    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
    [September 5, 2007]
    [Pages 1160-1169]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference With Prime Minister John W.
    Howard of Australia in Sydney, Australia
    September 5, 2007

        Prime Minister Howard. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like
    to welcome the media to this news conference. I'll say a couple of
    words, invite the President to speak briefly, and then we'll take a
    couple of questions from each of the press groups.
        It's always a great pleasure, George, to welcome you to Australia.
    The United States President is always welcome in our country. We have no
    closer alliance with any country in the world than the one we have with
    the United States. Both historically and contemporaneously, the
    importance of the alliance between the United States of America and
    Australia is deeply embedded in the minds of millions of Australians.
        And you, Mr. President, and I have shared a number of very special
    experiences over the past few years. I remember our first personal
    meeting was on the 10th of September of 2001. And of course, as a
    consequence of that meeting and the events that horrifically followed
    the other day, the paths of our two countries have been parallel in so
    many ways, in the fight against terrorism and the promotion of democracy
    and freedom around the world. And in that context, as well as the more
    generic national context, I welcome you very warmly on a personal basis
    to my hometown of Sydney, Australia's largest city and, in my view, the
    most beautiful big city in the world.
        But we had a very broad-ranging discussion. We talked extensively
    about Iraq, about the climate change aspects of APEC, the American
    perception towards conditions in the Middle East and in relation to
    Iran, and also the prospects for something we both hope for, and that is
    a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinian people which
    does justice to the right of the Israelis to exist unmolested as a free
    and proud nation and also the right of the people of Palestine to have a
    homeland.
        On a bilateral basis, we have agreed to a number of new
    arrangements, including

    [[Page 1161]]

    a treaty relating to exchanges in--concerning defense equipment which
    effectively will remove layers of bureaucracy for defense industries in
    Australia acquiring American technology. And we'll enter that market on
    the same basis as do companies coming from the United Kingdom.
        We also agreed on joint statements regarding climate change and
    energy, a joint nuclear energy action plan which involves cooperation on
    civil nuclear energy, including R&D, skills and technical training, and
    regulatory issues. Australia intends to participate in the Global
    Nuclear Energy Partnership, and there will be great benefits in terms of
    access to nuclear technology and nonproliferation. And the United States
    will support Australian membership in the Generation IV International
    Forum, which involves R&D to develop safer and better nuclear reactors.
        I'm also pleased to announce that we've entered arrangements that
    will allow something in the order of 15,000--we estimate--young
    Australians, who are students or graduates, to visit the United States
    on the basis of some kind of gap year in their studies, and that will be
    a facility available in the United States which is currently available
    and very widely utilized by young Australians in the United Kingdom and
    other European countries.
        We have also agreed to have further detailed discussions involving
    taking our defense cooperation even further, and this involves four
    components to be explored. The first of those is enhanced cooperation on
    humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. And that could, in fact,
    involve a stationing--basing in Australia by the United States equipment
    and stores and provisions that would be available for ready use in
    disaster relief in our immediate region. And we think, in particular, of
    any repetition of the tsunami disaster or things of that kind which
    occurred a couple of years ago.
        Secondly, a further enhancement of the joint training capability by
    providing additional support for training by American and Australian
    forces in Australia and also further cooperative efforts to develop
    access and capabilities for international surveillance and
    reconnaissance. And finally, a further enhancement of our already robust
    program of military exchanges and joint operations. We've asked our
    officials to work in more detail around each of those four headings, and
    as a result of that, I'm very confident that there will be further and
    very significant enhancement of an already very close relationship.
        Can I just conclude by saying that in our discussions, I made it
    very clear to the President that our commitment to Iraq remains.
    Australian forces will remain at their present levels in Iraq not based
    on any calendar, but based on conditions in the ground, until we are
    satisfied that a further contribution to ensuring that the Iraqis can
    look after themselves cannot usefully be made by the Australian forces.
    They will not be reduced or withdrawn.
        It may, over time, be that their role will assume greater elements
    of training or greater elements of other aspects of what their
    capabilities include, but their commitment, their level, and the basis
    on which they stay there in cooperation with other members of the
    coalition will not change under a government that I lead.
        We believe that progress is being made in Iraq, difficult though it
    is. And we do not believe this is the time to be setting any proposals
    for a scaling down of Australian forces. We think that is objectionable
    on two grounds: Firstly, it misreads the needs of the Iraqi people, and
    secondly, at the present time, a close ally and friend such as Australia
    should be providing the maximum presence and indication of support to
    our very close ally and friend in the United--in the person of the
    United States. That is our position, and I've made that very clear to
    the President in our discussions. And I make it very clear to you at
    this news conference.
        George.

    [[Page 1162]]

        President Bush. Mr. Prime Minister, thanks for your hospitality.
    It's great to be here. You've been telling me how beautiful Sydney is. I
    now agree. Laura sends her very best to you and
    Janette, and we congratulate you on, like,
    your grandfatherhood. [Laughter]
        Prime Minister Howard. Thank you.
        President Bush. Yes. I admire your vision; I admire your courage.
    One thing that's really important when it comes to international
    diplomacy is when a leader tells you something, he means it. And the
    thing I appreciate about dealing with Prime Minister Howard is that,
    one, you know where he stands; you don't have to try to read nuance into
    his words. And then when he tells you something, he stands by his word.
    And I thank you for that. I appreciate--as well our personal friendship.
    I'm looking forward for you to buy me lunch today. I'm a meat guy.
    [Laughter]
        Prime Minister Howard. We know that. [Laughter]
        President Bush. I'm looking forward to some Australian beef.
        We did sign a treaty today that was important. It's the U.S.-
    Australia Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty. And I think John put it
    best: It helps cut through the bureaucracy so that we can transform our
    forces better, share technology better, and frankly enable our private
    sectors to work together to develop new defense capabilities to defend
    ourselves. And it is an important treaty. It took a while to get here,
    but it's--we were able to get it done. And I thank you for giving me a
    chance to sign it here.
        We spent a lot of time talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. As I told
    John, we're in the midst of an ideological struggle against people who
    use murder as a weapon to achieve their vision. Some people see that;
    some people don't see it. Some people view these folks as just kind of
    isolated killers who may show up or may not show up. I happen to view
    them as people with an objective, and their objective is to spread a
    vision that is opposite of the vision that we share.
        There are two theaters in this war on terror. They're evident. One
    is Afghanistan; the other is Iraq. These are both theaters of the same
    war. And the fundamental question is, is it worth it to be there, and
    can we succeed? And the definition of success are countries that can
    govern themselves, sustain themselves, defend themselves, listen to the
    people, and serve as allies in this war against extremists and
    murderers. And if I didn't think we could succeed, I wouldn't have our
    troops there. As the Commander in Chief of our military, I cannot commit
    U.S. troops into combat unless I'm convinced it's worth it--important to
    the security of the United States, and we can meet our objectives.
        And as you know, I just came from Al Anbar Province in Iraq. This is
    a Province that some 6 months ago--or 8 months ago had been written off
    by the experts as lost to Al Qaida. The people that presumably had taken
    over Anbar have sworn allegiance to the very same bunch that caused 19
    killers to come and kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens. And the experts
    had said, ``Well, Anbar is gone; Al Qaida will have the safe haven that
    they have said they want.'' By the way, a safe haven for Al Qaida
    anywhere is dangerous to those of us who believe in democracy and
    freedom. That's one of the lessons of September the 11th.
        The Province I saw wasn't lost to the extremists. The place I went
    had changed dramatically, fundamentally because the local people took a
    look at what Al Qaida stands for and said, ``We're not interested in
    death, destruction. We don't want to be associated with people who
    murder the innocent to achieve their objectives. We want something
    different for our children.'' And as a result of our alliance with these
    folks, we're now hunting down Al Qaida in this Province. And the same
    thing has taken place across Iraq. The security situation is changing.
    That's the briefing I received

    [[Page 1163]]

    from David Petraeus, our general on the
    ground, General David Petraeus.
        He says the security situation is
    changing so that reconciliation can take place. There are two types of
    reconciliation, one from the bottom up. I met with sheikhs that are
    tired of the violence. They're reconciling. They're reconciling after
    decades of tyranny. They're reconciling after having lived under a
    dictator who divided society in order to be able to sustain his power.
        At the national level, there is reconciliation, but not nearly as
    fast as some would like. By the way, people who don't believe we should
    be in Iraq in the first place, there's no political reconciliation that
    can take place to justify your opinion. If you don't think Iraq is
    important, if you don't think it matters what the society looks like
    there, then there's not enough amount of reconciliation that will cause
    people to say, ``Great, it's working.'' If you believe, like I believe,
    that the security of the United States and the peace of the world depend
    upon a democracy in the Middle East and Iraq, then you can see progress.
    And I'm seeing it.
        Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is there more work to be done? You
    bet there is. But the fact that their legislature passed 60 pieces of
    legislation, I thought, is illustrative of a government that's beginning
    to work. It's more than our Legislature passed. They got a budget out.
    We're still working on our budget, Mr. Prime Minister.
        Do they need an oil law? You bet they need an oil law. Why? Because
    it will be part of saying to Sunnis, Shi'a, and Kurd alike, this--the
    oil belongs to the people. It's a way to unify the country. On the other
    hand, they are distributing revenues from the central Government. In
    Anbar Province, they have distributed 107 million this year, about 96
    million last year. There's only one place they could have gotten the
    revenue from: their oil resources. So there is distribution taking place
    in spite of the fact there's not a law. They got a budgeting process
    that's funding their military. In other words, there is a functioning
    government.
        Again, I repeat: There's plenty of work to be done. There's more
    work to be done, but reconciliation is taking place. And it's important,
    in my judgment, for the security of America, or for the security of
    Australia, that we hang in there with the Iraqis and help them. If this
    is an ideological struggle, one way to defeat an ideology of hate is
    with an ideology of hope, and that is societies based upon liberty. And
    that's what's happening. And it's historic work, Mr. Prime Minister, and
    it's important work. And I appreciate the contribution that the
    Australians have made. You've got a great military, full of decent
    people. And you ought to be proud of them. And I know the Australian
    people are.
        The same work goes on in Afghanistan. The degree of difficulty is
    just about the same. After all, this is a society trying to recover from
    a brutal reign. But it's the same principles involved, and that is to
    help them have their style democracy flourish. And it's happening in
    Afghanistan. People who have been to Kabul will tell you it's
    dramatically different than what it was like when we first liberated
    Afghanistan.
        I believe that when the final chapters of the 21st century are
    written, people will say, ``We appreciate the courage and sacrifice made
    by our respective countries in laying the foundation for peace.''
        It's interesting we're having APEC here in Australia. And the Prime
    Minister and I, of course, will be sitting at the table with the Prime
    Minister of Japan. Sixty years ago, we fought the
    Japanese. We've got a great relationship. I'm sure much is going to be
    made of, well, do personalities define the relationship? Well, this
    relationship has been forged in--based upon values and doing hard work
    together. Personalities matter. I mean, it helps that he and I are
    friends, by the way, in terms of the alliance. But the alliance is
    bigger than the individuals. And so we--our alliance has been forged in
    battle and in friendship and in--

    [[Page 1164]]

    through trade. And yet we're sitting down with the former enemy, which
    ought to be an historical lesson of what can happen when liberty takes
    root in certain societies. And of course, we'll be talking about the
    peace. We talk about North Korea; we're talking about Asia; we talk
    about how we can work together to achieve peace.
        We are talking about trade here at the APEC summit that the Prime
    Minister is ably leading. I happen to believe trade is important. I
    think the free trade agreement between Australia and the United States
    has been beneficial to both our peoples. Trade's up. When trade is up,
    it means commerce is up, goods and services are flowing more freely. It
    means people are more likely to make a living. And by the way, when
    you're trading with somebody, you want their economy to be good. And I
    congratulate you on having such a strong economy. That's important for
    our trading partners to be wealthy enough to have something to trade.
    [Laughter]
        And so the question is, can we advance the Doha round and--here at
    the APEC? And I believe we can. I want to thank you for your able
    leadership. It's a hard issue to get done, but I believe with will and
    determination, we can get it done. And as I'll say in the speech here
    Friday, we'll show flexibility when it comes to making sure this round
    is as successful as possible.
        I am looking forward to speaking out about Burma at the APEC
    conference. It's inexcusable that we've got this kind of tyrannical
    behavior in Asia. It's inexcusable that people who march for freedom are
    then treated by a repressive state. And those of us who live in comfort
    of a free society need to speak out about this kind--these kind of human
    rights abuses.
        And so, Mr. Prime Minister, it--I hope you don't mind me speaking as
    clearly as I possibly can about the fate of Aung San Suu Kyi and her friends and average citizens who simply want
    the same thing we have: to live in a free society.
        I do want to thank you very much for your leadership on climate
    change. Now, I know some say, ``Well, since he's against Kyoto, he
    doesn't care about the climate change.'' That's urban legend that is
    preposterous. As a matter of fact, the United States last year reduced
    overall greenhouse gas emissions and grew our economy at the same time.
    In other--we showed what is possible when you deploy modern technologies
    that enable you to achieve economic growth so your people can work and,
    at the same time, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil and,
    at the same time, be good stewards of the environment.
        So I appreciate you bringing up the nuclear power initiative. If you
    truly care about greenhouse gases, then you'll support nuclear power. If
    you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us--if
    we take the issue seriously, if you take the issue seriously, like I do
    and John does, then you should be supportive of nuclear power. After
    all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any
    greenhouse gases. Anyway, your leadership at APEC has been really
    strong.
        And I'm looking forward to my discussions with the leader of China
    about a lot of issues, one of which, of course, will be climate change.
    And my attitude is--as I explained to you--is that in order for there to
    be an effective climate change policy, China needs to be at the table.
    In order to get China at the table, they have to be a part of defining
    the goals. Once we can get people to define the goals, then we can
    encourage people to define the tactics necessary to achieve the goals. I
    believe this strategy is going to be a lot more effective than trying
    us--people--countries to say, this is what you've got to do, we're
    telling you how to behave, as opposed to, why don't we work together to
    achieve a common consensus on being good stewards of the environment.
    APEC is a good forum to do this. You provided great leadership on the
    issue, and I appreciate it.
        We'll take some questions.

    [[Page 1165]]

        Prime Minister Howard. We'll start with the American first.
        President Bush. Good. Bret Baier [FOX News].

    National Security Threats/China-U.S. Relations/North Korea

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You've described the U.S. relationship
    with China as complex. U.S. military sources are now confirming that
    Chinese hackers hacked into the computers at the Pentagon in June,
    hackers linked to the Government in Beijing. And it's being described as
    a complicated cyber attack. Have you been briefed on this attack? How
    much more complex does this make the relationship with China? And do you
    plan to bring it up with President Hu Jintao on Thursday?
        President Bush. I'm very aware that a lot of our systems are
    vulnerable to cyber attack from a variety of places. And therefore, the
    first question should be--not to put questions in your mouth, Bret,
    but--what are you doing to defend America against cyber attack? Are you
    aware that we have vulnerabilities, that people can hack into sensitive
    systems? And are you then providing expertise and technology necessary
    to defend? And the answer is, yes. We understand that we're vulnerable
    in some systems, some, by the way, more valuable than others--or less
    valuable than others, I guess, is the best way to put it.
        In terms of whether or not I'll bring this up to countries that we
    suspect may--from which there may have been an attack, I may. In this
    instance, I don't have the intelligence at my fingertips right now.
    Whether it be this issue or issues like intellectual property rights, I
    mean, if you have a relationship with a country, then you've got to
    respect the country's systems and knowledge base. And that's what we
    expect from people with whom we trade.
        Our relationship with China is complex. On the one hand, we
    appreciate the opportunity to trade goods and services. We certainly
    hope that China changes from a saving society to a consuming society.
    Right now, because of the lack of a safety net, many Chinese save for
    what we call a rainy day. What we want is the Government to provide more
    of a safety net so they start buying more U.S. and Australian products.
    We want there to be a--the middle class to feel comfortable coming into
    the marketplace, the global marketplace, so that our producers can see
    the benefits directly with trade with China.
        By the way, our exports to China are up, Mr. Prime Minister, which
    is positive. We still have got a huge trade deficit with China, which
    then causes us to want to work with them to adjust--to let their
    currency float. We think that would be helpful in terms of adjusting
    trade balances.
        We've got great relations with China from a diplomatic perspective.
    In other words, we're able to talk with them openly and candidly. But do
    we agree on every issue? Not at all. I mean, for example, I've spent
    time talking about dissidents who have been jailed. I'm concerned about
    the treatment of the Dalai Lama. I
    want China to be more aggressive when it comes to Iran. I'm interested
    to hear President Hu Jintao's attitudes toward the
    humanitarian crisis in Darfur. In other words, there's a lot of issues
    which we wish they would have a different lean to their policy, so I'm
    going to discuss these with him. But it's best to be able to discuss
    these issues in an environment that is frank and open and friendly, as
    opposed to one in which there's tension and suspicion.
        And so when I say we've got great relations, I will sit down with
    the President and have a good, honest, candid discussion. And he's going
    to tell me what's on his mind, and I'm darned sure going to tell him
    what's on my mind.
        One area where we are making good progress is on North Korea. As you
    may remember, I shifted the whole strategic approach to North Korea. I'm
    convinced that it's more effective to have five countries to say to
    North Korea the same thing than

    [[Page 1166]]

    just one country, so that if North Korea makes the decision not to honor
    their word, that there's a better chance that there's consequences that
    they'll feel. And so as a result of getting China to the table on North
    Korea, the North Koreans are going to realize there is a lot more than
    one voice. And China has been instrumental in helping move this process
    forward. Chris Hill--Ambassador Hill
    briefed me and Secretary Rice this morning
    on the fact that North Korea still looks like they're going to honor
    their agreement to disclose and to shut down their nuclear programs,
    which will be good for peace.
        Anyway, a long answer because it's a complex relationship.
        Prime Minister Howard Australian side. Mark [Mark Riley, Seven
    Network].

    Security for President Bush's Visit

        Q. Mr. President, welcome to Sydney.
        President Bush. Thank you, sir.
        Q. I can assure you it doesn't always look like this, with steel
    fences and concrete barricades and armed guards on the street. But I
    wonder, is the----
        President Bush. I hope you feel safe.
        Q. I feel----
        President Bush. You feel inconvenienced, obviously.
        Let me just say, before you get--you're trying to maybe get a
    response. But to the extent I've caused this, I apologize. Look, I don't
    want to come to a community and say, you know, what a pain it is to have
    the American President. Unfortunately, however, that--this is what the
    authorities thought was necessary to protect people. And we live in a
    free--you live in a free society. People feel like they want to
    protest--fine, they can. And unfortunately, evidently, some people may
    want to try to be violent in their protests. But I apologize to the
    Australian people if I've caused this inconvenience.
        Q. Well, I wasn't going to blame you personally, sir. But anyway----
        President Bush. I guess I must be feeling guilty; you know what I'm
    saying? [Laughter]

    Australian Elections

        Q. The point I was going to make is, as leader of the free world,
    the people of Sydney don't see their city looking all that free at the
    moment. And how's that going? We thought that we weren't going to allow
    terrorists to do this to our free society. And so your very positive
    view on Iraq and progress towards reconciliation there is of interest to
    us if you're meeting the opposition leader tomorrow, and his view is
    that there should be a staged withdrawal of troops from Iraq next year.
    How would that affect the positive view you put today? And what will you
    say to disavow him of that decision?
        President Bush. First of all, in terms of whether Sydney is going to
    return to normal after I leave--or after we leave, I suspect it might,
    don't you? I don't think this is a permanent condition. I think the
    great freedom of the city of Sydney is going to return quite rapidly,
    which is different from other societies in the world.
        First of all, I'm looking forward to meeting with the opposition
    leader. I believe I did that on my last trip here
    to Australia, if I'm not mistaken. And I hope we have an honest exchange
    of views. You just heard my opinion about Iraq and whether or not, one,
    we can win, and two, if it's necessary to win. I believe it's necessary,
    and I believe we can. And I'm looking forward to hearing his opinion.
        I'm also wise enough not to prejudge the election results here in
    Australia. Yours is a slightly loaded question in trying to get me to
    comment about what it would be like to work with somebody who hasn't
    even been elected. And therefore, I'm going to let the Australian people
    express their opinion. My own judgment is, I wouldn't count the man out.
    As I recall, he's kind of like me; we both have run from behind and won.
    So that's going to

    [[Page 1167]]

    be part of my--I can tell you, relations are great right now. And I
    also, as I told you earlier, and I believe this, that our relationship
    is bigger than any individual in office. It's a relationship based upon
    values, common values, and it's also a relationship--it's enforced
    during tough times. When we fought fascism, we learned a lot about each
    other. And the American people have got great respect for Australians.
    Anyway, thank you.
        Suzanne [Suzanne Malveaux, Cable News Network].

    U.S. Troop Levels in Iraq/Progress in Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday you said that General
    Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker--if the kind of success we are now
    seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of
    security with fewer American forces. There are many who believe that you
    were suggesting you'd make an announcement to lower American troop
    levels. A White House official dismissed that. But later you were asked
    aboard Air Force One why it was that twice you mentioned troop levels
    that have piqued our interest, to which you said, ``Maybe I was
    intending to do that.'' You pride yourself on being a straight shooter,
    not coy or cute, so what is it at this time?
        President Bush. Surely not cute, I agree. [Laughter] Whatever you
    do, don't cause me--call me cute, okay?
        Q. Okay. So is the administration at this time trying to play it
    both ways by appeasing the critics, suggesting that troop withdrawal is
    right around the corner, at the same time making no real commitments?
        President Bush. Suzanne, I think I went on to say on Air Force One,
    if I recall, somewhere between Baghdad and Sydney, that, why don't we
    all just wait and see what David Petraeus
    says when he comes--General Petraeus, when he comes back to America. He
    and Ambassador Crocker are going to come
    back, and they're going to report to me and report to the Congress and
    the American people about their recommendations on the way forward. I
    will then take their recommendations into account as I develop the
    strategy necessary to win in Iraq.
        That's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in artificial
    timetables or dates of withdrawal; I'm interested in achieving
    objective. I repeat: If you think it's not important that we're there,
    then you're going to find excuses to get out. If you think it is
    important to be there, then you ought to be thinking about ways to
    achieve our objectives. And we are achieving our objectives.
        And so I was being as candid as I could with the people on the
    airplane. And what I said in Baghdad was exactly what they told me: That
    if conditions still improve, security conditions still improve the way
    they have been improving, is that we may be able to provide the same
    security with fewer troops. And whether or not that's the part of the
    policy I announce to the Nation when I get back from this trip, after
    the Congress has been briefed on David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker--why don't we
    see what they say--and then I'll let you know what our position is and
    what our strategy is.
        Prime Minister Howard. Dennis [Dennis Shanahan, The Australian].

    Environment/Alternative Fuel Sources/Trade Relations

        Q. Mr. President, John Howard put climate change at the center of
    this APEC meeting. Haven't you undermined his attempt to establish
    aspirational goals here by scheduling your own meeting in Washington?
    And to what extent do you regard ratification of Kyoto as being relevant
    to addressing climate change?
        President Bush. Let me start with the latter. Since I'm getting
    older, you may have to repeat the first part of the question. Kyoto may
    work for other countries. It may have made sense for certain countries
    that ratified it; it just didn't make sense for the United States. And
    so therefore, I told the

    [[Page 1168]]

    truth. And by the way, prior to my arrival in Washington, the United
    States Senate was given a chance to express their approval or
    disapproval of whether or not Kyoto made sense to the United States.
    There was a 95-to-nothing vote against Kyoto. So it's just not my
    opinion; there's a lot of people who thought Kyoto wasn't the way to go.
        So we developed a different approach: energy efficiency standards
    based upon new technologies. And as I told you, we reduced greenhouse
    gases in America last year, and our economy grew at 3 percent. I don't
    know if many countries can make that claim, but we can because our
    strategy in--of putting new technologies in place is working.
        I happen to believe that we can do a better job of becoming less
    dependent on foreign oil. As an energy exporter, that might kind of
    frighten some of the energy exporters. But we've got to reduce our
    dependency on oil, and therefore, have put forth what's called a 20-in-
    10 program. Over the next 10 years, we will reduce our gasoline
    consumption by 20 percent by using ethanol and other new technologies. I
    believe battery technology is going to be coming on so that people in
    Sydney can drive the first 40 miles in their cars on battery without
    your car looking like a golf cart.
        In other words, there's new technologies coming to market. And the
    fundamental question is, how to get them to market as quickly as
    possible? And Kyoto didn't do that as far as we were concerned. As a
    matter of fact, it's a--if you begin to take an assessment or inventory
    of countries that are actually meeting the Kyoto targets, I think you'll
    find that maybe a different approach makes sense. So the reason we
    rejected Kyoto is because it wouldn't have allowed us to do what we
    wanted to do, which is grow our economy, become less dependent on
    foreign oil, and be good stewards of the environment.
        John and I have talked about his desire to put climate change at the
    forefront of APEC, and I was a strong supporter of that. I also reminded
    him that at the G-8, I took the message that said to our partners there
    that if you really want to really solve the global climate change issue,
    let's get everybody to the table. Let's make sure that countries such as
    China and India are at the table as we discuss the way forward.
    Otherwise, I suspect, if they feel like nations are going to cram down--
    a solution down their throat and not give them a voice on how to achieve
    a common objective, they'll walk. And then you can't have effective
    global climate change if a nation like China is not involved.
        I thought the Prime Minister did something smart in this protocol.
    He announced that we need to cut back on tariffs that prohibit the
    exportation of technologies that will enable China, for example, to burn
    coal in a cleaner way. In other words, they've protected their
    environmental industries. And he wants to tear down those tariffs and
    barriers, and we support him strongly on this, so that technology is
    more likely to be able to flow from those of us who have it to those who
    don't.
        And there are fundamental questions: How fast can we get effective
    technology to the market--coal sequestration technologies, nuclear spent
    fuel reprocessing technologies to the market? And once to the market,
    can we help developing nations acquire those technologies? Otherwise,
    it's an exercise that's not going to be effective.
        And I believe the strategy that we have laid forth is the most
    effective way to deal with this issue in a serious way. I also
    appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is the one that brought the
    issue to focus and, two, is talking about energy dependency, energy
    efficiency standards, which is a part of the global climate mix. He
    shows that leadership on the issue, and I'm proud to be here talking
    about the issue.
        Prime Minister Howard. Okay.
        President Bush. Thank you.

    [[Page 1169]]

    Note: The President's news conference began at 11:02 a.m. at the
    InterContinental Sydney. In his remarks, he referred to Janette Howard,
    wife of Prime Minister Howard; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding
    general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan;
    Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma;
    President Hu Jintao of China; Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama of
    Tibet; and Opposition Leader Kevin M. Rudd of Australia.