    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
    [October 3, 2007]
    [Pages 1257-1275]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session in West Hempfield Township,
    Pennsylvania
    October 3, 2007

        The President. Thanks for the warm welcome. Sit down. Thanks for
    coming. It's great to be back in your county again. Marion, I appreciate the invitation. I'd like to share some
    thoughts with you, and then

    [[Page 1258]]

    I'd like to answer some of your questions if you got time, because I do.
    [Laughter]
        I really appreciate the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce for giving me
    an opportunity to explain why I have made some of the decisions I have
    made. My job is a decisionmaking job. And as a result, I make a lot of
    decisions. And it's important for me to have an opportunity to speak to
    you and others who would be listening about the basis on which I have
    made decisions, to explain the philosophy behind some of the decisions I
    have made. And so I'm looking forward to your questions, and I thank you
    for giving me the opportunity to come and share them with you.
        I'm sorry Laura is not with me. She's by far
    the better half of the Bush family. [Laughter] And she's a--she really
    is a remarkable woman. She--when I married her, she didn't like politics
    or politicians. [Laughter] And now she's the First Lady of the United
    States. And she's come to realize what I understand: It doesn't take
    much to be able to put influence--to influence somebody in a positive
    way. And so she cares deeply about issues like malaria. She believes,
    like I believe, that we can eliminate the scourge of malaria and save
    lives all around the world. She cares deeply about literacy. She cares
    deeply about making sure women have got good information to--when it
    comes to healthy choices with their life so they don't suffer from heart
    ailment. She cares a lot about women in Afghanistan. She cares a lot
    because she's got a big heart. And I'm sure proud to call her wife, and
    I think the country is lucky to have her as the First Lady.
        I appreciate--I want to thank Tom Baldrige,
    the president of the chamber, and the officers of the chamber and the
    president-elect of the chamber and all the folks
    who make the chamber work.
        I do want to contradict Marion, which is
    a little--shouldn't be doing in the first thing I say, but she said that
    because of me, you're growing. No, it's because of you you're growing.
    See, it's because of the entrepreneurship and small-business owners and
    hard-working people in Lancaster County that you're growing.
        I'm going to talk--spend a little bit of time talking about what is
    the proper relationship between the Federal Government and the risk
    takers in society. But I just want to make sure you understand what I
    know, and that is, prosperity occurs because people work hard and dream
    dreams and work to fulfill those dreams. And so I congratulate you on
    the economic vitality of this region, Marion.
    Thank you for trying to give me credit where it's not due.
        I also want to thank the Chryst family for welcoming us to this
    facility. This is--Jay is the dad. He's expanded
    his business, and he wisely turned it over to his daughter--[laughter]--
    Dana.
        So I asked the
    Chrysts, I said, ``How are you organized, from a tax perspective?'' Dana
    said, ``We're a subchapter S.'' And the reason I bring that up to you
    is, I'm going to talk a little bit about tax policy here in a minute,
    and when you cut individual income taxes, you cut taxes on a small
    business that's organized as a subchapter S corporation. And so I talk
    about tax cuts; I want you to be thinking about tax cuts not only for
    yourself but tax cuts for small-business owners.
        Expansion of this business has provided people new opportunity
    employments--new employment opportunities here in Lancaster County. You
    know, when you give a man more money in his pocket--in this case, a
    woman more money in her pocket to expand a business, it means they build
    new buildings. And when somebody builds a new building, somebody has got
    to come and build the building. And when the building expanded, it
    prevented additional opportunities for people to work. Tax cuts matter.
    I'm going to spend some time talking about it. I want to thank you for
    giving us a chance to come and use you all as an example, and also, the
    hall works.
        I do want to thank Senator Arlen Specter
    for being here today. Mr. Senator, you

    [[Page 1259]]

    didn't need to come. I'm honored you're here, and I'm sure the people of
    this county are honored you're here too. Thanks for coming.
        Finally, I appreciate the Congressman from this district,
    Congressman Joe Pitts. I appreciate you
    being here, Congressman; thank you. [Applause] Sounds like you packed
    the audience with some of your family. [Laughter]
        Right before I walked in here, I had a chance to talk to some State
    troopers and thank them for their service to the community. These folks
    were first on the scene at the West Nickel Mines Amish School tragedy. I
    am constantly amazed that our country produces people, decent, honorable
    people who are willing to serve. These folks had the ultimate challenge,
    which is to bring comfort to a hurting community. I thank you for what
    you've done, I thank you for what you're doing, and I thank you for what
    you will do. I am honored to be in the presence of the troopers who were
    there first on the scene. Thanks for coming.
        I appreciate so very much Krist Blank
    joining us today. Mr. Blank, I'm honored you are here. I will tell you
    that, like a lot of Americans, I was deeply troubled when, you know, I
    found out that mothers and dads were grieving for the loss of their
    daughter. And I also was--my soul and spirits were lifted when I read
    the stories about the forgiveness and compassion that the Amish
    community showed toward the shooter's family. It was a remarkable
    statement of love and strength and commitment for people who had
    suffered so mightily to say to, you know, a widow and her children that
    we're able to overcome our grief and express our deep love for you. And
    so I want to thank you, sir, and your community for being such great
    examples of the compassion of the Lord. And I'm honored you're here.
        Knowing him, he's sorry I even talked that
    way, see? He's a remarkable guy who told me something interesting. He
    said, ``I'm praying for you, Mr. President.'' This is not going to be a
    church service, I promise you. [Laughter] But I will tell you that the
    prayers of the people matter a lot; they really do. And it's one of the
    most inspiring--[applause].
        I want to talk a little bit about the environment necessary to
    continue economic growth. The job of this Government is not to try to
    create wealth. The job of the government is to create fiscal policy such
    that people feel inspired or confident in risking capital. In other
    words, the job of government is to create an environment that encourages
    entrepreneurship. One of the issues that we're going to be facing in
    Washington, DC, is how to spend your money. In other words, what do we
    do with the good money that we've--the good money we've collected? How
    do we spend it?
        And there's a difference of opinion in Washington, DC, right now.
    I've submitted my budget, the core principle of which is that we will do
    what it takes to defend our homeland and make sure our troops have what
    it takes to do their jobs and keep your taxes low by not raising them.
    And we showed the way forward on how to get the balance in the year
    2012. In other words, you got to be fiscally responsible, set priorities
    with your money, and keep your taxes low.
        The principle is, is that tax cuts inspire investment, encourage
    consumption and savings. In other words, the more money you have, as
    opposed to the government having, the more likely it is the local
    economies will grow. That's why I brought up the example of the SCHIP
    corporation. When we cut taxes on everybody who pays taxes, we cut taxes
    on small businesses too. And one of the principles on which I'm making
    decisions is, I'd rather the Chrysts spending their money than the government spending their
    money. See, I think they know how to spend their money in such a way
    that their business will grow.

    [[Page 1260]]

        Now, there's a different approach in Washington. And folks have
    suggested that we increase spending. As a matter of fact, a 5-year
    budget that's submitted by the current leadership of the Congress
    increases spending by $205 billion over 5 years, which would--and so you
    say, ``That's fine, sounds good, all these programs sound wonderful.''
    Except how you going to pay for it? That's the question I ask. How are
    you going to pay for the promises? And the answer is raising taxes. And
    I think they're wrong to raise taxes on the American people. I know we
    don't need to raise taxes on the American people.
        This economy has got in some difficulties when it comes to the
    housing markets, and the last thing we now need to do is raise taxes.
    See, taking money out of the economy at a time when the housing market
    is adjusting could exacerbate economic difficulties. And the role of
    government is to try to create an environment so that small businesses
    flourish and families can realize opportunities and dreams and
    consumerism remains strong.
        And so what you're going to see me making decisions this year is
    when they spend--they try to increase taxes on you, I'll use the
    prerogative given to me under the Constitution, and I'm going to veto
    the tax bills. I'm going to--[applause].
        I just vetoed a bill today, and I want to explain to you why. It's
    called SCHIP--Children's Health Insurance policy. First of all, the
    intent of the SCHIP legislation passed previous to my administration is
    to help poor children's families buy the children health care, or get
    them on health care. That's what it is intended to do. Poor children in
    America are covered by what's called Medicaid. We spend about--this
    year--about $35.5 billion on poor children's health insurance. So the
    first point I want to make to you is, a lot of your money is being spent
    to make sure poor children get help, medical help.
        In other words, when they say, ``Well, poor children aren't being
    covered in America,'' if that's what you're hearing on your TV screens,
    I'm telling you there's $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe
    that. And by the way, that Medicaid expenditures only accounts for
    children of the poor; it doesn't account for the mothers and fathers. So
    a lot of your money does go to help poor families with health insurance.
        The SCHIP program was supposed to help those poor families, the
    children of poor families have the ability to get health insurance for
    their children. I strongly support the program. I like the idea of
    helping those who are poor be able to get health coverage for their
    children. I supported it as Governor, and I support it as President of
    the United States.
        As a matter of fact, my budget--the budget request I put in said,
    let's increase the spending to make sure that the program does what it's
    supposed to do: sign up poor children for SCHIP. The problem is, is that
    the current program--and by the way, there's about half a million
    children who are eligible who aren't signed up. So I said, why don't we
    focus on the poor children rather than expand the program beyond its
    initial intent.
        I want to tell you a startling statistic, that based on their own
    States' projections--in other words, this isn't a Federal projection,
    it's the States saying this is what's happening--States like New Jersey,
    Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois, and New Mexico spend more
    money on adults in the SCHIP program than they do on children. In other
    words, the initial intent of the program is not being recognized, is not
    being met.
        It is estimated by--well, here's the thing, just so you know: This
    program expands coverage, Federal coverage, up to families earning
    $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me. The intent of the program
    was to focus on poor children, not adults or families earning up to
    $83,000 a year. It is estimated that if this program were

    [[Page 1261]]

    to become law, one out of every three person that would subscribe to the
    new expanded SCHIP would leave private insurance.
        The policies of the Government ought to be, help poor children and
    to focus on poor children. And the policies of the Government ought to
    be, help people find private insurance, not Federal coverage. And that's
    where the philosophical divide comes in. I happen to believe that what
    you're seeing when you expand eligibility for Federal programs is the
    desire by some in Washington, DC, to federalize health care. I don't
    think that's good for the country. I believe in private medicine. I
    believe in helping poor people, which was the intent of SCHIP, now being
    expanded beyond its initial intent. I also believe that the Federal
    Government should make it easier for people to afford private insurance.
    I don't want the Federal Government making decisions for doctors and
    customers.
        That's why I believe strongly in health savings accounts or
    association health plans to help small-business owners better afford
    insurance for their workers. That's why I believe we ought to change the
    Federal Tax Code. You're disadvantaged if you work for a small business
    and/or an individual trying to buy insurance in the marketplace--
    disadvantaged relative to somebody working for a large company. If you
    work for a large company, you get your health insurance after tax. If
    you buy insurance, you have to pay--no, you buy your insurance after
    taxes as an individual; you get your insurance pretax when you're
    working for a large corporation. You're at a disadvantage if you're an
    individual in the marketplace.
        So I think we ought to change the Tax Code. My view is, is that
    every family ought to get a $15,000 deduction off their income taxes,
    regardless of where they work, in order to help people better afford
    insurance in the marketplace.
        So I wanted to share with you why I vetoed the bill this morning.
    Poor kids, first; secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the
    Federal Government running the health care system. I do want Republicans
    and Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the
    poor children. I'm more than willing to work with Members of both
    parties from both Houses, and if they need a little more money in the
    bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children,
    I'm more than willing to sit down with the leaders and find a way to do
    so.
        So thanks for giving me a chance to discuss one of the many
    decisions I make as your President. Decisionmaking is--requires a couple
    of things--and then I'll answer some questions--one, having a vision,
    having a set of beliefs, set of principles by which one makes decisions.
    You know, if you're constantly trying to make decisions based upon the
    latest poll or focus group, your decisionmaking will be erratic. You got
    to have a core set of beliefs. I believe you spend your money better
    than the government spends. I believe that the system works better when
    there's more money in your hands.
        And foreign policy--I believe in the universality of freedom. I
    believe that a gift--[applause]--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 is freedom. That's what I believe. And I believe it's in
    the interests of the United States of America to help people become
    free. That's how you yield the peace we all want. We want people to live
    in free societies.
        And if you believe in the universality of freedom, it's in the
    interest of this country to act. That doesn't mean military operations.
    But it does mean, for example, relieving suffering. I also believe in
    the admonition, to whom much is given, much is required. A lot has been
    given to the United States. I believe it's in our interests to help
    relieve needless deaths when it comes to mosquito bites around the
    world. I believe it's in our interests to help relieve

    [[Page 1262]]

    the suffering of HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa. It's in our
    interests to do so. It's part of the belief system that says, you know,
    that we have obligations and duties to ourself.
        No, by relieving suffering overseas, not only do you lift the moral
    sights of our country, but it recognizes the reality of the world in
    which we live. When there's despondency, despair, and hopelessness
    overseas, it can affect the security of the United States of America.
    And so I--what I'm telling you is that I made a lot of decisions when it
    comes to your security and the peace of the world. And I did so based
    upon certain fundamental principles.
        Secondly, it's important to delegate. There's a lot of action in
    Washington, DC, believe me, and I've got a lot of decisions to make. And
    so I delegate to good people. I always tell Condi Rice, ``I want to remind you, Madam Secretary, who has
    the Ph.D., and who was the C student.'' [Laughter] ``And I want to
    remind you who the adviser is and who the President is.'' [Laughter] I
    got a lot of Ph.D. types and smart people around me who come into the
    Oval Office and say, ``Mr. President, here's what's on my mind.'' And I
    listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the device, I
    decide; you know, I say, ``This is what we're going to do.'' And it's
    ``Yes, sir, Mr. President.'' And then we get after it, implement policy.
        It's a joy to be your President. It's not only an honor, it's a joy,
    because I truly believe the decisions I am making will yield the peace
    we want and the prosperity that we all desire. So now I'll be glad to
    answer some questions from you if you got any. If not, I can keep on
    blowing hot air until the time--[laughter]--until the time runs out.
        Yes, sir.

    President's Decisionmaking/Progress in Iraq

        Q. [Inaudible]--follow opinion polls. You don't govern by opinion
    polls. And I really respect that--[inaudible].
        The President. Okay, thank you, sir. Yes, those same polls will tell
    you that they're worried about catastrophe in the Middle East affecting
    the security of the United States. In other words, you pretty well--
    look, I'm not going to argue polls with you, but I will tell you this,
    sir: First of all, if we have a troop in harm's way, they're going to
    have the best--they're going to have what's necessary to--so they can do
    their job.
        And secondly, we are bringing troops home. General David
    Petraeus announced that he wasn't going to
    replace 2,200 marines that were in Anbar Province, and the reason why he
    didn't feel like he needed to replace them is because they were
    successful. They had done their job. Reconciliation is taking place.
    Normal people are beginning to step forward and say, ``We want to live
    in peace.'' Al Qaida, that thought they were going to have Anbar as a
    safe haven, has been rejected by the local populace. And he believes, as
    do the Iraqis, that we can maintain security without 2,200 troops.
        We're going to bring another brigade home by Christmas. So that's
    5,700 troop reduction. General Petraeus,
    in his testimony, recommended to me--a recommendation I accepted--that
    we can get down to 15 brigades by July. That's 20 from 15.
        And the reason I tell you this, sir, is, I want to make a couple of
    points. One, if I didn't think the mission was necessary for our
    security, I wouldn't have our troops there. Secondly, if I didn't think
    we could succeed, I wouldn't have our troops there. I cannot look in the
    eye of a mother or father whose son or daughter is in combat and not
    believe that we can succeed, and it's necessary.
        Secondly, I believe that it is very important for the Commander in
    Chief to take the advice of his military commanders very seriously. In
    my position, sir, I don't want our troops feeling like I'm making
    decisions based upon politics when their lives are

    [[Page 1263]]

    at risk. I want our troops feeling--knowing that I'm making decisions on
    the considered judgment of our military, all aimed at accomplishing an
    objective, which is for a country in the heart of the Middle East to be
    able to govern, sustain itself, and serve as an ally against these
    extremists and radicals.
        Let me give you my world view on this. Like you, I'd like them home.
    I really do. But my decisions have been based on my--or at least my
    belief that what we're seeing is one of the--a great ideological
    struggle between forces of rational behavior, decent people, lovers of
    liberty, versus radicals who have a belief system, and they're willing
    to murder the innocent to achieve--to advance their objectives. That's
    how I view it. I don't think you're a religious person if you murder the
    innocent to achieve political objectives. I think you're a person who is
    manipulative and cynical and willing to kill in the name of religion; I
    don't think you're religious.
        Secondly, a lot of my decisionmaking has been influenced by what
    happened on September the 11th, 2001. I vowed that day that I would do
    everything in my ability to protect you, and that I would--I wouldn't
    tire--I can't remember my exact words, but I would stay on the job. And
    that's exactly what I have been doing.
        On the one hand, we're pursuing radicals and extremists through
    sharing of intelligence and through special operations and through
    working alliances to bring them to justice before they come and kill
    again. And I would remind you that the people that have swore allegiance
    to Usama bin Laden in Iraq wanted Anbar
    Province as a safe haven from which to launch further attacks on the
    United States. And one of the great successes of this conflict has not
    only been to liberate 25 million people from the clutches of a brutal
    tyrant but to make sure that Anbar Province wasn't a safe haven for
    those who swore allegiance to Usama bin Laden.
        But in the long run, the way to defeat ideological people is with a
    better ideology. And there's no better ideology than one based upon
    liberty. If you believe in the universality of liberty, then it
    shouldn't surprise you when 12 million people in Iraq went to the polls.
    They said, we've been given a chance to express our individual desires.
    And they went to the polls to vote.
        We have been through these kind of conflicts in our history. We went
    through the conflict against communism and fascism. These wars play out
    differently. This war is really hard for the American people to
    understand because the enemy uses asymmetrical warfare. They use
    hundred-dollar weapons to destroy half-a-million-dollar vehicles, which
    has got to, as a taxpayer, concern you. I understand that. I understand
    it.
        But the struggle is just as intense today as it was in the forties
    and the fifties. I must have told this story hundreds of times, that one
    of the most amazing aspects of my Presidency was my relationship with
    the Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Koizumi. What's amazing about it is that when my dad was 18, he signed up to fight the Japanese; they
    were the sworn enemy of the United States of America. Thousands of
    people died in that conflict. They attacked America, the last time we
    were attacked, by the way, prior to September the 11th was Pearl Harbor.
    And 60 years later, I'm sitting at the table with the Prime Minister of
    Japan talking about peace, talking about how to help young democracies
    thrive in this ideological struggle, both of us knowing full well that
    the ultimate defeat of extremism, in the name of an ideology that is
    dark, is freedom--is the light of freedom. And the amazing thing is, is
    that what happened was that Japan's form of government changed.
        Liberty is transformative. Our one-time enemy is at the table
    talking about peace. And the same thing is going to happen in the Middle
    East. And it's going to be tough to get there, and it's hard work. But

    [[Page 1264]]

    you--I've got faith in the transformative power of liberty. I believe
    that people want to be free. I believe a gift of the Almighty to each
    man, woman, and child is freedom. And I believe, when given the chance,
    people want to be free. And I firmly believe freedom leads--yields the
    peace we want.
        And so, sir, to answer your question, it's important we succeed, and
    it's important we support our troops. Thank you.
        Yes, sir. I appreciate the question. Yes, they'll get it for you.
    I'm not going to read it right now. Go ahead.

    Agriculture/Alternative Fuel Sources/Energy

        Q. Thank you. Hello. First, I appreciate you being here and being in
    this kind of forum to answer questions.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. It helps me to have a better understanding of you as a person----
        The President. I hope so.
        Q. ----so thank you very much. Thanks. I have two questions, if I
    could. One is, can you talk about the farm bill and how it's going to
    help local farmers in this area? And then would you also talk about
    global warming and how the U.S. is being a leader in a worldwide effort
    to combat global warming? Thank you.
        The President. Thank you. Thanks, great question. First, on the farm
    bill--I believe it's in the interest of local farmers to have markets
    available to them. In other words, a core principle of any good farm
    policy is for the administration to work to open up markets. If you're
    good at something--and we're really good at farming--we want to be in a
    position to sell that which you grow, overseas.
        Secondly, I believe very strongly that programs that encourage
    overproduction are programs that need to be seriously evaluated. In
    other words, I'd rather you selling into existing markets than producing
    where there be no market. In other words, it's a combination--look, I'm
    a safety net person for farmers. I just want to make sure the safety net
    is a actual safety net, not a incentive for overproduction.
        Thirdly, I strongly believe in the conservation title inherent in
    the farm bill, the last farm bill. This is a CRP program which says to
    farmers, look, we want to help you set aside part of your land that may
    not be good for farming, but would be good for habitat, soil
    conversation. It's really one of the--I think one of the great
    accomplishments of this administration is to work with the farm
    community to have an advanced CRP program.
        And that's kind of the inherent principles. The marketplace has
    worked for farmers. I also believe--this is going to answer your global
    warming question as well--it's in the Nation's interest to diversify
    away from hydrocarbons. Probably comes as a shock to you from a guy from
    Texas saying that. But it's--dependence on oil creates national security
    issues. There's too many people who have got oil that may not like us.
        Secondly, we import about 60 percent of our oil from overseas--
    fortunately, most of it from--a lot of it from Canada and Mexico. But it
    doesn't take much to disrupt an oil market, and therefore, we got an
    economic issue when it comes to dependency on oil. One terrorist attack
    on a major oil facility could cause the world price of oil to go up.
    There are new big consumers of hydrocarbons in the marketplace. China
    and India, as they're growing their economies, are creating additional
    demand relative to supply. And therefore, the price of gasoline goes up
    here in Lancaster County as these economies grow. And finally,
    dependency upon oil creates an environmental issue.
        And so therefore, one of the strategies that we're putting in place
    is--and this happens to be beneficial for farmers--is, why don't we grow
    our way out of dependency on oil? Why don't we use, initially, corn as
    the feedstock for an ethanol industry that has gone from about a billion
    gallons

    [[Page 1265]]

    a year when I first became President to over 6 billion gallons a year?
        In other words--and so what I'm beginning to tell you is--what I
    am--not beginning, what I am telling you is that we have a comprehensive
    strategy to deal with energy security and environmental quality at the
    same time. And the interesting dynamic that has taken place in the
    environmental debate is the two issues have now come front and center at
    the same time. In other words, you can solve one, you can solve the
    other.
        Now, in terms of the environment, my--I gave a speech the other day
    in front of the major economies of the world. And the reason I asked the
    major economies of the world to come to the table is because there is no
    solution for global warming unless all the major economies, or the
    growing economies of the world come to the table. You can't have a--one
    of the reasons I was against Kyoto was not because I'm not--don't
    support, you know, good quality environmental policy. I didn't think it
    made sense to have policy that didn't include all the major economies,
    like China.
        And so why don't we try this approach--why don't we make sure that
    China comes to the table on this issue? And step one is, we'll sit
    around the table and agree on a common goal about what the reductions of
    greenhouse gases ought to be over the first half of the next century.
    Because if you can get somebody to sign on to a goal, you then get
    somebody to recognize there's a problem and then obligate them to come
    up with a solution. So that's part of the strategy.
        Here at home there are three aspects of our economy that affect
    greenhouse gases. First, automobiles--and I just described to you the
    policy that I think is good to address our reliance upon oil, which also
    affects that aspect of our economy that--where there's a lot of
    emissions, and that's the automobiles. We can't rely upon corn forever
    for ethanol. There are a lot of hog growers and cattle growers around
    that get a little nervous when the price of corn is going up the way it
    is. And so your Government is spending a fair amount of money, of your
    money, to research cellulosic ethanol. And that's a fancy word for using
    corn chips or switchgrass to be able to be the feedstock for new ethanol
    production.
        And smart people tell me we're pretty close. So someday it's very
    conceivable that the farmers around here are going to be growing
    switchgrass. And then you become energy producers. Or you can imagine if
    we can use wood chips as a source to be able to produce ethanol; then
    all of a sudden, you got a lot of the places that grow pine trees become
    a part of the energy mix. It's very conceivable that we can reduce our
    energy, our gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years. As a
    matter of fact, I've asked Congress to put that into law, not as a
    voluntary standard, but a mandatory standard.
        Secondly, electricity--and so, you know, the real question on this
    environmental issue is, can we have policies in place that enable us to
    grow our economies and, at the same time, protect the environment? And
    technology will enable us to do that. That was the other message I
    talked about at this conference. You don't have to shut down your
    economy in order to protect the environment.
        Technology will enable us, for example, to generate electricity from
    coal, but have zero emissions. That's where we're headed. So we're
    spending a couple of billion dollars of your money on clean coal
    technology. The dream is to have a coal-fired plant that produces zero
    emissions. And the smart people tell me that's coming.
        And by the way, on automobiles, just--you got me stuck on something
    I'm interested in: automobiles. You're going to be driving your car with
    a battery, and so the first 40 miles--this is going to be helpful for
    urban dwellers--the first 40 miles will be driven on a battery charge. I
    feel like

    [[Page 1266]]

    it's coming pretty quick. And your deal doesn't have to look like a golf
    cart, you know; it's going to look like a car--[laughter]--or a pickup
    truck, you can drive a pickup truck. [Laughter] Well, they drive them in
    Texas. [Laughter] You get your first 40 miles--I'm not quite through.
    And it's a long answer, I'm sorry. It's called filibustering. [Laughter]
        The other thing is, is that we got to promote nuclear power. I am
    convinced that the plant designs today are safe. I know we have got to
    do research on how to burn down the spent fuel in order to make people
    comfortable that we can deal with the waste in a smart way. If you're an
    environmentalist and concerned about greenhouse gases, you got to be for
    nuclear power. Nuclear power enables the developed world and the
    developing world to generate, get a--get cheap electricity without one
    iota of greenhouse gases.
        And so we're talking to countries like China and India about a
    help--how to help them develop a civilian nuclear power industry. And so
    the question that's got to be on your mind--I'm certain it is--``How
    they going to get the fuel? Do you really want a lot of people
    enriching?'' Well, there's a Nuclear Suppliers Group that does produce
    fuel; we're one of them. And so my vision is, if you want to have your
    nuclear powerplant, fine. The Nuclear Suppliers Group will provide you
    the fuel and will collect the spent fuel. And hopefully, as this new
    technology comes, we'll reprocess the spent fuel in a way that reduces
    the amount of spent fuel and the toxicity of the fuel.
        And finally, there's--the third aspect of greenhouse gases here at
    home is how do you--you've got to build your buildings better, and
    building codes matter when it comes to the construction of buildings.
    And so there's the three-part strategy. Then the question is, who
    develops the strategy for each country? Well, my attitude is, we can
    develop our own strategy. See, we'll set the goal, work with other
    nations to set the goal, and we'll develop a strategy. We'll develop a
    strategy that meets the needs of the American economy. We'll develop a
    strategy that the American people are comfortable with, all aiming to
    achieve the international goal.
        And anyway, it's a great question. I appreciate you asking it.
        Yes, little guy, you got one?

    Border Security/Immigration Reform

        Q. Do you have any further plans on preventing illegal immigration?
        The President. Illegal immigration? Yes, I do. He said, do I have
    any plans to prevent illegal--further plans. One is to double the Border
    Patrol. Two is to modernize the border. You know--I know you've haven't
    ever been down there--or maybe you have. I used to live close to the
    border, and it is an expansive territory, and it's hard to enforce. And
    you can't have a Border Patrol agent every quarter-mile. You've got to
    have infrastructure, as well, to leverage the presence of Border Patrol.
        And so we're modernizing it. We're getting some fencing and some
    automobile routes--you get on the Arizona border; you can't tell what's
    border and what's not border. I mean, it's just desert. But we're
    beginning to clearly define the border, and we're beginning to have much
    more effective enforcement on the border.
        The second aspect of the immigration policy that discouraged a lot
    of our Border Patrol and frankly discouraged a lot of Americans and made
    them believe that the Government wasn't serious about enforcing the
    border is, oftentimes, we would find somebody trying to sneak into our
    country illegally and then release them. And the old policy was, check
    back in with your immigration court. The problem is, they weren't
    interested in checking back in with the immigration court; they were
    interested in working. And so it was called catch-and-release. We've
    ended that.

    [[Page 1267]]

        One of the things we did with the Congress over the last couple of
    years is increase the number of detention facilities and beds. So
    somebody gets caught sneaking into our country illegally will be held in
    detention, particularly if they're from a Central American country, for
    example. And they're being shipped home now, which sends a message back
    to Central America that it's not a free ride anymore. In other words,
    there is a cost of trying to come into the country.
        Thirdly, so it's modernization, increased manpower, and better
    policy in terms of enforcing law.
        Now, I'm going to tell you my position on this, just so you know
    loud and clear. I don't think you can fully enforce the border like
    Americans expect unless you recognize that people are willing to do
    whatever it takes to sneak in here to do jobs Americans aren't willing
    to do. And therefore, I believe, as an integral part of border security,
    that we say to somebody, ``You can come here on a temporary basis to
    pick peaches or to work in a chicken factory.'' In other words, there's
    a lot of jobs Americans aren't willing to do, but somebody else is
    willing to do it because they want to put food on the table for their
    families. And until we have a rational, temporary guest-worker program,
    people are going to sneak in.
        I used to remind people, family values don't stop at the Rio Grande
    River. You got people who are worried about putting food on the table
    and are willing to get in the bottom of an 18-wheeler in 100-degree
    temperature because they're going to come and do a job many Americans
    don't want to do. And so I fully believe that if you want to enforce the
    border and be humane, have a temporary-worker program. Give people a
    chance to come with a tamper-proof ID card that says, you going to come
    for a limited period of time to do a job that somebody else isn't doing.
        That, by the way, relieves the pressure off the employers. If you're
    a small-business owner--[applause]--well, there's somebody who's worried
    about it. If you're running a nursery here in Lancaster County and
    somebody shows up to work, you're not in much of a position to determine
    whether or not that Social Security card somebody gives you is forged or
    not. And believe me, there is a whole forgery network around this
    immigration issue, just like there's a whole smuggling network around
    this immigration issue.
        And so it's--anyway, I put up an idea, and we tried to get it
    through Congress; it didn't work. And so in the meantime, however, this
    border security initiative is still going on down there on the border.
    I'm constantly in touch with the person in charge. I said, ``Here's what you said you're going to do, are
    you're doing it?'' That's one of the jobs of the President, is to hold
    people to account. I'm interested in results. I said, ``You're going to
    come in and check in with me on a regular basis to show me what's
    happening.'' And it's amazing what happens--I'm sure you do this in your
    businesses; you say, ``You show up and give me an accounting of what's
    taken place.'' Well, the same thing works in government. And so I'm
    watching carefully, and we're implementing the will of the United States
    Congress on the border security.
        Yes, sir.

    Federal Utilities

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. Recently, the Federal Government implemented the National
    Electric Transmission Corridors Project, whereby the Federal Government
    can step in and not only identify corridors where we need to increase
    transmission capabilities along the east coast or the west coast, for
    example, but oversee, if you will, what the State says. In other words,
    if a State is holding up the project, the Federal Government can come in
    and say, ``No, this is where it's going to go, and this is how we're
    going

    [[Page 1268]]

    to do that.'' Recently, when the Federal Government has identified some
    of these corridors, the States' Governors have come out against some of
    these corridors because they don't want to lose control. I'm just
    wondering what your opinion is on that.
        The President. It's a--the issue, as well as whether or not the
    Federal Government has the right of eminent domain to put certain
    Federal systems in place over the objections of State and landowners--
    and I support it on a limited basis, so long as it achieves a national
    objective. And I think having modern communications and electricity
    wires is in the national interest.
        Yes, ma'am.

    Federal Support for Private Food Bank Programs

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Well, you raised your hand. [Laughter] You didn't
    mean it? You want a little chance to collect the thoughts, you know? I
    mean, we're talking national TV here, you know? [Laughter]
        Q. I actually wrote it down so I wouldn't get flustered.
        The President. Yes, it didn't work. Yes. [Laughter] It's just the
    President.
        Q. Exactly. Thank you for picking me. I work for the Central
    Pennsylvania Food Bank. And in the last two of your budgets, you have
    attempted to eliminate the commodity supplemental food programs. It's
    okay. We can talk about that.
        The President. Yes. [Laughter]
        Q. Now, with----
        The President. I did? Anyway--[laughter].
        Q. Yes, sir, you did.
        The President. I'm going to call the man responsible right when I
    get home. Anyway, go ahead.
        Q. Your Secretary of Agriculture came to visit us, and we asked him
    about it too.
        The President. And what did he say?
        Q. Not a lot. [Laughter]
        The President. Why did you ask that question? [Laughter] Anyway.
        Q. With a half a million seniors who rely on this food--and the food
    stamp benefit for seniors who live in poverty isn't--it comes nowhere
    near this benefit that they receive--how do we make sure that our
    seniors have the food that they need?
        The President. Yes.
        Q. And what I would say is, you know, I mean, I just want to make
    this program for my food bank.
        The President. Well, where do you get most of your food from in the
    food bank? Private donations, right?
        Q. Well, we're fortunate, yes.
        The President. Yes. That's the way it ought to be. Food banks ought
    to be supported through the generosity of individuals. And--anyway, keep
    going. So the program that we're----
        Q. But I mean, for the supplemental--commodity supplemental food
    program, there's nothing to replace it with. Food stamps aren't going to
    work, and we're talking about folks who live in poverty--elderly folks
    who live in poverty.
        The President. Right.
        Q. They already made all the mistakes, which they can't fix----
        The President. Yes, look, if somebody is poor, we want to help them.
        Q. Exactly.
        The President. And the fundamental question is, what's the proper
    balance between Federal help and private help? And when it comes to food
    banks, look, I don't know the program. Maybe I shouldn't make this
    admission; maybe I should try to bull my way through. I don't know the
    program; I'm sorry. I'll be glad to look into it. But just from a
    philosophical perspective, one of the wonderful things about the country
    is, when there's a need, the average citizen steps up and helps fills
    the need through private charity. And your program, I suspect, really
    functions well because the food bank is a dear cause for people. People
    say, ``How can I love my neighbor?'' Well, one way to love your neighbor
    is the food bank.

    [[Page 1269]]

        And the truth of the matter is, I suspect that if seniors are
    suffering here in Lancaster County and you put out the call, people are
    going to help. And so I would--I will get your budget--yes, leave your
    name. I'll get your budget question answered, because you'll be maybe
    surprised, not surprised--I don't know all the budget lines. [Laughter]
    I tend to try to have the big picture. But it's big picture for you, and
    I understand it. Thank you for your question. I will seriously find out
    for you.
        Yes, ma'am.

    Middle East/War on Terror/Spread of Democracy

        Q. Thank you very much. It's truly an honor to have a President come
    to our county.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. I just wanted to ask you specifically, relating to Israel and
    Palestine, what, in your opinion, will it really take to ever have
    peace? And is it that really possible?
        The President. That's a great question. What will it take to have
    peace in the Middle East? And first, it'll take a firm rejection of
    extremism and a rejection of people who use terror as a weapon to
    achieve their political objectives. This ideological struggle that I
    just described to you is taking place throughout the entire Middle East.
        Secondly, I believe that in order for there to be peace, there needs
    to be a Palestinian democracy committed to living side by side with an
    Israeli democracy in peace. And so I've advanced this vision. First of
    all, I believe it can happen. There's nothing worse than a leader
    saying, ``I don't think it's going to happen, but we'll try.'' I do
    believe it can happen. I do believe there can be peace. I understand how
    difficult it is because there are people who can't stand the thought of
    a democracy in their midst, because they have a different vision of
    government. This is what you're seeing playing out in Iraq. This is what
    is playing out in Afghanistan. Isn't it amazing that two of the youngest
    democracies on the face of the Earth are being challenged by murderers
    and terrorists? They have a different vision of government.
        Thirdly, this is being played out in Lebanon. A struggling democracy
    is having to deal with extremist groups funded by parties in the region
    that worry about the advent of democracy. And so my strategy has always
    been to lay out a vision that I believe can work, and work toward that
    vision. And so we're doing that in the Middle East.
        Now, first, in order for there to be peace in the Middle East, there
    has to be a commitment by the leaders of the parties to work toward two
    democracies living side by side in peace. The United States can't impose
    a solution. We can't make the leader of a democracy--force the leader of
    a democracy to make a decision that is not in the interest of the people
    of that democracy. So one of the interesting breakthroughs has been that
    the Israelis have come to believe, and rightly so, that it's in their
    long-term interest that we work toward a Palestinian democracy.
    Otherwise, the demographics will overwhelm the Israeli democracy.
        And so the leadership--this isn't--they didn't say, ``Hey, good
    idea, let's have Palestinian democracy,'' because I said it. They have
    said this because it's in their interest. And so does their--President
    Abbas believe it's important and
    necessary. But the problem is, is that we have got to do two things.
    One, we've got to make this hope real for the Palestinians. In other
    words, they've heard a lot of rhetoric, but they really haven't seen a
    state begun to emerge from the rhetoric. So there's got to be hope.
        And so one of the things Condi and I
    are working on is to see if we can't get the two parties to agree on
    what a state would look like so that the average Palestinian says,
    ``Wait a minute. I'm sick and tired of this violence; I'm not going to
    support those who espouse radicalism and violence in order to achieve an
    objective, because here's a different vision.'' And in the

    [[Page 1270]]

    meantime, we're trying to help this Palestinian democracy have the
    institutions in place--a security institution, an economic institution,
    an actual functioning government--that will inspire not only their own
    people but inspire the Israelis to eventually trust their judgment that
    a Palestinian state on her border will yield the peace. And it's hard--
    it can happen.
        But we have to be firm in our rejection of extremists and radicals.
    And what happens in Iraq, for example, matters in the Palestinian
    Territory. What happens in Lebanon matters around the Middle East. And
    the truth of the matter is, Iran is using Hizballah in Lebanon and is
    worried about democracy in the Middle East--can't stand the thought of a
    democratic government on our border--is creating issues of peace.
        And one of the reasons I answered the man's question the way I did
    about the need to succeed is because there would be nothing worse for
    world peace if the Iranians believed that the United States didn't have
    the will and commitment to help young democracies survive; that if we
    left before the job was done, there would be chaos. Chaos would embolden
    not only the extremists and radicals who would like to do us harm, but
    it would also embolden Iran. And what you don't want is somebody--is to
    have a nuclear arms race taking place in the Middle East.
        And so our objective with Iran is to peacefully deal with the issue
    and convince the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions for
    the sake of peace. And that requires more than one voice speaking to
    them. It requires the international community understanding the stakes
    of what a nuclear-armed Iran could mean. I'm kind of getting out of the
    lane here on the question, but anyway, I wanted to share this with you.
        All of these democracy movements and freedom movements are related
    to the larger issues that you're reading about in your newspapers. The
    Iranian issue, the Iraqi issue, they're all interrelated. And that's why
    it's really important for the United States to stay engaged and to
    promote democracy for the sake of peace.
        See, 50 years--the time between when my dad fought and Koizumi came
    into the office, 50 years is really--or 60 years is not all that long--
    unless, of course, you're 59. [Laughter] But anyway, it's just not all
    that long. And I've told people, this is the first chapter of freedom's
    march in the 21st century, against these radical ideologues. It's the
    first chapter. We're in for an ideological struggle that's going to take
    awhile.
        And my commitment is, let's make sure that first chapter that's
    written is one that'll yield the peace we want. Let's make certain when
    we look back at this generation that they say, ``They didn't shirk their
    duty; they did the hard work so future children can live in peace.'' And
    it's difficult. It's a difficult work. It's hard to do the hard things
    now. And so--and the American people are--you know, they don't like war.
    He's got to know, I don't like it either. But I also understand the
    challenges.
        And anyway, there's a part of an answer for a strategy that I
    believe is going to work. I really do.
        Yes.

    Education

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. A college education, if you're a poor student, you
    just got to--you got help because I signed a bill that increased the
    amount and size of Pell grants. I believe strongly that Pell grants is
    one good way of helping families afford higher education. I believe in
    tax incentives to help families save for higher education. I believe in
    student loans to help families afford higher education.
        My view is this, that if you work hard and you want to go to
    college, you can find all the help you want. Now, some people don't like
    repaying loans, but that's part of life. If we can borrow some of your
    money--if somebody's going to borrow some of your money, they ought to
    repay

    [[Page 1271]]

    your money. No, I think if you really look hard, you'll find there's a
    lot of help.
        The best thing we can do, by the way, to make sure that higher
    education is relevant--this isn't exactly your question--but to make
    sure it works in America is to make sure our children can read and write
    and add and subtract. And I want to spend a little time talking to you
    about a subject that may be controversial for some. It's called the No
    Child Left Behind law. See, it's an old trick: You talk about education,
    I segue into something I want to talk about. [Laughter]
        Here's the law. As Governor of Texas, I was deeply concerned about
    schools in my State that were simply moving children through the system
    without being able to tell parents or officials or taxpayers whether or
    not that child could meet standards. And so what ended up happening is,
    is that I would go to a school, and they'd say, ``Well, we've inherited
    kids who can't read''--from the elementary school, for example. So I
    decided to try to do something about it. And step one was to say, if
    you're going to take our money, taxpayers' money, you need to measure.
    There needs to be a standard. You need to show us whether or not, for
    example, children are reading at grade level by the third grade.
        And I took this--and the standards started improving education
    results. I mean, we actually--using the word ``result'' wasn't something
    that we could use before we measured. We were guessing. Now we're
    measuring in our State.
        And so I took this attitude to Washington, DC. We're spending a lot
    of your money on poor kids in Federal education, which I support. But I
    don't support the notion of not knowing whether or not that child can
    read. And so therefore, we said, ``You design the tests.'' In other
    words, I said, ``You design the tests, not the Federal Government.'' I
    believe in local control of schools, but I just believe in strong
    accountability. I believe in saying to a school district, ``You better
    get it right, and you're going to measure to show us whether or not
    you're getting it right.'' And I also believe that in early grades, when
    we find somebody who can't read up to grade level, we ought to spend
    additional money to help that child get up to speed now, before it's too
    late.
        And so the No Child Left Behind Act says, we trust you to run your
    schools the way you want to run them, but you show us whether or not a
    child can read, write, and add and subtract. Guess what happens
    generally in some of the schools--in my State, at least, they used to--
    guess who was penalized by a system that didn't measure? African
    American inner-city kids, you know, they're hard to educate; let's just
    move them through. That's unacceptable to America. And it was certainly
    unacceptable to me as Governor and me as President. I believe every
    child can learn, and I expect schools to teach every child how to learn.
        And so to answer your question on college, you can find help to go
    to college; you sure can. But my advice is doing what I'm sure you're
    doing, which is studying hard now so that college is relevant to you
    later. And so I thank you for your question.
        Yes, sir.

    Presidential Election/President's Family

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Yes, I will.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. I'll veto it. Yes.
        Q. Mr. President, I have a lot of respect for the job you do----
        The President. Why don't you just leave her right there, then?
    [Laughter]
        Q. After saying you're still having fun, I have even more respect
    for you.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. But my question is a little bit lighter, I guess. Two things:
    One, are you able at this point to support any of the Presidential
    candidates coming up?
        The President. No.
        Q. All right. [Laughter] Then my next question--I have recently
    watched the

    [[Page 1272]]

    interviews with your daughters, and you have to be very proud of them.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. I'm proud of my daughter. My question is, would you rather see
    your daughters go into business or politics?
        The President. I'd rather them do whatever they want to do. And I--
    what I want them to do is, I want them to understand that when they can--when they love a
    neighbor or when they help somebody in need, that they're really helping
    themselves. I want them to understand there is a certain responsibility
    in our society to reach out. So when Jenna told me she's a school
    teacher, I was very proud of that. Or when Barbara went down and worked
    in a AIDS--pediatric AIDS clinic in South Africa, I was very proud of
    that.
        And, yes, I love my daughters. And one of the hardest things I've
    done is, I've put them in the spotlight. And that was--I really wrestled
    with the decision to run for President because, of all the candidates, I
    understand what it means to be a son or a daughter of a President.
        And so it's been a blessing to see them grow up. And I'm real proud
    of them.
        Yes. No, you're second.

    Immigration Reform

        Q. Mr. President, it's a pleasure to have you here. My question, it
    brings the immigration issue a little closer to home. Recently, the
    mayor of Hazleton came to Lancaster City and spoke about his views
    regarding penalties for landlords and others who support illegal
    immigrants. The city of Lancaster passed an ordinance that rejected that
    sort of thinking. I'd like your thoughts about that position, please.
        The President. I think that--one of the reasons I was strongly in
    favor of comprehensive immigration reform is so that would preempt local
    governments from taking a variety of actions which creates a confusing
    mosaic around the country. Obviously, you know, State, local governments
    can do what they want to do. But I believe the reason they feel like
    they need to do that is because the Federal Government hasn't acted with
    a comprehensive immigration reform bill. And one of the consequences of
    the Federal Government not being able to act in a focused, concerted way
    is that people felt obligated to respond locally.
        And so Congress needs to--you know, I don't know whether they're
    going to bring the issue up again. I was deeply disappointed that we
    couldn't get the bill going. I really felt like a comprehensive bill
    would, as I say, prevent this notion of city governments responding to
    immigration in a variety of different ways. Same thing is happening in
    Texas, in some places. And so it's a--anyway, we'll keep trying to get
    it done. I'm going to tell you something: The country needs to address
    this thing in a comprehensive fashion.
        Yes, sir. Oh, I'm sorry, ma'am. When you're getting over 60,
    sometimes your mind slips. [Laughter]

    War on Terror/Progress in Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, my question is, are you disappointed in Americans
    condemning the Iraqi war now, since----
        The President. Do what now?
        Q. I said, are you disappointed in the Americans that condemn the
    Iraqi war now, since after--right after 9/11 it seemed like we were all
    ready to go to war over it?
        The President. I'm not--listen, people don't like war. I'm not
    disappointed in America at all. I love America. And I fully understand,
    you know, that people just are anxious about seeing death on their TV
    screens. I also understand that, you know, the enemy understands that.
    And so these spectacular bombings of innocent people are meant to
    achieve a couple of objectives: one, shake the will of those inside Iraq
    or wherever they kill--Afghanistan, Indonesia, the Philippines--all
    aiming to disquiet societies that live under the democracy. But they're
    also smart people. They

    [[Page 1273]]

    know that these spectaculars will get on our TV screens.
        And they understand the goodness of America. They may not view this
    as a strong characteristic of our society, which is that we respect
    human rights and human dignity and human life, and that may be viewed as
    a weakness in their perspective. But for me, it's a strength. And they
    know that we'll recoil from these kinds of deaths. And so it's a--I'm
    not surprised, ma'am, that this war has created anxiety in our society.
    You know, like everybody else, I wish it would, you know, be over. But I
    want it over having accomplished our objectives, which is, as I told
    you, to write a solid chapter in this long ideological struggle so that
    50 years from now, when people look at the decisionmaking, they say,
    ``Now I understand where he's coming from, and it was worth the
    sacrifice--which is peace.''
        We live in a society, in a way, where things--people have
    expectations that things ought to happen quite quickly. To come from a
    tyrannical society that really didn't know the habits of democracy and
    be given the challenge and the responsibility of governing a democracy
    is hard work. And I'm not making any excuses, but I'm telling you, it's
    hard. There's no basis for which these folks inside Iraq have governed,
    except for somebody else's experience, not their own experiences. And I
    talk to these leaders a lot. And the first thing I'm looking for in them
    is courage--do they have the courage necessary to stand up in the face
    of these attacks by extremists; do they have the capacity to reach out
    to each other? You know?
        And what's happening in Iraq is that as security has improved at the
    local level, local folks just--average citizens stand up and say, ``We
    want more.'' It is wrong to assume that the average mom in Iraq is
    willing to accept violence. The average mom in Iraq wants what you want,
    which is your child growing up in peace. The average child--mom in Iraq
    wants something better for her child than what was under the tyranny of
    Saddam Hussein.
        And so it's a--what's happening there is, is as I said in my speech
    the other night, local politics will affect national politics;
    reconciliation is taking place at the local level, and people who are
    learning how to run a democracy are beginning to respond. And anyway,
    I'm not disappointed in America at all. I love America, and I really
    love the people.
        Yes. I think that was your question, wasn't it? Okay. The answer was
    so long, I lost track.
        What you got, buddy?

    Iran/North Korea

        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Okay, I'll ask you a question. What grade are you in?
        Q. I'm in 10th grade.
        The President. Tenth, fabulous. Yes.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Atta boy. [Laughter]
        Q. What I would like you to help me understand is, why you consider
    that--[inaudible]--refuse to negotiate directly with--[inaudible].
        The President. Appreciate that.
        Q. [Inaudible]
        The President. Great question. He says, why won't I sit down with
    the Iranian leaders, why won't there be direct negotiations with Iran?
    In order for diplomacy to work, the other side needs as much or more
    from you as you need from them. We have started negotiations with a
    leader and a form of government we don't agree
    with, called North Korea.
        And let me give you this case study. I was concerned about the North
    Korean weapons programs. I was concerned that they didn't honor
    agreements from the past, and so therefore, I said, we're not going to
    continue the bilateral negotiations that I inherited, because I felt
    very strongly that those negotiations were nonconsequential. In other
    words, there was no consequence if somebody decided to just go

    [[Page 1274]]

    ahead and ignore what we'd agreed to. Negotiations just for the sake of
    negotiations oftentimes send wrong signals. Negotiations to achieve
    consequences are worth doing.
        And so my first objective was to put the negotiation--discussion,
    potential discussions in the position that if Kim Jong Il decided to say one thing and do another, there would be
    some consequences. And the most consequential move would be that
    people--countries in the neighborhood, such as China, would become--
    would try to affect North Korean policy. In other words, to get China at
    the table was an objective, so that when we spoke to North Korea, they
    would hear more than one voice, the United States. They had heard the
    voice of the United States for the previous 6 years and didn't honor
    their obligations, we felt. But maybe they would change their behavior
    if they heard the voice of other countries. In other words, five of us
    got together and said, ``Here's what we expect you to do, and in return
    for you doing this in a verifiable way, you will end up getting this.
    But if you decide to make a promise and not honor that promise, then
    there will be consequences.'' We had already sanctioned North Korea, so
    we were pretty much nonconsequential on the diplomatic front. But China
    hadn't, for example.
        And so step one was to try to make sure that any discussions we had
    were able to achieve objectives, and in this case--this example was one
    where we were willing to discuss it, but we want to make sure that we
    set it up in such a way that when it came time for North Korea to
    dismantle its programs, we would, one, be able to verify it, and two, we
    would be able to keep them at the table and keep them progressing. And
    that's where we are today. In other words we've--and it takes a while to
    get all this in place.
        You know, in Iran, we're dealing with a country where the
    leader has said that he wants to destroy
    Israel. My belief is that the United States will defend our ally Israel.
    This is a leader who has made very provocative statements, and we have
    made it clear, however, in spite of that, that we're willing to sit down
    with him, so long as he suspends his program, his nuclear weapons
    program. In other words, it's his choice, not mine anymore.
        So I believe that's the best way to achieve an objective without
    undermining our credibility, without sending the wrong signal to people.
    And so it's--each case matter is different. And so if your question is,
    will you ever sit down with them? We've proven we would with North
    Korea. And the answer is, yes, just so long as we can achieve something;
    so long as we are able to get our objective. And I guess what I'm
    telling you is, it takes time to get things in place so that there will
    be results.
        And, actually, that's a great question for a guy your age. I never
    would have thought of it. [Laughter]
        Yes.

    Cooperation With Congress/President's Decisionmaking

        Q. [Inaudible]--thank you, Mr. President--[inaudible]--Lancaster.
        The President. Okay.
        Q. What do you see as your goal as leader of the country in
    depolarizing Congress and getting more win-wins out of Congress and less
    vetoes from you?
        The President. Yes. You know, probably the most disappointing thing
    about my experience in Washington is the harshness of the discourse, is
    the zero-sum attitude. And I've tried to do my part by holding people
    with respect and to--you know, talking about people in such a way that
    it doesn't degrade the process. I want this little guy to look at
    Washington and say, ``Wow, this is something I may aspire to.''
        First of all, I'm not so sure there's much that we can do at this
    point in time. The war has been divisive; I understand that. The
    politics is coming around the corner here in 2008, and people are going
    to be posturing a lot. Maybe it's--part of it's, I

    [[Page 1275]]

    guess, my stubbornness over taxes. I'm just not going to raise your
    taxes, I just want to make that clear. And so therefore, if the
    definition of ``common ground'' is, raise taxes, there are just some
    redlines for me--no, I'm not suggesting you suggested that.
        I'll still try to do my best to treat people with respect. It's the
    best thing a President can do, it seems like to me. And the other
    leaders ought to be doing the same thing. If you disagree with a person,
    don't make it personal. Don't feel like you have to tear the other
    person down in order to make a political point.
        And I got to go, I hate to tell you. You're paying me too much money
    to be sitting here talking. [Laughter]
        I want to conclude by, one, thanking you for coming. I hope you get
    a better sense of why I made the decisions I make and who I am as a
    person. You know, it's a--oh, I don't know what people think when
    they're looking on the TV screen. The only thing I can do is just to
    tell you what's in my heart and to let you know the principles by which
    I decide things, my great optimism about the future. I'm an optimistic
    guy. And the reason I'm optimistic is because I believe in the greatness
    of the country, and I believe the values of America are so real.
        I told somebody behind stage, this has been a joyous experience,
    being the President. My buddies in Texas just simply don't think I'm
    telling them the truth. [Laughter] But it is. It is a joyous experience
    to try to solve problems. It's a joyous experience to represent a
    country full of decent and honorable and caring people.
        And I thank you for giving me a chance to come. And I ask for God's
    blessings on you and our country. Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:37 a.m. at Jay Group, Inc. headquarters.
    In his remarks, he referred to Marion McGowan, chairman, Tom Baldrige,
    president, and Jim Smucker, chairman-elect, Lancaster County Chamber of
    Commerce and Industry; Jay Chryst, founder, and Dana Chryst, chief
    executive officer, Jay Group, Inc.; Krist Blank, Amish church leader;
    Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--
    Iraq; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization;
    President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority; Chairman Kim Jong
    Il of North Korea; and President Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran. The
    President also referred to H.R. 976, the ``Children's Health Insurance
    Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' An audience member referred to
    Mayor Louis J. Barletta of Hazleton, PA.