[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.