[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
[October 15, 2007]
[Pages 1310-1324]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
Remarks on the Federal Budget and a Question-and-Answer Session in
Rogers
October 15, 2007
The President. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Thank you all
very much. Thanks for coming. I may just take off my jacket, if that's
all right. [Laughter] I hope I didn't spill any sauce on my shirt after
I had barbecue at the Whole Hog. [Laughter] Thanks for coming. Thanks
for giving me a chance to share some thoughts with you about what's
going on in Washington, and then I'll be glad to answer some questions,
if you have any.
First, I do want to say thank you to John Paul
Hammerschmidt for a lot of things,
one, being a good friend of my dad's and--
but more importantly, setting such a fine example for what public
service should be about, which is honesty, integrity, and the
willingness to serve something greater than himself. John Paul, I'm
honored you're here; thanks for--[applause].
And you got followed by a pretty good fellow there in John
Boozman. I'm proud to call him friend. I hope
you're proud to call him Congressman, because he's doing a fine job. And
I--[applause].
I want to thank the mayor of Rogers, Steve Womack. Thanks for your service to your community; thanks for
being in the United States military. I appreciate you joining me for
lunch and enjoyed our conversation, Mr. Mayor. Thanks for what you're
doing.
I want to thank members of the statehouse who are here and local
government who's here. I want to thank Raymond Burns, the president and CEO of the chamber of commerce, for
hosting this event. I hope you find it to be informative. One of the
things the President has to do is travel around the country explaining
the situation and why things are happening, at least from my
perspective. I'm looking forward to explaining it.
I do appreciate very much the members of the chamber of commerce
who've enabled me to come by to visit with you. I want to thank the
chancellor of the mighty University of Arkansas, John White, for being here today. He hosted--the guy
keeps pointing to his Razorback--I understand. Look, I'm just a simple
Texas guy who--[laughter]--who knows full well that it was a lot of
times an unpleasant experience for the Longhorns to come up here and
play. [Laughter] But we're not going to talk about those old games, are
we? We're talking about the future.
I appreciate Bill Stribling. He's the
president of Stribling Packaging. I went by earlier today to his
business, and I had a chance to say hello to his employees. I did so
because I wanted to remind America that in order for this economy to
remain strong, we got to be mindful of the needs of small-business
owners. He's expanding his job base, and he's like thousands of other
entrepreneurs around the country who are wondering whether or not the
Government is going to put policy in place that could affect his
capacity to grow. And I want to spend a little time talking about that.
We've actually had an historic couple of days. We're now in our 49th
consecutive month of uninterrupted job growth. That's the longest--
[applause]. That's a record. That's the longest number of months in a
row where new jobs have been created. And that's because our small
businesses are doing well. And then the fundamental question is, are we
wise enough to keep policy in place to keep the small-business sector
strong?
The worst thing we could do is run up taxes as this economy is
growing. It's the worst thing we could to the small-business
[[Page 1311]]
owner, is to change the depreciation schedules or raise individual
rates, particularly if you're a subchapter S or a limited partnership.
And yet when you listen carefully to the budget debate, that's what
you're fixing to get stuck with: a tax raise. Unless, of course, I
prevent them from raising your taxes, which I fully intend to do.
The other historic fact was that our deficit as a percent of GDP is
at 1.2 percent. Those are just numbers, but to put it in perspective,
that's lower than the 40-year average. In other words, we're beginning
to get control of that deficit. And the reason why is, is that a growing
economy yields additional tax revenues, and then when you work with
Congress to set priorities on how we spend your money--in other words,
we're fiscally sound on the expense side--you can reduce your deficit
without raising taxes. And that's what we proved is possible. The
deficit is 163 billion. That's about 60-some-odd-billion lower than we
anticipated in February of this year, because we're growing the economy.
And we've also set priorities. One of the hardest things in
Washington, DC, to do that small businesses have to do all the time is
to set priorities. Every program sounds like a great program, but
without setting priorities, the temptation is to overspend. The job of
the President is to make sure that we don't overspend, and at the same
time, keep taxes low. That's why I submitted a budget that will balance
the Federal budget by 2012 without raising taxes.
Now, that's not what the leadership in the Congress wants me to do.
They want the executive branch to accept an increase in spending over
the next 5 years to $205 billion. To put that in perspective, that's
$1,300 in new spending every second of every minute of every hour of
every day of every year for the next 5 years. That's about $13,000, as
long as it took me to say that--[laughter]--$205 billion of additional
spending will mean they're going to have to raise taxes to pay for it. I
think that would be bad for the economy. I don't think it makes sense to
be taking money out of the pockets of the individuals in America or
money out of the pockets of small businesses, particularly if we set
priorities, we can fund that which we need to fund.
And so you're fixing to see what they call a fiscal showdown in
Washington. One of the reasons why they--[applause]--the Congress gets
to propose, and if it doesn't meet needs, as far I'm concerned, I get to
veto. And that's precisely what I intend to do.
I wish Congress would get me some appropriations bills. I don't know
if the people in Rogers understand our calendar, but the fiscal year
ended on September the 30th. And yet I hadn't seen one appropriations
bill. I think we're, like, 15 days into the fiscal year, and not one
appropriations bill has made it to my desk.
Congress needs to be responsible with your money, and they need to
pass these appropriations bills, one at a time. And then we can work
together to see whether or not they make fiscal sense for the United
States. I don't think it makes sense, though, for a new Congress to come
in and make promises about how they're going to be wise about what
they're going to do with your money and get bills to my desk and not
being able to perform.
So I'm looking forward to getting back to Washington and remind
people in the United States Congress that they said they were going to
do a better job with getting these bills to my desk, and I'm going to
remind them they hadn't got one yet. Not one bill has come out of United
States Congress that appropriates your taxpayers' money.
Recently, I did make a decision to veto a piece of legislation. I
want to spend a little time talking about why, and then I'll be glad to
answer some questions. There's a--what's called SCHIP--it's a Children's
Health Insurance Program--made it to my
[[Page 1312]]
desk, and I vetoed it. And I'm going to tell you why--[applause]--let me
tell you why.
First of all, it's important for our citizens to understand that we
spend $35 billion a year for poor children's health care through
Medicaid--$35 billion. So if you hear rhetoric out of Washington saying
we're not taking care of poor children in America, they're just not
reminding you of the fact that because of your generosity, we're
spending 35 billion a year.
Secondly, a program was created to help poorer children with
struggling families. When I was the Governor of Texas, I supported it,
and as President, I support it. But the piece of legislation I got
doesn't focus on the poorer children. Many Americans don't understand,
there are a half a million kids eligible for this program that aren't
getting help under the program.
The bill sent to me didn't say, we're going to focus on those half-
million that are eligible; the bill sent to me said, we can expand
eligibility for the program up to $83,000. Now, I want you to think
about that. If you're making up to 83,000 in certain States, you're
eligible for the program, and yet half a million poorer children aren't
being helped. My attitude is, let's help the poorer children, let's make
sure the program does what it's supposed to do.
Now, there's some in Washington, DC, who genuinely believe that the
best health care policy is to expand the role of the Federal Government.
I don't subscribe to that. I think the best health care policy is to
encourage private medicine, is to make sure the decisions are between
doctors and patients. And yet if you're saying you can make up to
$83,000 and be a part of this program, it sounds like to me, somebody
wants to extend the reach of the Federal Government into medicine.
That's what it sounds like to me.
Another factor that came into my thinking was not only a half a
million children not being taken care of under the program and not only
is the eligibility requirements being expanded way beyond the scope of
the program--which sounds like there's a nationalization of medicine
going on here--but in six or seven States, more money is spent on adults
than children. In other words, these States have taken that money and
hadn't used it for its initial purpose.
So I vetoed the bill. The House is going to decide whether or not
they're going to sustain my veto, and if they should sustain my veto, I
call upon the leadership in the Congress to come to the table and let us
make sure we get money to those families that are--that the program was
intended to help first and foremost.
And so that's what I wanted to report to you. I thank you for giving
me a chance to come and say hello. I'll be glad to answer some questions
if you have any. And if not, I can keep talking, believe me. [Laughter]
You got one? Good. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yell it. If I don't like it,
I'll just interpret it. [Laughter] Yes.
President's Values
Q. First of all, thank you for being here. And I've got two
children. I was talking with my 15-year-old son about what would be a
great question to ask the President had I--if I had the opportunity, and
we settled on this. In this day of information that's so accessible to
all of us, if you're a 15-year-old looking for the truth--which is often
hard to get--an adult looking for the truth in election time or
nonelection time, where would you recommend someone that's hungry for
the truth to go to get the truth about potential elected officials,
programs to support, that kind of information?
The President. Yes, it's a great question. I guess if I was advising
a 15-year-old child where to seek the truth, I would say, go to your
mother and father, is where I would ask them to seek the truth. And
that's really one of the questions our society faces: Will a mom and dad
be available for a child? Now, we all have different
[[Page 1313]]
views of the truth. That's fine, I understand that. But the most
important responsibility for a mom and dad is to really love that child
with all their heart and all their soul and all their might.
And so as far as you finding the truth, hopefully, you're wise
enough and old enough and experienced enough to be able to discern that
which is true and not true. I'm sure you are. You wouldn't have come
here to listen had you not been interested in coming up--getting enough
data points so you could come to your own conclusions.
That's the great thing about our society, is that we expect our
individual citizens to be involved, and you can reach your own
conclusion you want to reach. And it's up to people like me to explain
it as simply as possible so that, hopefully, you can understand. If I
were advising somebody running for my job, or any job, I'd explain the
philosophy behind my beliefs. See, I think what the American people
really need to know is, what do you believe in, in order for you to be
able to make the wise kind of judgment on who to listen to.
I'd be glad to share some of my beliefs. I believe in the
universality of freedom. So when you hear me talking about foreign
policy, I want you to keep in mind the principle that I believe is true,
and that I believe there's an Almighty, and I believe a gift of the
Almighty to each man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth,
regardless of their religion or the color of their skin, is liberty.
That's what I believe.
And a second belief I have is that you can spend your money better
than the government can. We have needs in Washington. I mean, we've got
to fund a military; we got to fund help for the poor. But I do believe
that the government has got to understand that the more money you have
in your pocket, the better off our economy can be, and that the more
money you have in your pocket, the more likely it is that you'll be able
to realize hopes and dreams for your family because you set the
priorities with your money. And there's just a fundamental difference of
opinion.
So to answer your question, I'd be asking people, what's your value
system like? And then, hopefully, you're wise enough to discern.
Okay. Yes, sir.
Transportation
Q. I have a transportation question for you--Raymond Burns with the
Rogers-Lowell Chamber. For business to continue to grow in northwest
Arkansas, we're going to have to have some help with our transportation
infrastructure. Apparently, that's our number-one issue. Given that we
collect taxes on gasoline by the gallon and fuel efficiency means there
will be less taxes collected, going forward, what will the priority for
transportation help be, sir?
The President. The--step one, in order to make sure that that which
we collect gets spent equitably, is to make sure that the committees in
the House and Senate that appropriate the monies don't take a lot of the
money as special projects. In other words, what happens is, is that the
Public Works Committee is the largest committee in the House. Are you on
the Public Works, Boozman? Yes. [Laughter] It
sounds like I better be diplomatic in the answer. [Laughter] So what
happens is, these members say, ``Okay, I want this for my district; I
want this for my district; I want this for my district,'' so they get a
unanimous vote out of the committee--was it unanimous last time? Yes,
that's what I thought. [Laughter] And then--so the money isn't equitably
distributed. So step one is to make sure that the committees do their
jobs the right way.
Step two is to give States flexibility so that if they so choose--
which I think exists today--that if you decide to have a highway for
truckers paid for by fees, that you're encouraged to do so.
I mean, you're right; fuel efficiency is going to make it harder to
collect gasoline taxes. Therefore, the next question is,
[[Page 1314]]
what's the next best user fee? In other words, gasoline tax is a user
fee. Is there a better way to collect money, a better user-fee system?
And one thing, I think, is that if you've got a freeway, you ought to be
able to parallel that freeway with a way to collect user fees, a toll
way. And so people have a choice. You know, a trucker, if he's
interested in moving through northwest Arkansas in expedition fashion,
will pay a little extra money to be able to do so.
My attitude is, so long as the taxpayer has got a free alternative,
I don't see why it makes--why it's a problem to have the paying option
available as a way to collect user fees to modernize the highway system.
And so that's an idea for you right there.
Yes, sir.
No Child Left Behind Act
Q. Mr. President, first of all, I'd like to commend you on your
steadfastness in your faith and not letting anybody waver you on your
faith with key political issues and key principles.
The President. Thank you.
Q. I think that's very, very commendable. Second of all, as a
private preschool administrator, with your No Child Left Behind
initiative, is there any possibility of funds for grants or stipends or
something to utilize for private institutions as well as private
preschools?
The President. Probably not. Anyway--[laughter]. Let me explain No
Child Left Behind. We're spending money at the Federal level in public
schools. And it seems like it makes sense that we ask the question
whether or not the money is being spent wisely. In other words, if
you're spending money trying to help a child get the fundamentals
necessary to advance in life, I strongly believe that it makes sense, on
your behalf, that we say, ``Why don't you show us whether a child can
read and write and add and subtract.''
I think it's important to set goals with high expectations. I don't
think it's too much to ask the school systems of America to teach a
child to read by third grade and keep him at grade level. I don't think
it's too much to ask, unless you don't believe every child can read--has
the capacity to learn to read, I mean. In other words, if you believe
certain children can't learn, then I can understand why you support a
system that just shuffles them through. But that's unacceptable to me,
to have a system that said--doesn't demand accountability.
And so the No Child Left Behind Act says, you bet there will be
Federal expenditures--not nearly as much as the State; after all, it's a
local responsibility. But in return for whatever money we spend, we want
to know whether or not a child can read at grade level by the third
grade, and if not, we expect there to be remedial help.
And that's where the private sector can come in, in terms of
supplemental services. That means we're going to use the accountability
system. In other words, we're going to measure. You bet we are. We're
going to find out whether a child can read, write, and add and subtract.
And if they're coming up short on standards, then there's money
available for extra help early, before it's too late. And that's the
place where private providers can compete with the public school system,
in order to help after-school--in after-school programs, tutorial
programs.
There's a lot of objections to No Child Left Behind; I understand
that. People say, ``How dare you measure.'' My attitude is, you got to
measure. To solve a problem, you got to understand whether or not we
have a problem in the first place. People say, ``Well, they're just
teaching the test.'' Uh-uh, we're teaching a child to read so they can
pass a reading test.
I happen to believe this piece of legislation is an important piece
of civil rights legislation. If you're interested in making sure our
society provides hope for everybody, then you want to make sure every
single child in America has the capacity
[[Page 1315]]
to read, write, and add and subtract at grade level. That's what you
want if you're interested in having an America that holds out its
promise for every single citizen.
And that's the basis of No Child Left Behind. I believe in local
control of schools. That's up to you to chart the path to excellence,
but it's up to us to make sure your money is spent wisely.
You know, we have an achievement gap in America, and that means
our--white kids are reading at a certain level here at--in the fourth
grade, and African Americans or Latino kids are reading down here.
That's not good enough for our country. And that achievement gap is
beginning to grow. It's amazing what happens when you raise standards
and hold people to account.
And so my--any effort to weaken No Child Left Behind Act will get a
Presidential veto. I believe this piece of legislation is important, and
I believe it's hopeful, and I believe it's necessary to make sure we got
a educated group of students who can compete in the global economy when
they get older.
Yes, sir.
Alternative Fuel Sources/Border Security/Immigration Reform
Q. Mr. President, I'm a third-generation dairy farmer. We milk 300
cows out west of town. And we're very concerned with immigration and the
ag jobs and also the economic impact that the ethanol--the Government
subsidy on ethanol production has had on feed costs. And agriculture is
still number one in Arkansas, even with all this fantastic economic
growth that we've got in this area.
The President. Right, thank you, sir.
Q. Could you please comment, sir?
The President. I will. First of all, I'm guilty on promoting
ethanol. And the reason why is, is because I think it's in our interests
to diversify away from oil. And the reason why it's--I know that's hard
for a Texan to say. But the reason why we've got to diversify away from
oil is that we end up with dependency on oil from certain parts of the
world where people don't particularly like us. And secondly, given the
globalization of the world today and disruption of oil, you know, in one
part of the world is going to cause the price of your gasoline to go up.
And so I promoted ethanol and still believe it's important for the
future.
I'm also promoting research that will enable us to make ethanol out
of something other than corn because I fully understand the constraints
on corn. I mean, I hear it everywhere I go, that the people like
yourself who rely upon reasonable feed prices know full well that demand
for corn as a result of the demand for ethanol going up is costing
your--making it harder for you to make a living. And one of these days
we're going to be able to make ethanol out of wood chips or switchgrass.
It's called cellulosic ethanol. And we're spending a lot of money to
develop the technologies that will enable us to use something other than
corn.
The first part of the question was immigrant--immigration. As you
know, I'm a person who believes strongly in comprehensive immigration
reform. I agree with our citizens who say that we've got to do a better
job of enforcing the laws of the country. And the laws of the country
is, you know, you can't employ somebody who is here illegally--knowingly
employ somebody who is here illegally--and that you've got a border for
a reason, a Border Patrol for a reason, to enforce the border. And I'm
for that, and I supported congressional efforts to modernize our border,
and we are. It's a long, hard border to enforce, but we've doubled the
Border Patrol; we're using technologies to find people sneaking in here.
But I also recognize this: that in order to truly, effectively work
the border in a way that most Americans want, you've got to have a
program that will enable somebody to come here and legally work on
[[Page 1316]]
a temporary basis, because if you're somebody who's got a starving
family at home and you're interested in putting food on the table,
you'll go to great lengths to come to America to do jobs Americans
aren't doing. And so therefore, in order for us to have good border
policy, it makes sense to have a worker policy: a temporary-worker plan
with verifiable, tamper-proof cards to allow somebody to come here to do
a job Americans aren't willing to do.
You got a lot of people up here that are working jobs Americans
aren't willing to do. There are not a lot of Americans who want to pluck
chickens. I don't know what they're doing on your place, but I'm sure
it's hard work, and it's hard to find workers. But if you find somebody
who's got a hungry family, it's amazing how hard they'll work. And so it
seems like to me that in order to have good border policy, we got to
have a tamper-proof card available for temporary workers to come.
And then the big issue is, what are we going to do with the 11
million people already here? Well, you can't kick them out. Some people
say, you can kick them out. I don't think you can kick them out. I don't
think it's realistic policy. On the other hand, I think it's a mistake
to have instant citizenship. The reason I don't believe you should have
instant citizenship is because it will cause the next 11 million to want
to come. And we're trying to make sure they have an orderly immigration
policy.
And so I supported the plan in the Senate that gave people an
opportunity over time to prove their worth as a citizen, to show that
they pay taxes and were--they had the ability to be a constructive
citizen. Give them a chance to get at the back at the line. That's what
I thought we ought to do. But it didn't pass, and it was a mistake that
the Congress didn't pass comprehensive immigration reform. That's why
it's still an issue. That's why the President comes to speak in Rogers,
and he stands up and says, ``What are you going to do about the
problem?'' Congress, by passing on the problem, obviously means this is
going to be around for a while.
This debate needs to be constructed in a way that upholds the proud
traditions of America. We are a land of immigrants. Whether or not some
of us want to admit it, this is a country that was founded by
immigrants. And many in this hall's parents or grandparents were
immigrants to the United States. And when people come to our country to
work hard and realize dreams, it renews our soul, it makes us a better
place. And so however this debate is played out here in Rogers or
anywhere else, it needs to be conducted by treating people with dignity
and people with honor.
Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Proud member of the VFW.
Presidential Election
Q. Yes, sir. I was sitting--I had the honor of sitting up front when
you addressed the national convention of VFW in Kansas City.
The President. Yes, sir.
Q. After all----
The President. Were you the guy that was sound asleep? [Laughter]
Q. No, sir. I'm not the guy.
The President. Okay, good. [Laughter]
Q. After all of the Presidential hopefuls had paraded through for 3
days before you got there and you gave your wonderful speech, the straw
poll throughout the entire room, sir, was that we wish you could run for
another 4 years.
The President. Thank you. Yes. Well, I can't, and it's time for new
blood. After 18--15 more months, I'm going to sprint to the finish; you
don't have to worry about that.
Q. Okay, sir.
The President. I'm going to give it my all. And there's nothing
better for a democracy than to renew itself by elections and new
leadership. So anyway, thanks for saying it. Plus, I'd be single.
[Laughter]
[[Page 1317]]
President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors
Q. Mr. President, we all thank you for your Wounded Warriors
Commission----
The President. Yes.
Q. ----on a national basis. The final report in July--31 July to you
from that wonderful Commission headed by Senator Bob Dole was absolutely
the future bible for Veterans Affairs and veterans' handling throughout
the United States. Sir, thank you again for being a veterans advocate
number one.
The President. Thank you, sir. Yes, thanks. You're kind to say that.
Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala are going to be at the White House tomorrow. And as
the person who have asked these brave young men and women to go into
combat, I feel a special obligation to make sure that our veterans,
particularly those who've served under my watch, get the absolute best
care. I'm--I marvel--isn't it interesting, by the way, it's the first
military question--just an observation point--[laughter]--I marvel at
our military, and I marvel at the kids who are in the military. Not only
kids, but--at 62, you can call them ``kids''--61, you can call them
``kids.''
We've got a military of highly trained, highly skilled people who
understand the stakes of the struggle between ideologues who murder to
achieve their objectives and those of us who want there to be long-term
peace. The reenlistment rates are remarkable. The number of people
willing to say, ``I want to go back in to serve my country and to the
theater in this global struggle,'' it's just amazing.
And therefore, we as a government have a solemn duty to, one,
support their families, and two, when they come out as veterans, is to
give them what they need--get them what they need, to make sure if
they're wounded they can get back on their feet. Give them what they
need, if they've got posttraumatic stress syndrome, the help, the mental
help.
These are remarkable citizens, and my commitment is very strong to
our veterans. And I thank you for bringing it up. And I asked Bob
Dole and Donna Shalala to make sure that if there was any bureaucratic obstacles
between somebody going from DOD to the Veterans Affairs, that we
identified them and came up--come up with solutions to make sure our
kids, our troops have what they need. And that's what we're going to do.
So thanks for bringing it up, and thanks for serving. Appreciate the
example you set.
Veterans Administration
Q. ----Rogers. I'm a Vietnam veteran, and here comes your second
question----
The President. Did they name this city after you? [Laughter]
Q. Did they, Mayor? [Laughter]
The President. I don't think so.
Q. Here's your second question about the military.
The President. Okay.
Q. As a wounded Vietnam veteran, come back, I go over to the VA
hospital, and I've seen it in Fayetteville, the remarkable money that's
been placed on the veterans of building that hospital up to take care of
us. And I love it. But I had a time period there where after the war was
over with, the conflict was over with--of which we're going to come
through too--it seemed like we were forgotten. Is the administration or
the Government not going to forget these people that's over in Iraq that
has stood over there for many times----
The President. Yes.
Q. ----and went back--if you could answer that.
But I also want to say, thank you very much for being my President
for the last 7 years.
The President. Thank you, sir. Yes. There's a fundamental
attitudinal difference, it seems like to me, now than when you served.
One of the main reasons why is because we have a volunteer army.
[[Page 1318]]
And the fundamental question facing policymakers is, how do you make
sure that that Volunteer Army is robust and well-trained? And the answer
is, pay people well, but also remember that the spouse makes a big
decision as to whether or not people are willing to serve or at least
stay in that Volunteer Army or serve in the first place.
And that's why we've improved housing. And that's why we've made
sure that a spouse can communicate with his or her loved one on a real-
time basis if they're in Iraq or Afghanistan. In other words, there's a
lot of effort that goes into making sure that this Government takes care
of the family members.
And part of making sure that we remain a volunteer army is to make
sure that the Veterans Administration is well-organized and treats
people with respect and the programs address the veterans' needs. And
that's exactly what we're going to do.
And that's precisely what this man was talking about. He said, we
put together a Commission to make sure that we addressed any shortfalls
in the Veterans Administration. It's the six--they've got six points in
there that make a lot of sense. For example, you don't want your people
having to argue against your own Government about whether or not they
receive a certain level of disability. You might have had to do that.
Well, we're going to try to make sure the process is not adversarial for
our veterans. After all, they serve; they volunteered to serve.
And so you're giving me a chance to say what I really tried to say
for this fellow over here, and that is, you bet we'll support our
veterans. One, we owe it to them. But two, in order to make sure this
Volunteer Army is robust and can continue to be active in this global
war against these ideologues and strong enough to be able to do it, we
got to say to somebody who's going in, when you come out, you're going
to get the respect and the support you need.
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Federal Aviation Legislation
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to say, thank you
very much for taking your time to come to northwest Arkansas. The people
in this room really appreciate it. It means a lot to us, and we're very
honored and privileged by your presence. I want to tell you that, first
of all.
The President. Thank you. Glad to be here.
Q. Second of all, I wanted to talk to you about House bill 1125, on
the House side--the Senate bill is Senate bill 65. I have a brother; his
name is Robert Barnett. He lives in Siloam Springs, Arkansas. He's
fixing to lose his job----
The President. I don't want to interrupt you, but I have no earthly
idea what those numbers mean. [Laughter]
Q. Okay. It has to do with the pilots losing their jobs at turning
age 60, the----
The President. The what?
Q. The commercial airline pilots--they're losing their jobs--that
are turning age 60. And those bills reflect the policy. And I know
Marion--Mary Peters and Marion Blakey have endorsed the age change, but
we're losing over 200 pilots a month in this country. And they can go to
foreign airline carriers and fly in the United States. We let people of
65--these pilots have lost their pensions. They're--most of them are
military trained----
The President. Yes.
Q. ----we've spent over $2 million each. They're in good physical
shape, and they want to keep their jobs. They've got kids in college;
they need the incomes. Just wanted to get your response on that, sir.
The President. Well, I'm glad you told me Mary Peters is for it. If she's for it, I'm probably going to be for
it too, since I named her as head of the Transportation Department. I'll
be frank with you--this
[[Page 1319]]
may come as an admission that you probably never heard a President
hear--it hadn't made it to my desk yet. I'm really not sure about the
issue, but I'll look into it. I have all the respect for Mary Peters,
and if she said she supports raising the age--is that what you told me
she said--I bet it's going to happen. At least I bet you she'll have my
support.
One of the things in a complex environment like the Presidency is,
you got to surround your people--surround the President, or surround
myself, with people whose judgment you trust. And I listen to my Cabinet
Secretaries, and I bring them into the Oval Office. They've got access
to me. They've got to be able to come in and say, ``Here's what I
believe.'' The temptation of politics is for somebody to walk in when
you're not looking so good, and walk in the Oval Office and say, ``Man,
you're looking beautiful,'' when you're not. You got to have Cabinet
Secretaries who can walk in and say, ``Here's what's on my mind.'' And I
bet you if I ask Mary and she gives me the
reason why she's for it, I bet you I support it.
And so thanks for bringing that up.
Yes, ma'am. Let's get a little diversity here. Yes, get up there.
U.S. National Guard and Reserve Deployments/War on Terror
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. Yes.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. No.
Q. [Inaudible]
The President. I don't think the National Guard is close to being
the Regular Army. A matter of fact, they have been a integral part of
working alongside the Army.
There will be no chance for a draft under my watch. I'm against a
draft. I don't think we need a draft. I'm a strong supporter of the
Volunteer Army. I am for making sure that our Guard ends up with
rotations that are known. In other words, we got to make sure that when
we make a promise to somebody in the Guard, that if you're in for a
year, you're out for a certain set period of time. I am for that.
The Regular Army is carrying the bulk of this fight, and the Guard
is being a very important part of helping. A couple of things about the
Guard. One is that if you're an employer here giving a Guard member or a
Reserve member a chance to go to help this country secure itself, I
thank you. You're making a vital contribution to the security of the
United States of America. And I do appreciate our Guard a lot. I
appreciate what they've done. I appreciate the sacrifices they and their
families have made.
And those sacrifices are necessary because we face an enemy that
would like to harm us again. And we've got a two-prong strategy to
protect you. You got to just understand that after September the 11th, I
made up my mind I would do everything in my power to protect the
American people. Secondly--[applause]. And on the one hand, that means
finding these people before they come and hurt us. In other words,
defeat them overseas so they can't come here to hurt us. That means--and
so I just want to explain some of the policies. That means we've got to
have good intelligence sharing to find out where they are hiding and
have the flexibility and the desire to go rout them out of their hiding
places, to bring them to justice before they come and hurt us again.
Believe me, they want to. It's one of the lessons of September the
11th, is that while we grew up thinking everything was fine, that we
could be protected by oceans, the enemy came and killed 3,000 of our
people and others from other nations on our soil. So I think a lot about
how to protect you. And that's why I think it's very important that we
have techniques that protect your civil liberties, but at the same time,
listen to known Al Qaida folks and try to get to figure out what they're
doing.
People have got to understand that the programs we'll put in place
will protect
[[Page 1320]]
your right as an American citizen, but if you're talking to Al Qaida, we
want to know why, in order to protect the American people. It makes
sense for us, when we capture one of these folks on the battlefield, one
of these extremists, a person who murders to advance an ideology that is
so foreign to America that sometimes we just dismiss it as implausible,
that we ought to have techniques available to find out what they know
without torture. See, what I'm talking about is a lot of what you're
reading in the newspapers. But what we're doing is all aimed to protect
you, to get information, actionable intelligence so we can move.
This is a war that we're not used to in America. We're not fighting
a nation-state. We're fighting a movement of people who have a set of
beliefs and are willing to murder the innocent to achieve their
objectives and can do so with weapons that hardly cost anything. They
know full well that when they destroy innocent life, it gets on our TV
screens. And we are a nation that believes in life. We're compassionate
people, and it horrifies our fellow citizens to see the violence. And
they're trying to shake--not only shake our will, but shake the will of
the people in Afghanistan or the people of Iraq. And yet the only way to
defeat them is to find them and bring them to justice. That's the short-
term strategy.
The long-term strategy is to defeat their ideology with a more
hopeful ideology, and that's an ideology based upon liberty. I told
you--I was setting it up, setting his answer up when I said, I believe
in the universality of freedom. I wasn't surprised when 12 million
Iraqis went to the polls. If given a chance to be free after a brutal
tyranny, people will say, ``I want to be free.'' The question is, how
fast can they get their Government working? And that's what we're trying
to help them do.
I will remind you, the Articles of Confederation in our own history
is indicative of how hard democracy can be. But success in Iraq and
success in Afghanistan are vital for the struggle against extremists
because ultimately, it's going to be liberty that provides us the peace
we want.
I was telling some folks at lunch today about the relationship I had
had with Prime Minister of Japan Koizumi.
He's a--you might remember, he's the fellow that asked Laura and me to take him to Elvis's place in Memphis.
[Laughter] It's a pretty interesting request. [Laughter] And we went. I
sit at the table with the man, and we were talking about how liberty can
transform enemies to allies. My dad fought
the Japanese. Sixty years later, his son is talking peace with the Prime
Minister of the former enemy. Something happened. Freedom has got the
capacity to bring the peace we want.
And the same thing is going to happen in the Middle East unless we
lose our will and our vision. People want to live in a free society. And
one of the lessons of history is, liberty is transformative. In other
words, liberty can help an enemy become an ally. Liberty can take a
region of hopelessness and convert it to a region of hope. And the enemy
preys upon hopelessness. And so it--whether it be the brutality of
tyranny or the scourge of disease and hunger, it's in the interest of
the United States to help the world deal with that for our own peace,
for our own security.
It's one thing if the enemy couldn't hit us here at home; we could
just let them--let the world run its course; just let everything happen
that's meant--that it may be meant to happen, you know, just let it go.
But what matters--what happens overseas matters here in the homeland.
That's one of the lessons of September the 11th.
I also happen to believe it's in our moral interest to help people
dying of HIV/AIDS live. I believe it's in our moral interest to do that
as well as our security interest. I believe it's in the interest of our
soul. To whom much is given, much is required. We've been given a lot,
and when we find hungry children, it's in our interests--it's
[[Page 1321]]
in our security interest, but it's also in the interest of the very,
kind of, moral fabric of America.
One of the things Laura is working on is to
help people deal with malaria. We could solve the malaria issue. The
solution is right at hand. It just takes will and determination. There's
no reason for little babies to be dying of mosquito bites around the
world. There's just no reason. So the United States has taken the lead--
and Laura has taken the lead in our house--to get us to focus on solving
problems. It's in the Nation's interest to do that.
A couple of more, then I got to go. Yes, sir.
Situation in Burma
Q. Mr. President, you mentioned freedom. What do you think are the
right next steps for democracy and freedom in Burma?
The President. Yes, great question. Enormous international pressure
to make it clear to the generals that they will be completely isolated
and not accepted into the international community of nations. It's--Aung
San Suu Kyi is a great woman who gets a huge
vote and yet is now under house arrest. And so she serves as a classic
example of why the world needs to work together to help save societies.
Her example is one of bravery being confined by unelected military
junta.
And by the way, those examples exist. I met with a woman in the Oval Office the other day whose
husband was a doctor, plastic
surgeon, in Cuba. And he wrote some--I guess wrote some stuff on
freedom, and he's now in a prison. He now weighs 106 pounds. She, by the
way, brought her four children to the United
States of America to be able to raise them in freedom. And she's
wondering whether or not we have that same passion toward Cuba that we
have with Burma. And the answer, I told her, absolutely. As a matter of
fact, America must have passion for political prisoners wherever they
exist, for the human condition is important to the future of this
country.
And so, sir, to answer your question, whether it be the people in
Burma who are being brutalized by the military junta or the people in
Cuba or the people in other tyrannical societies, it's in our interest
to rally the world and to pressure and to keep the focus and use our
respective bully pulpits--those of us in free societies--use our
respective bully pulpits to remind people of the condition, the human
condition in these societies that are being deeply affected by
tyrannical regimes.
And so I talk about Burma all the time to leaders. I spend a lot of
time rallying the world--at least rallying my fellow leaders on issues
such as Burma and Cuba and Sudan and Iran. And so thanks for bringing up
the question. I just hope we get good results. Sometimes international
bodies are nonconsequential. In other words, they're good talking, but
there's not a consequence. At some point, there has to be consequences.
So, along the lines in Burma, we have sanctioned individuals within
Burma and are considering additional sanctions. But sanctions don't mean
anything if we're the only sanctioner. They just find safe haven
somewhere else, in trade, for example.
And so it's a tough question, a tough issue, and the United States
must always confront these tyrannical situations. It's in our interest
that we do so.
Yes, sir.
Environment/Alternative Fuel Sources/Energy
Q. [Inaudible]--welcome to northwest Arkansas. We have a little
local mom-and-pop retailer by the name of Wal-Mart that's leading the
charge----
The President. Now you're bragging. [Laughter]
Q. ----leading the charge on sustainability in the environment. And
local governments all across the country are trying to do the same
thing. What can the Federal
[[Page 1322]]
Government do to step up and bring the United States back into a role of
leadership in sustainability and in environmental protection?
The President. Yes. The fundamental question is whether or not we
will be able to grow our economy and be good stewards of the environment
at the same time. I'm interested in good policy. Kyoto, I thought, was
bad policy because Kyoto would have basically said--[applause]--
basically would have said that we would have had to ground our economy
down in order to achieve--maybe achieve some positive changes in
greenhouse gases.
And so I came with a different approach, sir, and that is, I asked a
question: How best to develop new technologies that will enable us to
meet our responsibilities as stewards of the environment--of being
responsible stewards of the environment? That's why--here, the way I'll
do this is, there's three basic aspects to the environment: One is how
we generate electricity; two is how we drive our cars; and three is how
we build our buildings. We've got good conservation policies available
for building construction.
Two, I've just explained to the man who's trying to raise dairy
cows, and he's now not so happy with the cost of corn, that we've taken
a very aggressive approach on how--on providing alternatives to
gasoline. So in other words, dependency on oil is a national security
issue, it's an economic security issue, but it's also an environmental
issue. The less oil we use, the better stewards of the environment we
will be. So that's why I'm a big promoter of ethanol, and I've set a
mandatory goal for the country of reducing our gasoline usage by 20
percent over the next 10 years.
Finally, electricity, and that's the interesting issue because, one,
we got a lot of coal. And it seems like to me that we want to make sure
that if we're going to have economic--you can't, by the way, be good
stewards of the environment if you're broke. You just can't. This is an
expensive proposition, to make sure that we've got enough cashflow in
our society to develop new technologies. So we've got a lot of coal, and
it's a plentiful supply. That's why we're spending about $2 billion of
your money for clean coal technologies. In other words, we want to be
able to power our economy and be good stewards of the environment, so
why don't we work for zero-emission coal-fired plants, which is
precisely what we're doing.
Secondly, we've got a strong nuclear power initiative going. If
you're truly--if you're truly an environmentalist, you'll support
nuclear power because it will enable you to generate the electricity
necessary to generate the wealth necessary to invest in technologies
and, at the same time, have zero greenhouse gases. And so we've got a
comprehensive approach.
I will tell you this: Unless all economies, major economies are at
the table, it's a--this is a venture that will not work. So that's why I
called together the leaders of the major economies, including China, and
said, okay, why don't we sit down at the table and come up with a goal,
a reduction of greenhouse gases over a period of time? See, if you can
get somebody to agree on a goal, you can begin to get them to agree on a
solution. But if certain nations aren't at the table, they're not going
to participate.
Secondly, I think each nation is going to have to develop its own
strategy. We're different from other countries in the world. We have
shown, however, that you can grow your economy and reduce greenhouse
gases. You ask what the Federal Government is doing. Whatever we're
doing is working because last year, we grew our economy, and the gross
amount of greenhouse gases we put in the environment actually went down.
And so it's a--you know, this is an important issue.
My principle is, I want to make sure that whatever we do doesn't
hamper our capacity to grow. I want our people working. I want people
realizing their dreams.
[[Page 1323]]
I want people to be able to put food on the table. And I believe you can
have economic growth and good economic--environmental stewardship
through technologies. And that's exactly what we're doing right now. And
thanks for bring up the question.
Yes, ma'am.
Health Care
Q. My question is, Mr. President, do you invest money in health care
buses to go around the world and give health insurance to people without
it?
The President. Here's what I'm going to try to do. First of all, if
you're poor, the Government is going to help you. If you're old, the
Government has an obligation--elderly, excuse me--the Government--
[laughter]--I'm old; you're elderly--[laughter]--I should have listened
to my mother, shouldn't I have, yes--is to make sure a Medicare system
fulfills its promise. But I firmly believe that private medicine is the
best health care. And the reason I do is because health care needs
innovation and it needs professionalism. And our system is--of private
medicine does encourage innovation and does encourage professionalism.
I know--I'm sure you've--everybody has got a complaint about health
care in America, but it's a great health care system. Is there a need
for improvement? You bet, but the quality of health care in America is
fabulous compared to the rest of the world. It really is.
Secondly, I believe government ought to incent people to go--to be
able to have available--ought to incent--ought to change the system to
make sure an individual can get into the marketplace and be able to
better afford private insurance. Rather than help people through public
policy, government programs, is to encourage people through private
insurance.
One of my problems with SCHIP, by the way, is that expanding
eligibility meant one-third of all families that would sign up on to it
would go from private care into the public. That's the exact opposite
direction we ought to be moving people, it seems like to me. We ought to
be encouraging private medicine and private care.
So I--look, this is a long answer for you, sorry. It's a complex
subject, though. We ought to change the Tax Code. Right now if you're
working for corporate Wal-Mart, you're--you benefit, rather than
somebody who's trying to buy insurance in the private market. That
health care--the taxes in health care says, if you're working for a big
company, you do fine; if you're working for a small company or you're
unemployed or you're individual sole proprietorship, you're paying
health care with after-tax dollars. So the Tax Code needs to be changed.
One option is to say, you deduct the first $15,000 for a family of
two--I mean, for a married couple--deduct $15,000 off your expense,
$15,000 of your income--on your income. Or another option some are
considering in Congress is a tax credit. Either way, it's all intended
to get people into the private markets. In other words, the incentive
has got to be not to be part of government. The incentive has got to be
to have the private sector work.
One of the problems we face is, many people pay your bills for you.
This is a third-party payer system. And therefore, you don't really have
much to say--if somebody is going to pay it, you don't ask what's the
price or what's the quality. There's very little consumerism in health
care. And yet consumerism can help with price and quality. And so the
question is, can government help consumerism become a part of health
care? And one way we do--we buy a lot of health care, and so we then
insist upon transparency. We say, if you're going to take government
money as a hospital, we expect you to put your prices up there for
everybody to see, and then encourage programs like HSAs to put the
consumer in charge of the purchasing.
It's a long answer to a simple question; I apologize. But it's a
complex subject. And
[[Page 1324]]
the truth of the matter is, the debate is whether or not the Federal
Government is going to run your health care, or whether or not we're
wise enough to not let that happen. And for the next 16 months, I can
assure you we're wise enough to not let that happen, and that's--
[applause].
Last question.
Presidential Election/President's Decisionmaking
Q. Mr. President, when do you think there will be a girl President
for the Republican Party?
The President. Well--[laughter]--I think--I do think--yes, you took
my line. [Laughter] I think a lady will be President, yes, and she'll be
a Republican. [Laughter] Look, I--yes, I do. I believe--I absolutely
believe it. Look, I--one of the things I benefited from is the advice of
strong women, not only in my own house--[laughter]--but at the Cabinet
table. And I've seen women who are plenty capable of being President of
the United States and capable of making the hard decisions and capable
of making sure they stick to principle.
See, one of the hardest things about making good, solid decisions
is--one of the worst things you can do is to try to chase a poll or a
focus group. In order to make decisions that will yield the peace, you
got to make them based upon certain fundamental principles and certain
values.
And I hope you got a sense of the values and principles by which I'm
making decisions today. I'm honored you let me come by. I'm heading to
Memphis, believe it or not, and I thank you for the chance to share my
thoughts with you. God bless you, and God bless the United States of
America.
Note: The President spoke at 12:55 p.m. at the John Q. Hammons
Convention Center. In his remarks, he referred to former Rep. John P.
Hammerschmidt of Arkansas; former Sen. Robert J. Dole and former
Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna E. Shalala, Cochairs,
President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors;
former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; Aung San Suu Kyi,
leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma; and Yamile Llanes
Labrada, wife of Cuban political prisoner Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, who
was arrested in Cuba on March 18, 2003. A participant referred to former
Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Marion C. Blakey; and H.R.
1125 and S. 65.