and polls to tell me what I think is right. I try to lead--[applause]--I
    felt it was the right thing to do. It didn't work, but I'm glad I tried
    because when it's all said and done, I'll be able to look in the mirror
    and say, you came and you did what you thought was the right thing for
    the country.
        Yes.

    Visa Wavier Program

        Q. Mr. President, I have an organization that has supported the
    captive nations of the world for 48 years. And our members are sincerely
    interested in this Visa Waiver Program----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----for friendly countries so people could visit their relatives
    and friends on a shorter basis, like 30 days, 60 days. Are you in favor
    of this?
        The President. Great question. Are you from the Baltics? You are?
        Q. Sort of. I'm of Polish decent.
        The President. Polish decent. Well, that's right. Here's the thing
    she's talking about. In the Soviet era, we had a different visa policy
    with Soviet countries than we did with, say, Western European countries.
    And the danger--not the danger--the issue was--I take it back, not
    danger--issue--[laughter]--was that people would come and overstay their
    visas. In other words, people would say, I'm coming to travel and visit,
    but in fact, they were coming to stay. And therefore, there was an
    accountability system in place that's been around for a long time.
        Fast-forward to today. Polish troops helped us liberate Iraq, and
    yet the citizens that supported a Government that helped us liberate
    Iraq aren't treated the same as citizens from other allies.
        And so to answer your question, yes, I am for changing the visa
    waiver policy for Poland and countries like Poland. And every time I
    go--as you know, I was in Poland--you may not know--I was in Poland the
    last trip and the Czech Republic and Bulgaria and Albania. And they
    wanted to know--question one is, when are you going to treat us like
    everybody else in the European Union? And my answer was, we're working
    on a comprehensive immigration bill--[laughter]--to address a lot of
    issues. And that was one of the issues we were trying to address.
        In the name of fairness, Condi and I
    are working on--with Congress on a new Visa Waiver Program. Great
    question.
        Yes, sir. Why don't you go ahead and yell it out.

    War on Terror/Spread of Democracy

        Q. Mr. President, first of all, as a fairly conservative talk show
    host, I'd like you to please tell Congress to leave the fairness
    doctrine in the ground where it is.
        The President. Thank you--yes. [Laughter]

    [[Page 939]]

        Q. Second of all, going back to Iraq, sir, you mentioned Muslim
    mothers want their children to grow up in peace.
        The President. Right.
        Q. The children of extremists, however, are being trained right now.
        The President. Correct.
        Q. We've seen the videos. We have seen the indoctrination,
    schoolchildren being indoctrinated to hate Americans and to hate Jews.
        The President. Correct.
        Q. The next generations of terrorists are already being bred. Isn't
    is true that regardless of how long it takes to win in Iraq or
    Afghanistan, the war on terror will never, ever truly be ended?
        The President. I think the strategy--first of all, I've read a lot
    of history, and I'm certainly no history expert, but I wonder what the
    rhetoric would have been like at the beginning of the cold war. Is it
    possible people might have speculated--and again, I can't tell you if
    this is--I'm just kind of speculating now--is it possible people
    speculated that, after the indoctrination of so many children about the
    wisdom of Marx, that this cold war would ever end?
        After Korea, I suspect no one would have predicted what I'm going to
    tell you now, that after years and years of bloodshed in the Far East,
    our relations in the Far East are strong, not only with Japan, the
    former enemy, South Korea, ally, but an ally, by the way, that went
    through a troublesome march to democracy. They're now a democracy, but
    you might remember that during the period of that change, they went
    through a pretty strong-handed military government.
        We got good relations with China. I don't think in the early fifties
    anybody would have predicted that the Chinese marketplace would more
    likely look like what Adam Smith envisioned rather than Karl Marx,
    although the political system lags, admittedly. But nevertheless,
    there's a lot of--my only point to you is, I don't think people could
    have seen what life was like.
        And so yes, it's going to be a struggle, you're right, for a lot of
    reasons. But is it impossible to achieve the marginalization of those
    who are able to radicalize people? And I think it is. I think it is. And
    not only I think it is; I think it's necessary.
        I believe that forms of government matter. I believe that
    frustration and hopelessness, because people don't have a sense of
    future, makes it easier for radical movements and radicals to be able to
    recruit. That's what I believe. And therefore, that's why I'm such a
    strong believer in advocating the march of democracy in the Middle East.
        And look, I fully understand that, and this is a very interesting
    ideological debate--people call me--he's a hopeless idealist, they say.
    But I also think it's realistic to understand, unless we change the
    conditions of how people live, that it's going to be hard to marginalize
    those who would prey upon the young. You notice, none of these guys that
    have given the orders are actually the suicide bombers. That's why
    they're still giving the orders. [Laughter] But they're able to prey
    upon young people. And I think a lot of it has to do with education. And
    no question, we're working with governments such as
    Musharraf's Government to address the
    madrassas. Education matters a lot, whether it be in helping to
    eradicate poverty or helping to deal with radicalism.
        But if you living in a society where you have no hope, then you're
    going to look for another form of false hope. So I happen to think the
    idea of encouraging people to adopt forms of government that give people
    hope is in our national interest.
        Now, this is a different foreign policy than what we used to espouse
    here. It used to be, in many ways, what mattered was calm, apparent
    calm. What mattered most was stability. Let's have a foreign policy that
    promotes stability to make sure we get plenty of cheap energy as well.

    [[Page 940]]

        After September the 11th, I came to the conclusion that such a
    foreign policy promoted instability because while things might look calm
    on the surface, beneath the surface broiled frustration and doubt and
    hopelessness. And so the policy that I advocate is one that promotes
    democracy as an alternative in this ideological struggle, all aiming to
    marginalize the recruiters and give hope to the recruitees. And do I
    believe it can work? I do. That's why I told you the Japanese story.
        History has been--history--liberty prevails every time if we stay
    with it, if you think about history. Think about Europe. There were two
    major wars on the continent of Europe, and today, Europe is whole, free,
    and at peace. Why? Because forms of government matter. And it's in our
    interest--and I've said this once, and I'll say it again: It's in our
    interest not to lose faith in certain fundamental values.
        And it's hard work, particularly hard work given the fact that we
    live in this world in which news and imagery travels instantly. The
    enemy knows that. The interesting thing, they know a lot about us in
    America. They know we're kind-hearted, decent people who value human
    life. And they understand that Americans will recoil from the violence
    on our TV screens. That's what they know. And I know--or I strongly
    believe that if we recoil and leave the region with precipitous
    withdrawals or withdrawals not based upon conditions on the ground, it's
    going to get worse, not better. And my attitude is, now is the time to
    do the hard work so your children can more likely grow up in peace.
        That's what I believe, sir. And that's why I'm making my decisions.
        Yes. A couple of more, then you're paying me a lot of money, and
    I've got to go back to work. [Laughter]

    Tribal Nations

        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Yes, sir.
        Q. ----Republican Presidents, going back to the Nixon
    administration, have strongly favored Indian self-determination.
        The President. India?
        Q. American Indian self-determination and first-nations communities.
    And it seems like the conservative Court, however, has been consistently
    eroding that self-determination. What has your administration--what
    position does your administration take with respect to sovereignty and
    Native American rights?
        The President. Very interesting question. I believe in the
    sovereignty of the Indian nations. And far be it for me to second-guess
    Court decisions. On the other hand, I will continue to put judges who
    strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.
    But I do support the notion of sovereignty. It's really interesting.
        Yes, sir. You're next, after him.

    Disaster Preparedness and Response/Pandemic Flu

        Q. Sorry about that. Mr. President----
        The President. Doc.
        Q. ----I'm a pediatrician at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital
    across the street--[inaudible]--Cleveland.
        The President. Thank you, sir. Nutritionist?
        Q. Pediatrician, yes, sir.
        The President. Pediatricianist.
        Q. Yes, sir. Returning to a domestic item very quickly----
        The President. Must feel good to be a healer.
        Q. It is, sir. Thank you. Good to serve. One of the things that
    we're passionate about in pediatrics now, both at Rainbow and across the
    Nation, is disaster preparedness and disaster response, specifically the
    needs of children. Could you comment, Mr. President, on how well-
    prepared we are as a nation for, God forbid, the next Katrina or
    pandemic flu or some such calamity?
        The President. We learned a lot of lessons from Katrina. Lesson one
    is, is that we've got to make sure local governments

    [[Page 941]]

    are better prepared to respond. Lesson two is that there's seamless
    decisionmaking between the State and local government. And lesson three
    is, is that if need be, the Federal Government needs to move troops in
    there, regardless of what the local people want.
        We are better prepared and drill it a lot. Great question. The more
    difficult question is his question on pandemic flu. I asked Mike
    Leavitt, who is the head of HHS, and
    Chertoff to--he's the Homeland guy--to
    chair--Department of Homeland Security--[laughter]--Secretary of
    Homeland Security. [Laughter] In Crawford, we kind of shortcut it.
    [Laughter] Anyway, look, nobody has accused me of being Shakespeare, you
    know? [Laughter] Anyway--I just hope you can figure out what I'm
    saying--[laughter]--is we spend a lot of time on pandemic flu. One way
    you anticipate a crisis is you kind of war-game it.
        The first--I'm going to try to see if I can remember as much to make
    it sound like I'm smart on the subject. But I actually spend a lot of
    time on it because I am concerned that if the pandemic flu, the H5N1
    virus were to mutate to the point where it becomes transmittable from
    bird to human to human, we'll have a significant international problem
    on our hands. So step one is to work with countries where the virus is
    more likely to show up and mutate on transparent information systems.
        When I went to Vietnam, one of the things we looked at was the
    Vietnamese reporting process of the detection of chicken viruses and
    whether or not that virus was mutating to the point where it could
    become infectious. And we've done a good job of that. As a matter of
    fact, at the APEC--which is the countries around the Pacific Rim--
    meeting, the last two meetings and this next one I'm going to in
    Australia, I always make it a point for--to talk about the need for all
    of us to be in a position where we can share information and track the
    mutation of the virus.
        The issue, as you know, is that there is no, like, inoculation that
    will stop the spread. Yet we're spending a lot of money on trying to
    develop new vaccines based not upon eggs but on genetics. And
    Leavitt says we're making some pretty
    good progress.
        Thirdly, just in case it were to hit here in the United States, we
    have stockpiled a lot of the spray. What's it called--anyway--Tamiflu.
    It may work, may not work. But just in case it does work, we got a lot
    of stockpile for you--[laughter]--we do, as a way to try to, at least,
    arrest somewhat the spread of the disease.
        But the ultimate effect--and this is what the dangerous thing about
    this is--is the ultimate public policy decisions are going to be, do we
    shut down America? Do you say that nobody can come in and out of your
    city? Or do you shut down all air travel? And so we've war-gamed a lot
    of options. And Mike has traveled the
    country--Mike Leavitt--to State and local government to help them think
    through different procedures that would be necessary to try to halt the
    spread of this virus if it were to mutate.
        For example, how would a local community deal with schools? We
    happen to believe that the local response would be a better response
    than the Federal Government trying to one-size-fits-all each community's
    response. And that, as you know--I mean, there's different responses to
    different hurricanes that have hit, and so it would be a little uneven.
    And so we're trying to train as best as we can and war-game it out. It's
    a very interesting question you got.
        I would give us a ``A'' for recognizing that we need to think about
    it. And I--until we get this vaccine--and by the way, we do have it teed
    up pretty well, where the vaccine makers will be willing to go full
    production if we can find the proper vaccine to manufacture. We're
    spending a lot of money on it at NIH--through NIH. And I'd give us good
    marks for recognizing

    [[Page 942]]

    the issue, good marks for doing something about it, and the only--I
    can't tell you what marks we'll get in response because, thankfully, we
    haven't had to respond, but we're watching carefully.
        Yes, sir. Good question.

    Education/President's Domestic Agenda

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. If you talk to a lot of neighborhood
    folks here in Cleveland, they say that there's a war on terror brewing
    in our neighborhoods with an increase in crime over the past few months.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. What are your thoughts on how we can improve opportunity and
    decrease crime in urban areas to make Cleveland an international
    metropolis?
        The President. No, thanks. Yes, great question. First of all, there
    is--crime is rising in some communities--under some crime, like, I think
    it was 1 percent last year. In other words, no question that--look, I'm
    an education guy; let me just put it bluntly. I don't see how you can
    provide a hopeful future for a child if the child can't read, write, or
    add and subtract. Now, that's pretty elementary. But it doesn't happen
    enough. And therefore, I strongly support accountability in public
    schools. I happen to believe that it is a huge advance in kind of
    providing--promoting opportunity.
        See, when I was the Governor of Texas, I was appalled at the number
    of schools that just shuffled kids through and hoped that they learned
    something. And then you know what happened? We get about the 9th or 10th
    grade, and lo and behold, they can't read. And oops, it's a little late.
    Too bad, just go on through. It's much easier, by the way, to give up on
    a kid early and just kind of socially promote. And so I insisted, as
    Governor of Texas and then working with people like Steve
    LaTourette, to change the way the
    Federal Government deals with education.
        Now, I believe strongly in local control of schools, okay. I believe
    you ought to chart the paths to excellence here. I believe that the
    government closest to the people governs best because you're most
    responsive to the needs of your particular community. That's what I
    believe. However, I also believe that if the Federal Government spends
    money, we have the right to ask whether or not certain objectives are
    being met.
        And so inherent in No Child Left Behind is a solid demand by
    results-oriented people who want to know whether or not an inner-city
    kid can read at grade level by the third grade. I don't think that's too
    much to ask, to set a standard and have expectations that must be met in
    return for Federal money. A matter of fact, I think that is the way to
    make sure that--I used to call it this way: challenge the soft bigotry
    of low expectations.
        Let's just face it--let me finish here--let's just face it; let's be
    honest about our ourselves. There is a mindset at times that certain
    kids are too hard to educate. Maybe the mother or daddy doesn't speak
    English as the first language or inner-city kids, as if there's no
    inherent God-given talent that, if properly motivated, can enable that
    kid to excel.
        And so I strongly believe it's in the national interests to say, we
    expect you to read--unless, of course, you happen to believe they can't.
    I'm a high expectations person. I believe if you set low expectations,
    you know what you're going to get? You're going to get low results. I
    believe every child can learn. That's what I believe. And I believe that
    governments ought to expect to have good results.
        And so inherent in this education proposal, which is now the law--
    which frankly has irritated a lot of people; it just has. That's what
    happens when you hold people to account--that, I think, it makes sense
    to say, no excuses; we want you to read. And we want you to read not
    only at the third grade but at the fourth grade and

    [[Page 943]]

    at the fifth grade and at the sixth grade and at the seventh grade. And
    we're going to test to make sure you do.
        You design the test. If you believe in local control of schools, the
    test ought to be designed, and they ought to be rigorous. And by the
    way, if you're a poor inner-city student, and you can't read at grade
    level, we will use that diagnostic tool to provide you additional money
    to make sure that you get the help that you need in order to make sure
    you're not left behind.
        And frankly, I don't care if that parent spends that money at the
    public school or a church or a private tutor. All I want is to make sure
    that that child gets the extra help he or she needs to make sure that
    the next time they test on reading or math, they're at grade level. And
    if a school--no, wait, let me finish. I'm not through yet because you
    got me started on something I strongly believe in. [Laughter]
        And if the school won't change nor teach, I believe parents ought to
    be given different options. We shouldn't have a school system that locks
    people into persistent failure, if you're interested in changing the
    dynamics of an inner city, for example.
        You know, we did something in Washington very interesting--that I
    found interesting, at least. We have now got a scholarship program,
    opportunity scholarships. See, the Federal Government funds the DC city
    and--a lot of the DC city and the schools, and so we can do this in
    Washington. So we have opportunity scholarships that go to poorer
    parents, where the parent can take that money and send their child to a
    parochial school or a private school. The line is out the door. It's
    amazing what happens when you give parents options.
        Part of the accountability system, by the way, enables parents to
    understand reality as well. When I was Governor, I talked to a lot of
    parents, and they say, ``Man, my child's school is great. I'm real happy
    with the school, Governor; we're doing great.'' And then all of a
    sudden, the test scores get posted, and if the school isn't meeting
    expectations compared to the other schools, the parent might say, well,
    maybe the school is not doing so good, and they start getting involved.
        I--and so step one of your question is, let's get it right early. I
    believe strongly in after-school programs. I believe that we've got to
    change the aspirational notions of some of our children that college is
    a good thing to do and that success is available for people who go to
    college. I mean that--and community colleges--I'm a big believer in
    community colleges. I think that's part of having a hopeful tomorrow for
    inner city--or not inner city--to know that college is available. That's
    why I'm a big, strong supporter of Pell grants as a way to encourage
    kids to go to college.
        I am concerned about a society that has not--a part of our society
    that hasn't accumulated assets. It's interesting; a lot of us have grown
    up in a world in which asset accumulation, savings, has been an integral
    part of our societies. In parts of Cleveland, I suspect, people don't
    have assets. They haven't had the capacity or the willing--or the
    ability to save money. That's why I believe that when we reform Social
    Security, that we ought to give people the option of setting aside some
    of their own money they've earned in the Social Security system as a
    savings account that can earn compound interest, just like money that we
    put in our own savings account. I want people to own assets. One of the
    big reasons I've pushed homeownership is, I like the idea of encouraging
    and fostering independence by ownership.
        And so--and finally, one way to help inner-city youth--this is a
    subject I've thought a lot about--is to encourage the involvement of
    faith-based and community-based programs in the compassionate delivery
    of love and help. And that's a different idea for a welfare system, see.
    I am a big believer in the ability of faith-based programs to help
    change people's lives. I, for one, believe that a faith-based program
    can

    [[Page 944]]

    help people quit drinking--me, for starters. I believe that there is
    nothing more powerful than a mentor putting an arm around a child who
    needs love and says, I love you. Many of the faith-based programs are
    full of people who are in the program in the first place because they
    believe in the universal admonition to love a neighbor like you'd like
    to be loved yourself.
        And therefore, one of the initiatives that I have put forth in
    Washington, that is quite controversial, is that we ought to open up
    programs--Federal money to faith-based programs, so long as, one, they
    don't proselytize, and two, so long as they help meet a social
    objective. Why shouldn't we say that we ought to be spending your
    taxpayers' money on programs to help inner-city kids regardless of what
    the delivery system is? Why shouldn't we say, faith-based programs, that
    many times are able to go into neighborhoods that other programs aren't
    able to go into--why shouldn't we empower them to help people realize in
    life that there may be a better path than the path one may be tempted to
    go down?
        So there's a comprehensive agenda. My dream is for all of us to feel
    that the promise of America belongs to them. And it's a great country.
    It is; it's a fabulous country. I know people are frustrated, and people
    get concerned. But I would hope we would all keep things in perspective
    and realize what a fantastic nation we have.
        I mean, when you really compare our life here compared to the lives
    of others around the world, we're blessed. To that end, to whom much is
    given, much is required. And that's why we're in the lead when it comes
    to solving the pandemic of HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa and
    working to end malaria. These are two achievable objectives. One is to
    get antiretrovirals into the hands of people who suffer. And American
    taxpayers have been incredibly generous. And it ought to make you feel
    good about a country that is willing to say, I see suffering, and I want
    to help. In other words, we're working on suffering at home, and we
    ought to work on suffering abroad as well.
        I'm asking Congress for $30 billion. It's double the HIV/AIDS
    initiative that we've got in place. But let me tell you an interesting
    statistic. When we first got going on the initiative in 2003, I think it
    was, 50,000 people were getting antiretrovirals in the countries that we
    were working in. Today, over 1.2 million people's lives have been saved
    because of the generosity of the American taxpayer.
        And now we're on an initiative to end malaria, or cut it at least in
    half, in affected countries around the world. Should we be doing that as
    a country? The answer is, absolutely, we should be. And the reason why
    is, is that we're a blessed nation. And we've become even doubly blessed
    by helping others be able to deal with disease and realize the blessings
    of an Almighty. That's what I believe.
        Listen, I got to hop. [Laughter] Thanks for your time. God bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:42 p.m. at the InterContinental Hotel
    Cleveland. In his remarks, he referred to Frederick R. Nance, chairman
    of the board of directors, and Joseph D. Roman, president and chief
    executive officer, Greater Cleveland Partnership; Mayor Frank G. Jackson
    of Cleveland, OH; Delos M. ``Toby'' Cosgrove, chief executive officer
    and chairman of the board of governors, the Cleveland Clinic; Gen. David
    H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq;
    President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan; and Ens. Marc A. Mares, USCG.

    [[Page 945]]