    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2008, Book I)]
    [February 25, 2008]
    [Pages 261-264]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks During a Meeting With the National Governors Association
    Conference
    February 25, 2008

        The President. Thank you very much. I'm supposed to stall to wait
    for the press corps. [Laughter] Chairman, thanks. Let me see your book there, will you? That thing
    right there, yes. Mr. Vice Chairman, thank
    you, sir. Hope you enjoyed last night.
        Governor Edward G. Rendell of
    Pennsylvania. Yes, it was great.
        The President. It was great, yes. It was fun. I am proud to announce
    to you that Janet Creighton is running the
    Intergovernmental Affairs Office for us. She looks forward to working
    with you. I look forward to hearing from you. There's a lot we can do
    to--for the next 10 months to work together. I like to tell people, you
    know, I'm going to finish strong, and I want to work with you as I do
    so.
        A couple of areas I want to talk about, then I'll answer a couple of
    questions. And then evidently, we're going to have a 100th anniversary
    picture.
        We share a responsibility to protect our country. I get briefed
    every morning about threats we face, and they're real. Now--and
    therefore, the question is, what do you do about them? In my judgment,
    we have got to give the professionals who work hard to protect us all
    the tools they need. To put it bluntly: If the enemy is calling to
    America, we really need to know what they're saying, and we need to know
    what they're thinking, and we need to know what--who they're talking to.
        It's--this is a different kind of struggle than we've ever faced
    before. It's essential that we understand the mentality of these
    killers. And so therefore, we worked with Congress to protect--pass the
    Protect America Act, which everybody knows has expired. And I want to
    share with you the core of the problem. And the problem is, should
    companies who are believed to have helped us, after 9/11 till today, get
    information necessary to protect the country be sued? And my answer is,
    absolutely not. They shouldn't be sued for a couple of reasons.
        One, it's not fair. Our Government told them that their
    participation was necessary--and it was and still is--and that what we
    had asked them to do was legal. And now they're getting sued for
    billions of dollars, and it's not fair. And it will create doubt amongst
    private sector folks who we need to help protect us.
        Secondly, such lawsuits would require disclosure of information,
    which will make

    [[Page 262]]

    it harder to protect the country. You can imagine, when people start
    defending themselves, they're going to be asked all kinds of questions
    about tactics used. It makes absolutely no sense to give the enemy more
    knowledge about what the United States is doing to protect the American
    people.
        Finally, it'll make it harder to convince companies to participate
    in the future. I mean, if you've done something that you think is
    perfectly legal and all of a sudden you're facing billions of dollars of
    lawsuits, it's going to be hard to provide--with credibility--assurances
    that we can go forward.
        The Senate passed a good bill. You know, there's all kinds of talk
    about how this is a partisan issue. This is not a partisan issue. There
    is a very strong bipartisan bill that passed the Senate, and it's a bill
    that we can live with. And it's a bill that should be put on the House
    floor for a vote, up or down.
        What I do want to share with you is that there's a lot of good
    folks, and you know it too. And I want to thank you all very much for
    these counterterrorism cells. I look at the Governor of New
    York; they got an unbelievably good cell--
    fusion center in New York City. And around our country, particularly in
    key areas, the cooperation between the Federal Government and the State
    government and the local government is superb. And I appreciate you all
    for providing really good leadership on this issue. It's an important,
    vital issue for the country.
        Secondly, today--and I see that you've been given this book. This is
    a book which describes the faith-based and community organization
    initiative. And it breaks out by State the unbelievably good work that's
    taking place in your States.
        Now, as you know, I'm a big believer that government ought to
    empower people who have got a great capacity to help change people's
    lives. Sometimes I like to say, government is not a very loving
    organization; it's an organization of law and justice. But there are
    thousands of loving people who are willing, if given help, to interface
    with brothers and sisters across the country that need help. And so this
    report is one that describes the Federal-State collaborative that's
    taken place.
        There's 35 faith-based offices set up around--in different States.
    And for those of you who've got them, I thank you. We want to help you--
    want to coordinate. If you don't have one, I strongly urge you to take a
    look at what other Governors have done.
        Billions of dollars have now gone into help these different
    community or faith-based groups meet specific needs. One such need is to
    help children whose parents may be in prison realize there is hope and
    love. Seventy thousand kids have been affected by this program. Another
    one is to help prisoners reenter society. It's a relatively new program
    and--but so far, we've helped--you've helped 10,000 people readjust.
        Another is to provide scrip for somebody who needs help on drugs and
    alcohol and can redeem this at a regular counseling center or a faith-
    based center. But the whole purpose is to focus on results. You know, we
    ought to be asking what works, not the process. And so I appreciate you
    taking a look at this. Again, I want to thank you for your cooperation,
    to the extent that you feel comfortable doing so. It's making a huge
    difference in people's lives, and I congratulate you all.
        And finally, I want to spend a little time on health care. This
    obviously is a--you know, it's a tough issue here in Washington. And I
    do want to spend just a moment to explain to you the philosophy by which
    we'll be trying to get legislation passed out of the Congress.
        One, we share the same goal: accessible and affordable health care.
    Secondly, whatever we do must not undermine a health care system that is
    the best in the world. Our doctors are great; our technology is

    [[Page 263]]

    unbelievable; our hospitals are wonderful. And is it perfect? No, but it
    is the best in the world. Private medicine has worked in America, and
    the question is, can we strengthen it, rather than weaken it?
        And finally, I believe firmly that any good health care system is
    one that empowers individuals to be a better consumer, have more
    choices. And that was the whole spirit of the Medicare reforms. It's
    quite a controversial act up here in Washington. But time has passed,
    and there's some interesting news.
        First of all, the--inherent in the Medicare reform was, one, it made
    no sense not to provide prescription drugs for seniors. I mean, you
    know, people would go get an operation for a heart ailment that would
    cost the taxpayers thousands and thousands of dollars, but we wouldn't
    pay for the pills that could prevent the heart operation from being
    needed in the first place. It just made no sense. Medicare was an old
    system, and it was antiquated. And I firmly believed it needed reform.
        Secondly, inherent in this reform was the idea of giving seniors a
    variety of choices. For example, now seniors have got choices for a
    different drug plan. Drug plans are now competing for the seniors'
    business. Seniors have got different options for other coverage in
    Medicare. And as a result of the competition, fostered by the fact that
    folks have got different decision points to make, they say, if you want
    my business, you're going to have to do better; in other words, a
    market-oriented approach--the estimated cost of Medicare is down by $240
    billion over 10 years. You might remember, there was--when the Medicare
    debate was started, they were firing out all kinds of numbers. Well,
    it's 240 billion less than initially anticipated. I believe competition
    works; markets make sense.
        And also in that bill was the health savings account reform, which
    gives individuals more decisionmaking over their own health care. It
    allows for a catastrophic policy and health--tax-free savings for monies
    not spent on ordinary expenses. It's a way, really, to enhance
    portability. Somebody told me the other day that if you're under 30
    years old, you're likely to have had seven jobs when you reach your 30th
    birthday. It's a different era. People are moving around. There's a--you
    know, it's an exciting time, but it's also a time that creates
    uncertainty, particularly when it comes to somebody being able to carry
    a good health care policy with them.
        So the notion is to empower consumers to be more in charge of their
    decisionmaking. There's now 4\1/2\ million people on HSAs. In other
    words, when given an opportunity, people are now taking a look at it.
    It's a difficult thing for people to understand. It's pretty complex.
    But nevertheless, when the consumers are being given more choices, more
    opportunities, and they--with more knowledge--just like we're providing
    for our seniors--people make rational choices.
        There is more we can do here in Washington, DC. I don't know if
    you've studied our Tax Code, but it is biased against people who want to
    buy an individual policy. If you're working for a company, you get a
    benefit when it comes to health care. If you're in the individual
    marketplace, you pay with after-tax dollars. And it's unfair, and it
    creates discrepancies. And it makes it harder to make sure private
    insurance is available at reasonable prices--more reasonable prices to
    the individual, which affects small businesses, sole proprietorships,
    the people that are really the lifeblood of our economy.
        So I think Congress needs to make the Tax Code fair. Everybody ought
    to be treated the same in the Tax Code in order to encourage the
    development of a market for private individuals, which will help your
    small-business owners and obviously help families.
        Now, one of the interesting things that has taken place in the
    States, and one of--I think our jobs is--I said last night, you

    [[Page 264]]

    know, that the Governors are policy entrepreneurs. And I meant what I
    said. And I find it interesting that in certain States, like in Florida,
    private companies compete for Medicaid business. Like in Indiana, you
    know, Mitch has helped uninsured be
    able to participate in an HSA. Like in Oklahoma, you've helped the
    uninsured or low-income workers purchase health care through competition
    from--with Medicaid dollars.
        In other words, there's some wonderful things going on, all market
    driven. And we just want to facilitate those decisions because, in my
    judgment, the opposite of having the Government here in Washington be
    the decisionmaker will undermine private medicine, will make quality
    care more difficult.
        And so those are some of the thoughts I wanted to share with you. I
    appreciate you giving me time. I'll answer a couple of your questions. I
    thank the national press corps for joining us. See you later. [Laughter]

    Note: The President spoke at 11:10 a.m. in the State Dining Room at the
    White House. In his remarks, he referred to Gov. Timothy J. Pawlenty of
    Minnesota, chairman, and Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, vice
    chairman, National Governors Association; Janet Creighton, Deputy
    Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs;
    Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York; and Gov. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., of
    Indiana.