    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
    [October 15, 2007]
    [Pages 1310-1324]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on the Federal Budget and a Question-and-Answer Session in
    Rogers
    October 15, 2007

        The President. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Thank you all
    very much. Thanks for coming. I may just take off my jacket, if that's
    all right. [Laughter] I hope I didn't spill any sauce on my shirt after
    I had barbecue at the Whole Hog. [Laughter] Thanks for coming. Thanks
    for giving me a chance to share some thoughts with you about what's
    going on in Washington, and then I'll be glad to answer some questions,
    if you have any.
        First, I do want to say thank you to John Paul
    Hammerschmidt for a lot of things,
    one, being a good friend of my dad's and--
    but more importantly, setting such a fine example for what public
    service should be about, which is honesty, integrity, and the
    willingness to serve something greater than himself. John Paul, I'm
    honored you're here; thanks for--[applause].
        And you got followed by a pretty good fellow there in John
    Boozman. I'm proud to call him friend. I hope
    you're proud to call him Congressman, because he's doing a fine job. And
    I--[applause].
        I want to thank the mayor of Rogers, Steve Womack. Thanks for your service to your community; thanks for
    being in the United States military. I appreciate you joining me for
    lunch and enjoyed our conversation, Mr. Mayor. Thanks for what you're
    doing.
        I want to thank members of the statehouse who are here and local
    government who's here. I want to thank Raymond Burns, the president and CEO of the chamber of commerce, for
    hosting this event. I hope you find it to be informative. One of the
    things the President has to do is travel around the country explaining
    the situation and why things are happening, at least from my
    perspective. I'm looking forward to explaining it.
        I do appreciate very much the members of the chamber of commerce
    who've enabled me to come by to visit with you. I want to thank the
    chancellor of the mighty University of Arkansas, John White, for being here today. He hosted--the guy
    keeps pointing to his Razorback--I understand. Look, I'm just a simple
    Texas guy who--[laughter]--who knows full well that it was a lot of
    times an unpleasant experience for the Longhorns to come up here and
    play. [Laughter] But we're not going to talk about those old games, are
    we? We're talking about the future.
        I appreciate Bill Stribling. He's the
    president of Stribling Packaging. I went by earlier today to his
    business, and I had a chance to say hello to his employees. I did so
    because I wanted to remind America that in order for this economy to
    remain strong, we got to be mindful of the needs of small-business
    owners. He's expanding his job base, and he's like thousands of other
    entrepreneurs around the country who are wondering whether or not the
    Government is going to put policy in place that could affect his
    capacity to grow. And I want to spend a little time talking about that.
        We've actually had an historic couple of days. We're now in our 49th
    consecutive month of uninterrupted job growth. That's the longest--
    [applause]. That's a record. That's the longest number of months in a
    row where new jobs have been created. And that's because our small
    businesses are doing well. And then the fundamental question is, are we
    wise enough to keep policy in place to keep the small-business sector
    strong?
        The worst thing we could do is run up taxes as this economy is
    growing. It's the worst thing we could to the small-business

    [[Page 1311]]

    owner, is to change the depreciation schedules or raise individual
    rates, particularly if you're a subchapter S or a limited partnership.
    And yet when you listen carefully to the budget debate, that's what
    you're fixing to get stuck with: a tax raise. Unless, of course, I
    prevent them from raising your taxes, which I fully intend to do.
        The other historic fact was that our deficit as a percent of GDP is
    at 1.2 percent. Those are just numbers, but to put it in perspective,
    that's lower than the 40-year average. In other words, we're beginning
    to get control of that deficit. And the reason why is, is that a growing
    economy yields additional tax revenues, and then when you work with
    Congress to set priorities on how we spend your money--in other words,
    we're fiscally sound on the expense side--you can reduce your deficit
    without raising taxes. And that's what we proved is possible. The
    deficit is 163 billion. That's about 60-some-odd-billion lower than we
    anticipated in February of this year, because we're growing the economy.
        And we've also set priorities. One of the hardest things in
    Washington, DC, to do that small businesses have to do all the time is
    to set priorities. Every program sounds like a great program, but
    without setting priorities, the temptation is to overspend. The job of
    the President is to make sure that we don't overspend, and at the same
    time, keep taxes low. That's why I submitted a budget that will balance
    the Federal budget by 2012 without raising taxes.
        Now, that's not what the leadership in the Congress wants me to do.
    They want the executive branch to accept an increase in spending over
    the next 5 years to $205 billion. To put that in perspective, that's
    $1,300 in new spending every second of every minute of every hour of
    every day of every year for the next 5 years. That's about $13,000, as
    long as it took me to say that--[laughter]--$205 billion of additional
    spending will mean they're going to have to raise taxes to pay for it. I
    think that would be bad for the economy. I don't think it makes sense to
    be taking money out of the pockets of the individuals in America or
    money out of the pockets of small businesses, particularly if we set
    priorities, we can fund that which we need to fund.
        And so you're fixing to see what they call a fiscal showdown in
    Washington. One of the reasons why they--[applause]--the Congress gets
    to propose, and if it doesn't meet needs, as far I'm concerned, I get to
    veto. And that's precisely what I intend to do.
        I wish Congress would get me some appropriations bills. I don't know
    if the people in Rogers understand our calendar, but the fiscal year
    ended on September the 30th. And yet I hadn't seen one appropriations
    bill. I think we're, like, 15 days into the fiscal year, and not one
    appropriations bill has made it to my desk.
        Congress needs to be responsible with your money, and they need to
    pass these appropriations bills, one at a time. And then we can work
    together to see whether or not they make fiscal sense for the United
    States. I don't think it makes sense, though, for a new Congress to come
    in and make promises about how they're going to be wise about what
    they're going to do with your money and get bills to my desk and not
    being able to perform.
        So I'm looking forward to getting back to Washington and remind
    people in the United States Congress that they said they were going to
    do a better job with getting these bills to my desk, and I'm going to
    remind them they hadn't got one yet. Not one bill has come out of United
    States Congress that appropriates your taxpayers' money.
        Recently, I did make a decision to veto a piece of legislation. I
    want to spend a little time talking about why, and then I'll be glad to
    answer some questions. There's a--what's called SCHIP--it's a Children's
    Health Insurance Program--made it to my

    [[Page 1312]]

    desk, and I vetoed it. And I'm going to tell you why--[applause]--let me
    tell you why.
        First of all, it's important for our citizens to understand that we
    spend $35 billion a year for poor children's health care through
    Medicaid--$35 billion. So if you hear rhetoric out of Washington saying
    we're not taking care of poor children in America, they're just not
    reminding you of the fact that because of your generosity, we're
    spending 35 billion a year.
        Secondly, a program was created to help poorer children with
    struggling families. When I was the Governor of Texas, I supported it,
    and as President, I support it. But the piece of legislation I got
    doesn't focus on the poorer children. Many Americans don't understand,
    there are a half a million kids eligible for this program that aren't
    getting help under the program.
        The bill sent to me didn't say, we're going to focus on those half-
    million that are eligible; the bill sent to me said, we can expand
    eligibility for the program up to $83,000. Now, I want you to think
    about that. If you're making up to 83,000 in certain States, you're
    eligible for the program, and yet half a million poorer children aren't
    being helped. My attitude is, let's help the poorer children, let's make
    sure the program does what it's supposed to do.
        Now, there's some in Washington, DC, who genuinely believe that the
    best health care policy is to expand the role of the Federal Government.
    I don't subscribe to that. I think the best health care policy is to
    encourage private medicine, is to make sure the decisions are between
    doctors and patients. And yet if you're saying you can make up to
    $83,000 and be a part of this program, it sounds like to me, somebody
    wants to extend the reach of the Federal Government into medicine.
    That's what it sounds like to me.
        Another factor that came into my thinking was not only a half a
    million children not being taken care of under the program and not only
    is the eligibility requirements being expanded way beyond the scope of
    the program--which sounds like there's a nationalization of medicine
    going on here--but in six or seven States, more money is spent on adults
    than children. In other words, these States have taken that money and
    hadn't used it for its initial purpose.
        So I vetoed the bill. The House is going to decide whether or not
    they're going to sustain my veto, and if they should sustain my veto, I
    call upon the leadership in the Congress to come to the table and let us
    make sure we get money to those families that are--that the program was
    intended to help first and foremost.
        And so that's what I wanted to report to you. I thank you for giving
    me a chance to come and say hello. I'll be glad to answer some questions
    if you have any. And if not, I can keep talking, believe me. [Laughter]
        You got one? Good. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yell it. If I don't like it,
    I'll just interpret it. [Laughter] Yes.

    President's Values

        Q. First of all, thank you for being here. And I've got two
    children. I was talking with my 15-year-old son about what would be a
    great question to ask the President had I--if I had the opportunity, and
    we settled on this. In this day of information that's so accessible to
    all of us, if you're a 15-year-old looking for the truth--which is often
    hard to get--an adult looking for the truth in election time or
    nonelection time, where would you recommend someone that's hungry for
    the truth to go to get the truth about potential elected officials,
    programs to support, that kind of information?
        The President. Yes, it's a great question. I guess if I was advising
    a 15-year-old child where to seek the truth, I would say, go to your
    mother and father, is where I would ask them to seek the truth. And
    that's really one of the questions our society faces: Will a mom and dad
    be available for a child? Now, we all have different

    [[Page 1313]]

    views of the truth. That's fine, I understand that. But the most
    important responsibility for a mom and dad is to really love that child
    with all their heart and all their soul and all their might.
        And so as far as you finding the truth, hopefully, you're wise
    enough and old enough and experienced enough to be able to discern that
    which is true and not true. I'm sure you are. You wouldn't have come
    here to listen had you not been interested in coming up--getting enough
    data points so you could come to your own conclusions.
        That's the great thing about our society, is that we expect our
    individual citizens to be involved, and you can reach your own
    conclusion you want to reach. And it's up to people like me to explain
    it as simply as possible so that, hopefully, you can understand. If I
    were advising somebody running for my job, or any job, I'd explain the
    philosophy behind my beliefs. See, I think what the American people
    really need to know is, what do you believe in, in order for you to be
    able to make the wise kind of judgment on who to listen to.
        I'd be glad to share some of my beliefs. I believe in the
    universality of freedom. So when you hear me talking about foreign
    policy, I want you to keep in mind the principle that I believe is true,
    and that I believe there's an Almighty, and I believe a gift of the
    Almighty to each man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth,
    regardless of their religion or the color of their skin, is liberty.
    That's what I believe.
        And a second belief I have is that you can spend your money better
    than the government can. We have needs in Washington. I mean, we've got
    to fund a military; we got to fund help for the poor. But I do believe
    that the government has got to understand that the more money you have
    in your pocket, the better off our economy can be, and that the more
    money you have in your pocket, the more likely it is that you'll be able
    to realize hopes and dreams for your family because you set the
    priorities with your money. And there's just a fundamental difference of
    opinion.
        So to answer your question, I'd be asking people, what's your value
    system like? And then, hopefully, you're wise enough to discern.
        Okay. Yes, sir.

    Transportation

        Q. I have a transportation question for you--Raymond Burns with the
    Rogers-Lowell Chamber. For business to continue to grow in northwest
    Arkansas, we're going to have to have some help with our transportation
    infrastructure. Apparently, that's our number-one issue. Given that we
    collect taxes on gasoline by the gallon and fuel efficiency means there
    will be less taxes collected, going forward, what will the priority for
    transportation help be, sir?
        The President. The--step one, in order to make sure that that which
    we collect gets spent equitably, is to make sure that the committees in
    the House and Senate that appropriate the monies don't take a lot of the
    money as special projects. In other words, what happens is, is that the
    Public Works Committee is the largest committee in the House. Are you on
    the Public Works, Boozman? Yes. [Laughter] It
    sounds like I better be diplomatic in the answer. [Laughter] So what
    happens is, these members say, ``Okay, I want this for my district; I
    want this for my district; I want this for my district,'' so they get a
    unanimous vote out of the committee--was it unanimous last time? Yes,
    that's what I thought. [Laughter] And then--so the money isn't equitably
    distributed. So step one is to make sure that the committees do their
    jobs the right way.
        Step two is to give States flexibility so that if they so choose--
    which I think exists today--that if you decide to have a highway for
    truckers paid for by fees, that you're encouraged to do so.
        I mean, you're right; fuel efficiency is going to make it harder to
    collect gasoline taxes. Therefore, the next question is,

    [[Page 1314]]

    what's the next best user fee? In other words, gasoline tax is a user
    fee. Is there a better way to collect money, a better user-fee system?
    And one thing, I think, is that if you've got a freeway, you ought to be
    able to parallel that freeway with a way to collect user fees, a toll
    way. And so people have a choice. You know, a trucker, if he's
    interested in moving through northwest Arkansas in expedition fashion,
    will pay a little extra money to be able to do so.
        My attitude is, so long as the taxpayer has got a free alternative,
    I don't see why it makes--why it's a problem to have the paying option
    available as a way to collect user fees to modernize the highway system.
    And so that's an idea for you right there.
        Yes, sir.

    No Child Left Behind Act

        Q. Mr. President, first of all, I'd like to commend you on your
    steadfastness in your faith and not letting anybody waver you on your
    faith with key political issues and key principles.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. I think that's very, very commendable. Second of all, as a
    private preschool administrator, with your No Child Left Behind
    initiative, is there any possibility of funds for grants or stipends or
    something to utilize for private institutions as well as private
    preschools?
        The President. Probably not. Anyway--[laughter]. Let me explain No
    Child Left Behind. We're spending money at the Federal level in public
    schools. And it seems like it makes sense that we ask the question
    whether or not the money is being spent wisely. In other words, if
    you're spending money trying to help a child get the fundamentals
    necessary to advance in life, I strongly believe that it makes sense, on
    your behalf, that we say, ``Why don't you show us whether a child can
    read and write and add and subtract.''
        I think it's important to set goals with high expectations. I don't
    think it's too much to ask the school systems of America to teach a
    child to read by third grade and keep him at grade level. I don't think
    it's too much to ask, unless you don't believe every child can read--has
    the capacity to learn to read, I mean. In other words, if you believe
    certain children can't learn, then I can understand why you support a
    system that just shuffles them through. But that's unacceptable to me,
    to have a system that said--doesn't demand accountability.
        And so the No Child Left Behind Act says, you bet there will be
    Federal expenditures--not nearly as much as the State; after all, it's a
    local responsibility. But in return for whatever money we spend, we want
    to know whether or not a child can read at grade level by the third
    grade, and if not, we expect there to be remedial help.
        And that's where the private sector can come in, in terms of
    supplemental services. That means we're going to use the accountability
    system. In other words, we're going to measure. You bet we are. We're
    going to find out whether a child can read, write, and add and subtract.
    And if they're coming up short on standards, then there's money
    available for extra help early, before it's too late. And that's the
    place where private providers can compete with the public school system,
    in order to help after-school--in after-school programs, tutorial
    programs.
        There's a lot of objections to No Child Left Behind; I understand
    that. People say, ``How dare you measure.'' My attitude is, you got to
    measure. To solve a problem, you got to understand whether or not we
    have a problem in the first place. People say, ``Well, they're just
    teaching the test.'' Uh-uh, we're teaching a child to read so they can
    pass a reading test.
        I happen to believe this piece of legislation is an important piece
    of civil rights legislation. If you're interested in making sure our
    society provides hope for everybody, then you want to make sure every
    single child in America has the capacity

    [[Page 1315]]

    to read, write, and add and subtract at grade level. That's what you
    want if you're interested in having an America that holds out its
    promise for every single citizen.
        And that's the basis of No Child Left Behind. I believe in local
    control of schools. That's up to you to chart the path to excellence,
    but it's up to us to make sure your money is spent wisely.
        You know, we have an achievement gap in America, and that means
    our--white kids are reading at a certain level here at--in the fourth
    grade, and African Americans or Latino kids are reading down here.
    That's not good enough for our country. And that achievement gap is
    beginning to grow. It's amazing what happens when you raise standards
    and hold people to account.
        And so my--any effort to weaken No Child Left Behind Act will get a
    Presidential veto. I believe this piece of legislation is important, and
    I believe it's hopeful, and I believe it's necessary to make sure we got
    a educated group of students who can compete in the global economy when
    they get older.
        Yes, sir.

    Alternative Fuel Sources/Border Security/Immigration Reform

        Q. Mr. President, I'm a third-generation dairy farmer. We milk 300
    cows out west of town. And we're very concerned with immigration and the
    ag jobs and also the economic impact that the ethanol--the Government
    subsidy on ethanol production has had on feed costs. And agriculture is
    still number one in Arkansas, even with all this fantastic economic
    growth that we've got in this area.
        The President. Right, thank you, sir.
        Q. Could you please comment, sir?
        The President. I will. First of all, I'm guilty on promoting
    ethanol. And the reason why is, is because I think it's in our interests
    to diversify away from oil. And the reason why it's--I know that's hard
    for a Texan to say. But the reason why we've got to diversify away from
    oil is that we end up with dependency on oil from certain parts of the
    world where people don't particularly like us. And secondly, given the
    globalization of the world today and disruption of oil, you know, in one
    part of the world is going to cause the price of your gasoline to go up.
    And so I promoted ethanol and still believe it's important for the
    future.
        I'm also promoting research that will enable us to make ethanol out
    of something other than corn because I fully understand the constraints
    on corn. I mean, I hear it everywhere I go, that the people like
    yourself who rely upon reasonable feed prices know full well that demand
    for corn as a result of the demand for ethanol going up is costing
    your--making it harder for you to make a living. And one of these days
    we're going to be able to make ethanol out of wood chips or switchgrass.
    It's called cellulosic ethanol. And we're spending a lot of money to
    develop the technologies that will enable us to use something other than
    corn.
        The first part of the question was immigrant--immigration. As you
    know, I'm a person who believes strongly in comprehensive immigration
    reform. I agree with our citizens who say that we've got to do a better
    job of enforcing the laws of the country. And the laws of the country
    is, you know, you can't employ somebody who is here illegally--knowingly
    employ somebody who is here illegally--and that you've got a border for
    a reason, a Border Patrol for a reason, to enforce the border. And I'm
    for that, and I supported congressional efforts to modernize our border,
    and we are. It's a long, hard border to enforce, but we've doubled the
    Border Patrol; we're using technologies to find people sneaking in here.
        But I also recognize this: that in order to truly, effectively work
    the border in a way that most Americans want, you've got to have a
    program that will enable somebody to come here and legally work on

    [[Page 1316]]

    a temporary basis, because if you're somebody who's got a starving
    family at home and you're interested in putting food on the table,
    you'll go to great lengths to come to America to do jobs Americans
    aren't doing. And so therefore, in order for us to have good border
    policy, it makes sense to have a worker policy: a temporary-worker plan
    with verifiable, tamper-proof cards to allow somebody to come here to do
    a job Americans aren't willing to do.
        You got a lot of people up here that are working jobs Americans
    aren't willing to do. There are not a lot of Americans who want to pluck
    chickens. I don't know what they're doing on your place, but I'm sure
    it's hard work, and it's hard to find workers. But if you find somebody
    who's got a hungry family, it's amazing how hard they'll work. And so it
    seems like to me that in order to have good border policy, we got to
    have a tamper-proof card available for temporary workers to come.
        And then the big issue is, what are we going to do with the 11
    million people already here? Well, you can't kick them out. Some people
    say, you can kick them out. I don't think you can kick them out. I don't
    think it's realistic policy. On the other hand, I think it's a mistake
    to have instant citizenship. The reason I don't believe you should have
    instant citizenship is because it will cause the next 11 million to want
    to come. And we're trying to make sure they have an orderly immigration
    policy.
        And so I supported the plan in the Senate that gave people an
    opportunity over time to prove their worth as a citizen, to show that
    they pay taxes and were--they had the ability to be a constructive
    citizen. Give them a chance to get at the back at the line. That's what
    I thought we ought to do. But it didn't pass, and it was a mistake that
    the Congress didn't pass comprehensive immigration reform. That's why
    it's still an issue. That's why the President comes to speak in Rogers,
    and he stands up and says, ``What are you going to do about the
    problem?'' Congress, by passing on the problem, obviously means this is
    going to be around for a while.
        This debate needs to be constructed in a way that upholds the proud
    traditions of America. We are a land of immigrants. Whether or not some
    of us want to admit it, this is a country that was founded by
    immigrants. And many in this hall's parents or grandparents were
    immigrants to the United States. And when people come to our country to
    work hard and realize dreams, it renews our soul, it makes us a better
    place. And so however this debate is played out here in Rogers or
    anywhere else, it needs to be conducted by treating people with dignity
    and people with honor.
        Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Proud member of the VFW.

    Presidential Election

        Q. Yes, sir. I was sitting--I had the honor of sitting up front when
    you addressed the national convention of VFW in Kansas City.
        The President. Yes, sir.
        Q. After all----
        The President. Were you the guy that was sound asleep? [Laughter]
        Q. No, sir. I'm not the guy.
        The President. Okay, good. [Laughter]
        Q. After all of the Presidential hopefuls had paraded through for 3
    days before you got there and you gave your wonderful speech, the straw
    poll throughout the entire room, sir, was that we wish you could run for
    another 4 years.
        The President. Thank you. Yes. Well, I can't, and it's time for new
    blood. After 18--15 more months, I'm going to sprint to the finish; you
    don't have to worry about that.
        Q. Okay, sir.
        The President. I'm going to give it my all. And there's nothing
    better for a democracy than to renew itself by elections and new
    leadership. So anyway, thanks for saying it. Plus, I'd be single.
    [Laughter]

    [[Page 1317]]

    President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors

        Q. Mr. President, we all thank you for your Wounded Warriors
    Commission----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----on a national basis. The final report in July--31 July to you
    from that wonderful Commission headed by Senator Bob Dole was absolutely
    the future bible for Veterans Affairs and veterans' handling throughout
    the United States. Sir, thank you again for being a veterans advocate
    number one.
        The President. Thank you, sir. Yes, thanks. You're kind to say that.
    Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala are going to be at the White House tomorrow. And as
    the person who have asked these brave young men and women to go into
    combat, I feel a special obligation to make sure that our veterans,
    particularly those who've served under my watch, get the absolute best
    care. I'm--I marvel--isn't it interesting, by the way, it's the first
    military question--just an observation point--[laughter]--I marvel at
    our military, and I marvel at the kids who are in the military. Not only
    kids, but--at 62, you can call them ``kids''--61, you can call them
    ``kids.''
        We've got a military of highly trained, highly skilled people who
    understand the stakes of the struggle between ideologues who murder to
    achieve their objectives and those of us who want there to be long-term
    peace. The reenlistment rates are remarkable. The number of people
    willing to say, ``I want to go back in to serve my country and to the
    theater in this global struggle,'' it's just amazing.
        And therefore, we as a government have a solemn duty to, one,
    support their families, and two, when they come out as veterans, is to
    give them what they need--get them what they need, to make sure if
    they're wounded they can get back on their feet. Give them what they
    need, if they've got posttraumatic stress syndrome, the help, the mental
    help.
        These are remarkable citizens, and my commitment is very strong to
    our veterans. And I thank you for bringing it up. And I asked Bob
    Dole and Donna Shalala to make sure that if there was any bureaucratic obstacles
    between somebody going from DOD to the Veterans Affairs, that we
    identified them and came up--come up with solutions to make sure our
    kids, our troops have what they need. And that's what we're going to do.
        So thanks for bringing it up, and thanks for serving. Appreciate the
    example you set.

    Veterans Administration

        Q. ----Rogers. I'm a Vietnam veteran, and here comes your second
    question----
        The President. Did they name this city after you? [Laughter]
        Q. Did they, Mayor? [Laughter]
        The President. I don't think so.
        Q. Here's your second question about the military.
        The President. Okay.
        Q. As a wounded Vietnam veteran, come back, I go over to the VA
    hospital, and I've seen it in Fayetteville, the remarkable money that's
    been placed on the veterans of building that hospital up to take care of
    us. And I love it. But I had a time period there where after the war was
    over with, the conflict was over with--of which we're going to come
    through too--it seemed like we were forgotten. Is the administration or
    the Government not going to forget these people that's over in Iraq that
    has stood over there for many times----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----and went back--if you could answer that.
        But I also want to say, thank you very much for being my President
    for the last 7 years.
        The President. Thank you, sir. Yes. There's a fundamental
    attitudinal difference, it seems like to me, now than when you served.
    One of the main reasons why is because we have a volunteer army.

    [[Page 1318]]

    And the fundamental question facing policymakers is, how do you make
    sure that that Volunteer Army is robust and well-trained? And the answer
    is, pay people well, but also remember that the spouse makes a big
    decision as to whether or not people are willing to serve or at least
    stay in that Volunteer Army or serve in the first place.
        And that's why we've improved housing. And that's why we've made
    sure that a spouse can communicate with his or her loved one on a real-
    time basis if they're in Iraq or Afghanistan. In other words, there's a
    lot of effort that goes into making sure that this Government takes care
    of the family members.
        And part of making sure that we remain a volunteer army is to make
    sure that the Veterans Administration is well-organized and treats
    people with respect and the programs address the veterans' needs. And
    that's exactly what we're going to do.
        And that's precisely what this man was talking about. He said, we
    put together a Commission to make sure that we addressed any shortfalls
    in the Veterans Administration. It's the six--they've got six points in
    there that make a lot of sense. For example, you don't want your people
    having to argue against your own Government about whether or not they
    receive a certain level of disability. You might have had to do that.
    Well, we're going to try to make sure the process is not adversarial for
    our veterans. After all, they serve; they volunteered to serve.
        And so you're giving me a chance to say what I really tried to say
    for this fellow over here, and that is, you bet we'll support our
    veterans. One, we owe it to them. But two, in order to make sure this
    Volunteer Army is robust and can continue to be active in this global
    war against these ideologues and strong enough to be able to do it, we
    got to say to somebody who's going in, when you come out, you're going
    to get the respect and the support you need.
        Thank you.
        Yes, sir.

    Federal Aviation Legislation

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to say, thank you
    very much for taking your time to come to northwest Arkansas. The people
    in this room really appreciate it. It means a lot to us, and we're very
    honored and privileged by your presence. I want to tell you that, first
    of all.
        The President. Thank you. Glad to be here.
        Q. Second of all, I wanted to talk to you about House bill 1125, on
    the House side--the Senate bill is Senate bill 65. I have a brother; his
    name is Robert Barnett. He lives in Siloam Springs, Arkansas. He's
    fixing to lose his job----
        The President. I don't want to interrupt you, but I have no earthly
    idea what those numbers mean. [Laughter]
        Q. Okay. It has to do with the pilots losing their jobs at turning
    age 60, the----
        The President. The what?
        Q. The commercial airline pilots--they're losing their jobs--that
    are turning age 60. And those bills reflect the policy. And I know
    Marion--Mary Peters and Marion Blakey have endorsed the age change, but
    we're losing over 200 pilots a month in this country. And they can go to
    foreign airline carriers and fly in the United States. We let people of
    65--these pilots have lost their pensions. They're--most of them are
    military trained----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----we've spent over $2 million each. They're in good physical
    shape, and they want to keep their jobs. They've got kids in college;
    they need the incomes. Just wanted to get your response on that, sir.
        The President. Well, I'm glad you told me Mary Peters is for it. If she's for it, I'm probably going to be for
    it too, since I named her as head of the Transportation Department. I'll
    be frank with you--this

    [[Page 1319]]

    may come as an admission that you probably never heard a President
    hear--it hadn't made it to my desk yet. I'm really not sure about the
    issue, but I'll look into it. I have all the respect for Mary Peters,
    and if she said she supports raising the age--is that what you told me
    she said--I bet it's going to happen. At least I bet you she'll have my
    support.
        One of the things in a complex environment like the Presidency is,
    you got to surround your people--surround the President, or surround
    myself, with people whose judgment you trust. And I listen to my Cabinet
    Secretaries, and I bring them into the Oval Office. They've got access
    to me. They've got to be able to come in and say, ``Here's what I
    believe.'' The temptation of politics is for somebody to walk in when
    you're not looking so good, and walk in the Oval Office and say, ``Man,
    you're looking beautiful,'' when you're not. You got to have Cabinet
    Secretaries who can walk in and say, ``Here's what's on my mind.'' And I
    bet you if I ask Mary and she gives me the
    reason why she's for it, I bet you I support it.
        And so thanks for bringing that up.
        Yes, ma'am. Let's get a little diversity here. Yes, get up there.

    U.S. National Guard and Reserve Deployments/War on Terror

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Yes.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. No.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. I don't think the National Guard is close to being
    the Regular Army. A matter of fact, they have been a integral part of
    working alongside the Army.
        There will be no chance for a draft under my watch. I'm against a
    draft. I don't think we need a draft. I'm a strong supporter of the
    Volunteer Army. I am for making sure that our Guard ends up with
    rotations that are known. In other words, we got to make sure that when
    we make a promise to somebody in the Guard, that if you're in for a
    year, you're out for a certain set period of time. I am for that.
        The Regular Army is carrying the bulk of this fight, and the Guard
    is being a very important part of helping. A couple of things about the
    Guard. One is that if you're an employer here giving a Guard member or a
    Reserve member a chance to go to help this country secure itself, I
    thank you. You're making a vital contribution to the security of the
    United States of America. And I do appreciate our Guard a lot. I
    appreciate what they've done. I appreciate the sacrifices they and their
    families have made.
        And those sacrifices are necessary because we face an enemy that
    would like to harm us again. And we've got a two-prong strategy to
    protect you. You got to just understand that after September the 11th, I
    made up my mind I would do everything in my power to protect the
    American people. Secondly--[applause]. And on the one hand, that means
    finding these people before they come and hurt us. In other words,
    defeat them overseas so they can't come here to hurt us. That means--and
    so I just want to explain some of the policies. That means we've got to
    have good intelligence sharing to find out where they are hiding and
    have the flexibility and the desire to go rout them out of their hiding
    places, to bring them to justice before they come and hurt us again.
        Believe me, they want to. It's one of the lessons of September the
    11th, is that while we grew up thinking everything was fine, that we
    could be protected by oceans, the enemy came and killed 3,000 of our
    people and others from other nations on our soil. So I think a lot about
    how to protect you. And that's why I think it's very important that we
    have techniques that protect your civil liberties, but at the same time,
    listen to known Al Qaida folks and try to get to figure out what they're
    doing.
        People have got to understand that the programs we'll put in place
    will protect

    [[Page 1320]]

    your right as an American citizen, but if you're talking to Al Qaida, we
    want to know why, in order to protect the American people. It makes
    sense for us, when we capture one of these folks on the battlefield, one
    of these extremists, a person who murders to advance an ideology that is
    so foreign to America that sometimes we just dismiss it as implausible,
    that we ought to have techniques available to find out what they know
    without torture. See, what I'm talking about is a lot of what you're
    reading in the newspapers. But what we're doing is all aimed to protect
    you, to get information, actionable intelligence so we can move.
        This is a war that we're not used to in America. We're not fighting
    a nation-state. We're fighting a movement of people who have a set of
    beliefs and are willing to murder the innocent to achieve their
    objectives and can do so with weapons that hardly cost anything. They
    know full well that when they destroy innocent life, it gets on our TV
    screens. And we are a nation that believes in life. We're compassionate
    people, and it horrifies our fellow citizens to see the violence. And
    they're trying to shake--not only shake our will, but shake the will of
    the people in Afghanistan or the people of Iraq. And yet the only way to
    defeat them is to find them and bring them to justice. That's the short-
    term strategy.
        The long-term strategy is to defeat their ideology with a more
    hopeful ideology, and that's an ideology based upon liberty. I told
    you--I was setting it up, setting his answer up when I said, I believe
    in the universality of freedom. I wasn't surprised when 12 million
    Iraqis went to the polls. If given a chance to be free after a brutal
    tyranny, people will say, ``I want to be free.'' The question is, how
    fast can they get their Government working? And that's what we're trying
    to help them do.
        I will remind you, the Articles of Confederation in our own history
    is indicative of how hard democracy can be. But success in Iraq and
    success in Afghanistan are vital for the struggle against extremists
    because ultimately, it's going to be liberty that provides us the peace
    we want.
        I was telling some folks at lunch today about the relationship I had
    had with Prime Minister of Japan Koizumi.
    He's a--you might remember, he's the fellow that asked Laura and me to take him to Elvis's place in Memphis.
    [Laughter] It's a pretty interesting request. [Laughter] And we went. I
    sit at the table with the man, and we were talking about how liberty can
    transform enemies to allies. My dad fought
    the Japanese. Sixty years later, his son is talking peace with the Prime
    Minister of the former enemy. Something happened. Freedom has got the
    capacity to bring the peace we want.
        And the same thing is going to happen in the Middle East unless we
    lose our will and our vision. People want to live in a free society. And
    one of the lessons of history is, liberty is transformative. In other
    words, liberty can help an enemy become an ally. Liberty can take a
    region of hopelessness and convert it to a region of hope. And the enemy
    preys upon hopelessness. And so it--whether it be the brutality of
    tyranny or the scourge of disease and hunger, it's in the interest of
    the United States to help the world deal with that for our own peace,
    for our own security.
        It's one thing if the enemy couldn't hit us here at home; we could
    just let them--let the world run its course; just let everything happen
    that's meant--that it may be meant to happen, you know, just let it go.
    But what matters--what happens overseas matters here in the homeland.
    That's one of the lessons of September the 11th.
        I also happen to believe it's in our moral interest to help people
    dying of HIV/AIDS live. I believe it's in our moral interest to do that
    as well as our security interest. I believe it's in the interest of our
    soul. To whom much is given, much is required. We've been given a lot,
    and when we find hungry children, it's in our interests--it's

    [[Page 1321]]

    in our security interest, but it's also in the interest of the very,
    kind of, moral fabric of America.
        One of the things Laura is working on is to
    help people deal with malaria. We could solve the malaria issue. The
    solution is right at hand. It just takes will and determination. There's
    no reason for little babies to be dying of mosquito bites around the
    world. There's just no reason. So the United States has taken the lead--
    and Laura has taken the lead in our house--to get us to focus on solving
    problems. It's in the Nation's interest to do that.
        A couple of more, then I got to go. Yes, sir.

    Situation in Burma

        Q. Mr. President, you mentioned freedom. What do you think are the
    right next steps for democracy and freedom in Burma?
        The President. Yes, great question. Enormous international pressure
    to make it clear to the generals that they will be completely isolated
    and not accepted into the international community of nations. It's--Aung
    San Suu Kyi is a great woman who gets a huge
    vote and yet is now under house arrest. And so she serves as a classic
    example of why the world needs to work together to help save societies.
    Her example is one of bravery being confined by unelected military
    junta.
        And by the way, those examples exist. I met with a woman in the Oval Office the other day whose
    husband was a doctor, plastic
    surgeon, in Cuba. And he wrote some--I guess wrote some stuff on
    freedom, and he's now in a prison. He now weighs 106 pounds. She, by the
    way, brought her four children to the United
    States of America to be able to raise them in freedom. And she's
    wondering whether or not we have that same passion toward Cuba that we
    have with Burma. And the answer, I told her, absolutely. As a matter of
    fact, America must have passion for political prisoners wherever they
    exist, for the human condition is important to the future of this
    country.
        And so, sir, to answer your question, whether it be the people in
    Burma who are being brutalized by the military junta or the people in
    Cuba or the people in other tyrannical societies, it's in our interest
    to rally the world and to pressure and to keep the focus and use our
    respective bully pulpits--those of us in free societies--use our
    respective bully pulpits to remind people of the condition, the human
    condition in these societies that are being deeply affected by
    tyrannical regimes.
        And so I talk about Burma all the time to leaders. I spend a lot of
    time rallying the world--at least rallying my fellow leaders on issues
    such as Burma and Cuba and Sudan and Iran. And so thanks for bringing up
    the question. I just hope we get good results. Sometimes international
    bodies are nonconsequential. In other words, they're good talking, but
    there's not a consequence. At some point, there has to be consequences.
        So, along the lines in Burma, we have sanctioned individuals within
    Burma and are considering additional sanctions. But sanctions don't mean
    anything if we're the only sanctioner. They just find safe haven
    somewhere else, in trade, for example.
        And so it's a tough question, a tough issue, and the United States
    must always confront these tyrannical situations. It's in our interest
    that we do so.
        Yes, sir.

    Environment/Alternative Fuel Sources/Energy

        Q. [Inaudible]--welcome to northwest Arkansas. We have a little
    local mom-and-pop retailer by the name of Wal-Mart that's leading the
    charge----
        The President. Now you're bragging. [Laughter]
        Q. ----leading the charge on sustainability in the environment. And
    local governments all across the country are trying to do the same
    thing. What can the Federal

    [[Page 1322]]

    Government do to step up and bring the United States back into a role of
    leadership in sustainability and in environmental protection?
        The President. Yes. The fundamental question is whether or not we
    will be able to grow our economy and be good stewards of the environment
    at the same time. I'm interested in good policy. Kyoto, I thought, was
    bad policy because Kyoto would have basically said--[applause]--
    basically would have said that we would have had to ground our economy
    down in order to achieve--maybe achieve some positive changes in
    greenhouse gases.
        And so I came with a different approach, sir, and that is, I asked a
    question: How best to develop new technologies that will enable us to
    meet our responsibilities as stewards of the environment--of being
    responsible stewards of the environment? That's why--here, the way I'll
    do this is, there's three basic aspects to the environment: One is how
    we generate electricity; two is how we drive our cars; and three is how
    we build our buildings. We've got good conservation policies available
    for building construction.
        Two, I've just explained to the man who's trying to raise dairy
    cows, and he's now not so happy with the cost of corn, that we've taken
    a very aggressive approach on how--on providing alternatives to
    gasoline. So in other words, dependency on oil is a national security
    issue, it's an economic security issue, but it's also an environmental
    issue. The less oil we use, the better stewards of the environment we
    will be. So that's why I'm a big promoter of ethanol, and I've set a
    mandatory goal for the country of reducing our gasoline usage by 20
    percent over the next 10 years.
        Finally, electricity, and that's the interesting issue because, one,
    we got a lot of coal. And it seems like to me that we want to make sure
    that if we're going to have economic--you can't, by the way, be good
    stewards of the environment if you're broke. You just can't. This is an
    expensive proposition, to make sure that we've got enough cashflow in
    our society to develop new technologies. So we've got a lot of coal, and
    it's a plentiful supply. That's why we're spending about $2 billion of
    your money for clean coal technologies. In other words, we want to be
    able to power our economy and be good stewards of the environment, so
    why don't we work for zero-emission coal-fired plants, which is
    precisely what we're doing.
        Secondly, we've got a strong nuclear power initiative going. If
    you're truly--if you're truly an environmentalist, you'll support
    nuclear power because it will enable you to generate the electricity
    necessary to generate the wealth necessary to invest in technologies
    and, at the same time, have zero greenhouse gases. And so we've got a
    comprehensive approach.
        I will tell you this: Unless all economies, major economies are at
    the table, it's a--this is a venture that will not work. So that's why I
    called together the leaders of the major economies, including China, and
    said, okay, why don't we sit down at the table and come up with a goal,
    a reduction of greenhouse gases over a period of time? See, if you can
    get somebody to agree on a goal, you can begin to get them to agree on a
    solution. But if certain nations aren't at the table, they're not going
    to participate.
        Secondly, I think each nation is going to have to develop its own
    strategy. We're different from other countries in the world. We have
    shown, however, that you can grow your economy and reduce greenhouse
    gases. You ask what the Federal Government is doing. Whatever we're
    doing is working because last year, we grew our economy, and the gross
    amount of greenhouse gases we put in the environment actually went down.
    And so it's a--you know, this is an important issue.
        My principle is, I want to make sure that whatever we do doesn't
    hamper our capacity to grow. I want our people working. I want people
    realizing their dreams.

    [[Page 1323]]

    I want people to be able to put food on the table. And I believe you can
    have economic growth and good economic--environmental stewardship
    through technologies. And that's exactly what we're doing right now. And
    thanks for bring up the question.
        Yes, ma'am.

    Health Care

        Q. My question is, Mr. President, do you invest money in health care
    buses to go around the world and give health insurance to people without
    it?
        The President. Here's what I'm going to try to do. First of all, if
    you're poor, the Government is going to help you. If you're old, the
    Government has an obligation--elderly, excuse me--the Government--
    [laughter]--I'm old; you're elderly--[laughter]--I should have listened
    to my mother, shouldn't I have, yes--is to make sure a Medicare system
    fulfills its promise. But I firmly believe that private medicine is the
    best health care. And the reason I do is because health care needs
    innovation and it needs professionalism. And our system is--of private
    medicine does encourage innovation and does encourage professionalism.
        I know--I'm sure you've--everybody has got a complaint about health
    care in America, but it's a great health care system. Is there a need
    for improvement? You bet, but the quality of health care in America is
    fabulous compared to the rest of the world. It really is.
        Secondly, I believe government ought to incent people to go--to be
    able to have available--ought to incent--ought to change the system to
    make sure an individual can get into the marketplace and be able to
    better afford private insurance. Rather than help people through public
    policy, government programs, is to encourage people through private
    insurance.
        One of my problems with SCHIP, by the way, is that expanding
    eligibility meant one-third of all families that would sign up on to it
    would go from private care into the public. That's the exact opposite
    direction we ought to be moving people, it seems like to me. We ought to
    be encouraging private medicine and private care.
        So I--look, this is a long answer for you, sorry. It's a complex
    subject, though. We ought to change the Tax Code. Right now if you're
    working for corporate Wal-Mart, you're--you benefit, rather than
    somebody who's trying to buy insurance in the private market. That
    health care--the taxes in health care says, if you're working for a big
    company, you do fine; if you're working for a small company or you're
    unemployed or you're individual sole proprietorship, you're paying
    health care with after-tax dollars. So the Tax Code needs to be changed.
        One option is to say, you deduct the first $15,000 for a family of
    two--I mean, for a married couple--deduct $15,000 off your expense,
    $15,000 of your income--on your income. Or another option some are
    considering in Congress is a tax credit. Either way, it's all intended
    to get people into the private markets. In other words, the incentive
    has got to be not to be part of government. The incentive has got to be
    to have the private sector work.
        One of the problems we face is, many people pay your bills for you.
    This is a third-party payer system. And therefore, you don't really have
    much to say--if somebody is going to pay it, you don't ask what's the
    price or what's the quality. There's very little consumerism in health
    care. And yet consumerism can help with price and quality. And so the
    question is, can government help consumerism become a part of health
    care? And one way we do--we buy a lot of health care, and so we then
    insist upon transparency. We say, if you're going to take government
    money as a hospital, we expect you to put your prices up there for
    everybody to see, and then encourage programs like HSAs to put the
    consumer in charge of the purchasing.
        It's a long answer to a simple question; I apologize. But it's a
    complex subject. And

    [[Page 1324]]

    the truth of the matter is, the debate is whether or not the Federal
    Government is going to run your health care, or whether or not we're
    wise enough to not let that happen. And for the next 16 months, I can
    assure you we're wise enough to not let that happen, and that's--
    [applause].
        Last question.

    Presidential Election/President's Decisionmaking

        Q. Mr. President, when do you think there will be a girl President
    for the Republican Party?
        The President. Well--[laughter]--I think--I do think--yes, you took
    my line. [Laughter] I think a lady will be President, yes, and she'll be
    a Republican. [Laughter] Look, I--yes, I do. I believe--I absolutely
    believe it. Look, I--one of the things I benefited from is the advice of
    strong women, not only in my own house--[laughter]--but at the Cabinet
    table. And I've seen women who are plenty capable of being President of
    the United States and capable of making the hard decisions and capable
    of making sure they stick to principle.
        See, one of the hardest things about making good, solid decisions
    is--one of the worst things you can do is to try to chase a poll or a
    focus group. In order to make decisions that will yield the peace, you
    got to make them based upon certain fundamental principles and certain
    values.
        And I hope you got a sense of the values and principles by which I'm
    making decisions today. I'm honored you let me come by. I'm heading to
    Memphis, believe it or not, and I thank you for the chance to share my
    thoughts with you. God bless you, and God bless the United States of
    America.

    Note: The President spoke at 12:55 p.m. at the John Q. Hammons
    Convention Center. In his remarks, he referred to former Rep. John P.
    Hammerschmidt of Arkansas; former Sen. Robert J. Dole and former
    Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna E. Shalala, Cochairs,
    President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors;
    former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; Aung San Suu Kyi,
    leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma; and Yamile Llanes
    Labrada, wife of Cuban political prisoner Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, who
    was arrested in Cuba on March 18, 2003. A participant referred to former
    Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Marion C. Blakey; and H.R.
    1125 and S. 65.