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



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

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

[[Page 1161]]

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

[[Page 1162]]

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

[[Page 1163]]

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

[[Page 1164]]

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

[[Page 1165]]

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

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

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

[[Page 1166]]

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

Security for President Bush's Visit

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

Australian Elections

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

[[Page 1167]]

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

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

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

Environment/Alternative Fuel Sources/Trade Relations

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

[[Page 1168]]

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

[[Page 1169]]

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