[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2008, Book I)]
[February 28, 2008]
[Pages 285-297]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



The President's News Conference
February 28, 2008

    The President. Good morning. Laura and I, as 
you know, recently came back from Africa, where we saw firsthand how the 
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is saving lives. I had a chance to go to 
the--speak to the Sullivan Foundation the other day about our trip, and 
the reason I did so was to remind the American people about how 
important it is for our Nation to remain generous and compassionate when 
it comes to helping people overseas.
    I also during my trip urged Congress to reauthorize the emergency 
plan and increase our commitment, and they did. They approved a good, 
bipartisan bill that maintains the principles that have made this 
program effective. And so I want to thank Acting Chairman Howard 
Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen and all the members of the 
committee for the action they took. This afternoon they're going to come 
down, and I'll be able to thank them in person. And I'm going to brief 
them on the trip. The--obviously, our hope is now that the House will 
act quickly and send the bill reauthorizing PEPFAR to the Senate. And 
I'd like to sign it into law as quickly as possible.

[[Page 286]]

    Members should also act on a very urgent priority, and that is to 
pass legislation our intelligence officials need to quickly and 
effectively monitor terrorist communications. At issue is a dispute over 
whether telecommunications companies should be subjected to class-action 
lawsuits because they are believed to have helped defend America after 
the attacks of 9/11. Allowing these lawsuits to proceed would be unfair. 
If any of these companies helped us, they did so after being told by our 
Government that their assistance was legal and vital to our national 
security.
    Allowing the lawsuits to proceed could aid our enemies because the 
litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how 
we conduct surveillance, and it would give Al Qaida and others a roadmap 
as to how to avoid the surveillance. Allowing these lawsuits to proceed 
could make it harder to track the terrorists because private companies 
besieged by and fearful of lawsuits would be less willing to help us 
quickly get the information we need. Without the cooperation of the 
private sector, we cannot protect our country from terrorist attack.
    Protecting these companies from lawsuits is not a partisan issue. 
Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate came together and 
passed a good bill protecting private companies from these abusive 
lawsuits. And Republicans and Democrats in the House stand ready to pass 
the Senate bill if House leaders would only stop blocking an up-or-down 
vote and let the majority in the House prevail.
    Some in Congress have said we have nothing to worry about because if 
we lose the cooperation of the private sector, we can use the old FISA 
law. Well, they're wrong. FISA was out of date. It did not allow us to 
track foreign terrorists on foreign soil quickly and effectively. And 
that is why a dangerous intelligence gap opened up last year, and that 
is why Congress passed legislation that reformed FISA. But they did so 
only temporarily. The law expired; the threat to America has not 
expired.
    Congress understood last year that FISA did not give our 
intelligence professionals the tools they needed to keep us safe. The 
Senate understands that the FISA--old FISA didn't give us the tools 
needed to protect America. The bipartisan bill it passes provides those 
tools our intelligence professionals need. Yet the House's failure to 
pass this law raises the risk of reopening a gap in our intelligence 
gathering, and that is dangerous.
    Another vital priority for protecting the nation is prevailing in 
Iraq. Unfortunately, this week, the Senate debated yet another bill that 
threatens to cut off funding and tie the hands of our commanders in 
Iraq. It seems that no matter what happens in Iraq, opponents to the war 
have one answer: retreat.
    When things were going badly in Iraq a year ago, they called for 
withdrawal. Then we changed our strategy, launched the surge, and turned 
the situation around. Since the surge began, high-profile terrorist 
attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down, 
and our own casualties are down. U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured or 
killed thousands of extremists, including hundreds of key Al Qaida 
operatives and leaders. Reconciliation is taking place in local 
communities across the country. That reconciliation is beginning to 
translate into political progress in the capital city.
    In the face of these changes on the ground, congressional leaders 
are still sounding the same old call for withdrawal. I guess you could 
say that when it comes to pushing for withdrawal, their strategy is to 
stay the course. It's interesting that many of the same people who once 
accused me of refusing to acknowledge setbacks in Iraq now are the ones 
who are refusing to acknowledge progress in Iraq.

[[Page 287]]

    If we followed their advice a year ago, Iraq would be far different 
and more dangerous place than it is today, and the American people would 
be at greater risk. If we follow their advice now, we would put at risk 
the gains our troops have made over the past year. Congress does need to 
act when it comes to Iraq. What they need to do is stand by our brave 
men and women in uniform and fully fund the troops.
    Finally, Congress needs to act to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. 
Unfortunately, the Senate is considering legislation that would do more 
to bail out lenders and speculators than to help American families keep 
their homes. The Senate bill would actually prolong the time it takes 
for the housing market to adjust and recover, and it would lead to 
higher interest rates. This would be unfair to the millions of 
homeowners who make the hard choices every month to pay their mortgage 
on time, and it would be unfair to future homebuyers. Instead, Congress 
should move ahead with responsible legislation to modernize the Federal 
Housing Administration and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By taking these 
steps, we can help struggling homeowners and help our economy weather 
the difficult time in the housing market.
    I'd be glad to take some questions. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated 
Press].

National Economy

    Q. Mr. President, bad economic news continues to pile up, the latest 
today, with the GDP barely growing. Are you concerned that a sagging 
economy and hard times will help defeat John McCain like it did your 
father in 1992? And how far are you willing to go to prevent that?
    The President. I'm concerned about the economy because I'm concerned 
about working Americans, concerned about people who want to put money on 
the table and save for their kids' education. That's why I'm concerned 
about the economy. I want Americans working.
    And there's no question, the economy has slowed down. You just cited 
another example of slowdown. I don't think we're headed to a recession, 
but no question, we're in a slowdown. And that's why we acted, and acted 
strongly, with over $150 billion worth of progrowth economic incentives, 
mainly money going into the hands of our consumers and some money going 
to incent businesses to invest, which will create jobs.
    And so we've acted robustly. And now it's time to determine whether 
or not this progrowth package will actually work. Now the checks will 
start going out in the second week of May. There are going to be letters 
out soon explaining who is eligible for the refunds. Credit will happen 
in the first week of May. In other words, some people will choose to 
have their bank accounts credited. And in the second week of May, we 
anticipate the checks start moving out of Washington.
    And the purpose is to encourage our consumers. The purpose is to 
give them money--their own to begin with, by the way--but give them 
money to help deal with the adverse effects of the decline in housing 
value. Consumerism is a significant part of our GDP growth. And we want 
to sustain the American consumer, encourage the American consumer, and 
at the same time, we want to encourage investment. So we'll see how the 
plan works.
    Q. But the political context----
    The President. Oh, you're trying to get me to be the pundit again. 
Look, you all figure that out. I mean, we--what I'm dealing with is the 
situation at hand, and I appreciate that--both Democrats and Republicans 
in the United States Congress and Senate for getting this bill done very 
quickly. And it's a substantial piece of legislation, and it's a good 
sign that we can figure out how to cooperate with each other at times.
    And so we'll see the effects of this progrowth package. It's--I know 
there's a

[[Page 288]]

lot of--here in Washington, people are trying to--stimulus package two 
and all that stuff. Why don't we let stimulus package one, which seemed 
like a good idea at the time, have a chance to kick in?
    Yes.

Turkey and Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, Turkey's ground offensive in northern Iraq is now 
a week old with no end in sight. How quickly would you like to see 
Turkey end its offensive, its incursion? And do you have any concerns 
about the possibility of protracted presence in northern Iraq causing 
further destabilization in the region?
    The President. A couple of points on that--one, the Turks, the 
Americans, and the Iraqis, including the Iraqi Kurds, share a common 
enemy in the PKK. And secondly, it's in nobody's interests that there be 
safe haven for people who are--have the willingness to kill innocent 
people.
    A second point I want to make to you, Matt [Matt Spetalnick, 
Reuters], is that there is a Special Forces presence in northern Iraq, 
in Kurdistan, now, apart from what you're referring to. In other words--
so there is a presence, and there has been a presence for a while.
    Thirdly, I strongly agree with the sentiments of Secretary 
Gates, who said that the incursion must be 
limited and must be temporary in nature. In other words, it shouldn't be 
long lasting. But the Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their 
objective, and get out.
    Q. But how quickly, sir, do they need to move out?
    The President. You know, as quickly as possible.
    Q. Days or weeks?
    The President. Well, as possible.

Russia-U.S. Relations

    Q. Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about Russia. The Democratic 
candidates, when asked about the new Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, 
didn't appear to know a great deal about him. I wonder what you can say 
about him; how much power you think he's really got with Putin still in 
the picture?
    And critics would say you badly misjudged Vladimir Putin. So what 
would be your cautionary tale to your successor about the threat Russia 
poses and how to deal with this new leader?
    The President. I don't know much about Medvedev either. And what will be interesting to see is who comes 
to the--who represents Russia at the G-8, for example. It will be 
interesting to see--it will help, I think, give some insight as to how 
Russia intends to conduct foreign policy over--after Vladimir 
Putin's Presidency. And I can't answer the 
question yet.
    I can say that it's in our interests to continue to have relations 
with Russia. For example, on proliferation matters, it's in our interest 
to be able to make sure that materials that could cause great harm 
aren't proliferated. It's in our interest to work together on Iran. As I 
said, I think, in this room the last time I was here, I appreciated the 
fact that Vladimir Putin told the Iranians 
that they will provide--they, Russia--will provide enriched uranium to 
run the Bushehr power plant, thereby negating the need for the Iranians 
to enrich in the first place. I thought that was a constructive 
suggestion. And we need to be in a position to be able to work with 
Russia on Iran.
    There's a lot of areas where--yesterday, for example, with the Prime 
Minister of the Czech Republic, I talked 
about a missile defense system in Europe. But I believe it's in our 
interests to try to figure out a way for the Russians to understand the 
system is not aimed at them but aimed at the real threats of the 21st 
century, which could be a launch from a violent regime--a launch of a 
weapon of mass destruction.
    So there's areas, David [David Gregory, NBC News], where we need to 
cooperate and--let me finish--and so it's a--I'm going to try to leave 
it so whoever my

[[Page 289]]

successor is will be able to have a relationship with whoever is running 
foreign policy in Russia. It's just--it's in the country's interest. 
That doesn't mean we have to agree all the time. I mean, obviously, we 
didn't agree on Kosovo. There will be other areas where we don't agree. 
And yet it is in the interest of the country to have a relationship, 
leader to leader and, hopefully, beyond that.
    Q. But I mean, first of all, are you suggesting or are you worried 
that, in fact, Medvedev is a puppet for Vladimir Putin? And----
    The President. No, I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't--that's your 
conclusion, not mine.
    Q. Well, no, I'm asking the question about whether you're concerned. 
But isn't there something you took away and that you can offer to your 
successor about how it's risky in the process of sizing up your Russian 
counterpart? Don't you think that you learned something from your time 
with Putin?
    The President. Here's what I learned, here's what I learned. I 
learned that it's important to establish a personal relations with 
leaders even though you may not agree with them--certain leaders. I'm 
not going to have a personal relationship with Kim Jong Il, and our relationships are such that that's impossible.
    But U.S.-Russian relations are important. It's important for 
stability. It's important for our relations in Europe. And therefore, my 
advice is to establish a personal relationship with whoever is in charge 
of foreign policy in Russia. It's in our country's interest to do so.
    Now, it makes it easier, by the way, when there's a trustworthy 
relationship to be able to disagree and yet maintain common interests in 
other areas. And so we've had our disagreements. As you know, 
Putin is a straightforward, pretty tough 
character when it comes to his interests. Well, so am I. And we've had 
some headbutts, diplomatic headbutts. You might remember the trip to 
Slovakia. I think you were there at the famous press conference. But--
and yet, in spite of that, our differences of opinion, we still have got 
a cordial enough relationship to be able to deal with common threats and 
opportunities. And that's going to be important for the next President 
to maintain.
    Yes, Jonathan [Jonathan Karl, ABC News].

Military Operations in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Yes, Jon.
    Q. ----do you believe if we had the kind of rapid pullout from Iraq 
that the Democrats are talking about, that we'd be at greater risk of a 
terrorist attack here at home? And when Senator Obama was asked a 
similar question, he said, quote, ``If Al Qaida is forming a base in 
Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American 
homeland and our interests abroad.''
    So I'm wondering if you----
    The President. That's an interesting comment. If Al Qaida is 
securing a Al Qaida base--yes, well, that's exactly what they've been 
trying to do for the past 4 years. That's their stated intention, was to 
create enough chaos and disorder to establish a base from which to 
either launch attacks or spread a caliphate. And the intent of the surge 
was to send more marines into the area that--where they had proclaimed 
their desire to set up a base. That was Anbar Province. And so yes, I 
mean, that's one of the challenges we face, is denying Al Qaida a safe 
haven anywhere. And their intentions--that's what they said, that they 
would like to have a base or safe haven in Anbar Province.
    Yes, Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].
    Q. But to the second part----
    The President. No, next turn.
    Q. But the part of the question about----
    The President. Nice try. [Laughter]
    Q. Mr. President----

[[Page 290]]

    The President. You obviously haven't been here long, Jon. Where have 
you been, Jonathan? [Laughter]
    Q. Across the river.
    The President. Yes, okay, yes.
    Q. All right.
    The President. Welcome to the other side. [Laughter]

Terrorist Surveillance Program/Intelligence Reform Legislation

    Q. If you can get the Congress to protect telecom companies from 
lawsuits, then there's no recourse for Americans who feel that they've 
been caught up in this. I know it's not intended to spy on Americans, 
but in the collection process, information about everybody gets swept 
up, and then it gets sorted. So if Americans don't have any recourse, 
are you just telling them when it comes to their privacy to suck it up?
    The President. The--I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you, in 
public, Bill. I mean, you've been around long enough to--anyway, yes, 
I--look, there's--people who analyze the program fully understand that 
America's civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check 
to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't--you know, 
are treated with respect. And that's what I want, and that's what most--
all Americans want.
    Now, let me talk about the phone companies. You cannot expect phone 
companies to participate if they feel like they're going to be sued. I 
mean, it is--these people are responsible for shareholders; they're 
private companies. The Government said to those who have alleged to have 
helped us that it is in our national interests, and it's legal. It's in 
our national interests because we want to know who's calling who from 
overseas into America. We need to know in order to protect the people.
    It was legal. And now, all of a sudden, plaintiffs' attorneys, 
class-action plaintiffs' attorneys, you know--I don't want to try to get 
inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy 
train--are trying to sue these companies. And first, it's unfair. It is 
patently unfair. And secondly, these lawsuits create doubts amongst 
those who will--whose help we need.
    I guess you could be relaxed about all this if you didn't think 
there was a true threat to the country. I know there's a threat to the 
country. And the American people expect our Congress to give the 
professionals the tools they need to listen to foreigners who may be 
calling into the United States with information that could cause us 
great harm. So, on the one hand, the civil liberties of our citizens are 
guaranteed by a lot of checks in the system and scrutinized by the 
United States Congress.
    And secondly, I cannot emphasize to you how important it is that the 
Congress solve this problem. The Senate has solved the problem. And 
people say, would you ever compromise on the issue? The Senate bill is a 
compromise. And there's enough votes in the House of Representatives to 
pass the Senate bill. It's a bipartisan bill. And the House leaders need 
to put it on the floor. Let the will of the House work. In my judgment, 
it happens to be the will of the people to give the professionals the 
tools they need to protect the country.
    Elaine [Elaine Quijano, Cable News Network].

Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser Joel Bagnal

    Q. Mr. President, you've stressed over and over in recent days 
particularly the importance of FISA reform to help keep America safe, 
and yet you have not yet filled a key national security post. Fran 
Townsend announced her resignation months ago, in November. What is the 
delay there, and what are Americans to make of that delay? Is America 
less safe because of it?
    The President. We got a fine man named Joel Bagnal working that office right now. He's a professional. I 
trust his judgment. He's a real good guy. And no, they

[[Page 291]]

shouldn't worry about Joel. He knows what he's doing.
    John [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].
    Q. But, sir, the American----
    The President. John.
    Q. The Homeland Security Adviser is a key post.
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
    Q. What's taking so long?
    The President. Joel Bagnal has occupied the 
position, Elaine. He's doing the job, and I've got confidence in him. 
And so should the American people have confidence in him. He's a fine 
professional. He knows what he's doing. And I'm very comfortable in 
saying, on your cameras, that our staff in the White House, led by Joel 
Bagnal, knows what they're doing when it comes to advising the President 
on matters of homeland security.
    John.

Trade

    Q. Thanks, Mr. President. There's been a lot of criticism on the 
campaign trail of free-trade policies and even talk about the U.S. 
opting out of NAFTA. And it doesn't seem that you want to discuss the 
prospects of Republican candidates on the campaign trail this year, 
but----
    The President. Not yet.
    Q. Not yet. But just given all the concerns about the economy that 
people have, do you feel like you could win in a State like Ohio if you 
were running again for Presidency?
    The President. Landslide, John. [Laughter] Look, I am a big believer 
in free trade. And the reason why is, I firmly believe that free trade 
is essential to the formation of high-paying, quality jobs. In other 
words, people who work for industries that export goods to overseas are 
likely to be paid more than their--other workers.
    Secondly, if you look at the--our economic growth recently, 
particularly last year, a major portion of that growth came as a result 
of exports. It's an essential part of our economic picture.
    Yes, I heard the talk about NAFTA. One statistic I think people need 
to know is, I think there's roughly, like, $380 billion worth of goods 
that we ship to our NAFTA partners on an annual basis. Now, $380 billion 
worth of goods means there's a lot of farmers and businesses, large and 
small, who are benefiting from having a market in our neighborhood. And 
the idea of just unilaterally withdrawing from a trade treaty because of 
trying to score political points is not good policy. It's not good 
policy on the merits, and it's not good policy to--as a message to send 
to our--people who have, in good faith, signed a treaty and worked with 
us on a treaty.
    Thirdly, those of us who grew up in Texas remember what the border 
looked like when we were kids, and it was really poor. And you go down 
to that border today, it is prosperous on both sides of the river, to 
the credit of those who proposed NAFTA and to the credit of those who 
got NAFTA through the Congress. If you're worried about people coming 
into our country illegally, it makes sense to help a place like Mexico 
grow its economy. Most folks would rather be finding a job close to 
home; most folks would rather not try to get in the bottom of an 18-
wheeler to come and put food on the table.
    This agreement has meant prosperity on both sides of our borders, 
north and south. And I believe it's in the interests to continue to seek 
markets for our farmers, ranchers, and businesspeople. I also know it's 
in our interest to insist that when people sell products into our 
countries, that we get treated fairly. In other words, if we treat a 
country one way--people in a country one way--we expect to be treated 
the same way, like Colombia.
    The Colombia free trade vote's coming up. Many of their products 
come into our country much easier than our products go into theirs. It 
makes sense to be treated

[[Page 292]]

equally. But on this vote, there's an additional consequence. If the 
Congress rejects the Colombia free trade agreement, it will sorely 
affect the national security interests of the United States. It will 
encourage false populism in our neighborhood. It will undermine the 
standing of courageous leaders like President Uribe. And I strongly urge the Congress, when they bring 
this--when the Colombia free trade agreement is brought to a vote, to 
seriously consider the consequences of rejecting this trade agreement.
    Mike [Mike Emanuel, FOX News].

Terrorist Surveillance Program/Intelligence Reform Legislation

    Q. Mr. President, on FISA, do you worry that perhaps some House 
Democratic leaders are playing a high-stakes game of wait and see, in 
terms of if we get attacked, we all lose; if we don't get attacked, then 
maybe that makes the case that you don't need all the powers in FISA?
    The President. No, I don't think so. I mean, I think that's--that 
would be ascribing motives that are just--I just don't think they're the 
motives of the House leaders to do that. I think--look, I think they're 
really wrestling with providing liability protection to phone companies. 
I don't think there's--that's cynical or devious, Michael. That's just 
too risky.
    A lot of these leaders understand that there is an enemy that wants 
to attack. The caucus, evidently, in the House, is--the Democratic 
caucus is, you know, is concerned about exactly Plante's question, you 
know. And I just can't tell you how important it is to not alienate or 
not discourage these phone companies.
    How can you listen to the enemy if the phone companies aren't going 
to participate with you? And they're not going to participate if they 
get sued. Let me rephrase: less likely to participate. And they're 
facing billions of dollars of lawsuits, and they have a responsibility 
to their shareholders. And yet they were told what they were going to do 
is legal.
    And anyway, I'm going to keep talking about the issue, Mike. This is 
an important issue for the American people to understand. And it's 
important for them to understand that no renewal of the PATRIOT Act--I 
mean, the Protect America Act--is dangerous for the security of the 
country, just dangerous.
    I'm sure people, if they really pay attention to the details of this 
debate, wonder why it was okay to pass the Protect America Act last 
summer, late last summer, and all of a sudden, it's not okay to pass it 
now. And so I will keep talking about the issue and talking about the 
issue.
    Michael [Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post].

President's Foreign Policy

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about another issue 
that's kind of come up on the campaign trail, in terms of discussion, 
which is--this is a point of view that has been espoused--that we would 
be better off if we talked to our adversaries, in particular, Iran and 
Cuba, you know, without preconditions. And as President, you have 
obviously considered and rejected this approach. And I'm wondering if 
you can give us a little bit of insight into your thinking about this, 
and just explain to the American people what is lost by talking with 
those when we disagree.
    The President. What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people 
in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is, it'll send 
the wrong message. It'll send a discouraging message to those who wonder 
whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. 
It'll give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and 
human dignity.
    I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting 
now is not the time--not to talk with Raul Castro. He's nothing more than an extension of what

[[Page 293]]

his brother did, which was to ruin an 
island and imprison people because of their beliefs.
    These wives of these dissidents come and see me, and their stories 
are just unbelievably sad. And it just goes to show how repressive the 
Castro brothers 
have been, when you listen to the truth about what they say. And the 
idea of embracing a leader who's done this without any attempt on his 
part to release prisoners and free their society would be 
counterproductive and send the wrong signal.
    Q. But no one is saying embrace him; they're just saying talk----
    The President. Well, talking to him is embracing. Excuse me. Let me 
use another word. You're right, embrace is like big hug, right? That's--
you're looking----
    Q. Right.
    The President. I do embrace people. Mike, one of these days, I'm 
just thinking about--[laughter]. Right, okay, good. Thank you for 
reminding me to use a different word. Sitting down at the table, having 
your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the 
status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, ``Look 
at me, I'm now recognized by the President of the United States.''
    Now, somebody will say, well, I'm going to tell him to release the 
prisoners. Well, it's a theory that all you got to do is embrace, and 
these tyrants act. That's not how they act. That's not what causes them 
to respond. And so I made a decision quite the opposite, and that is to 
keep saying to the Cuban people, we stand with you. We will not sit down 
with your leaders that imprison your people because of what they 
believe. We will keep an embargo on you. We do want you to have money 
from people here in the homeland, but we will stay insistent upon this 
policy until you begin to get free.
    And so that's the way I've conducted foreign policy and will 
continue to conduct foreign policy. I just remind people that the 
decisions of the U.S. President to have discussions with certain 
international figures can be extremely counterproductive. It can send 
chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about 
our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. 
And in my judgment, it would be a mistake, on the two countries you 
talked about.
    Sheryl [Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times].

2008 Presidential Election

    Q. Mr. President, thank you. I want to bring you back to Senator 
Obama's comment on Iraq. Do you believe that his comment was naive?
    The President. I believe Senator Obama 
better stay focused on his campaign with Senator Clinton, neither of whom has secured their party's 
nominee yet--nomination yet. And my party's nomination hasn't been 
decided yet either. And so there will be ample time to discuss whoever 
their candidate for--the positions of whoever their candidate is.
    Nice try, Sheryl. Would you like to try another tack, another 
question?
    Q. Well, earlier you said it was an interesting comment. Okay, I'll 
follow on it. About Iraq, you have said in the past that you want to----
    Q. Come on. [Laughter]
    Q. ----leave a sustainable policy.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. You said I could have another question.
    The President. That's good. Yes, okay.
    Q. If you want to leave your----
    The President. Well, it was just a little, like--give her--should we 
vote on whether she gets another question? [Laughter]

Military Operations in Iraq

    Q. They're for me. [Laughter] You've said, Mr. President, that you 
want to leave Iraq in a sustainable situation----
    The President. Yes, I do.

[[Page 294]]

    Q. ----at the end of your administration. Can you describe for us 
specifically, what do you mean by sustainable? Do you have specific 
goals and objectives that, in your mind, would meet the criteria of 
sustainability?
    The President. Yes, which is to keep enough troops there so we can 
succeed. And David Petraeus will come as--
for example, David Petraeus will come back, along with Ryan 
Crocker, here later on this spring and will 
make a recommendation as to what that--what those troop levels ought to 
be.
    The idea of having a request by the Iraqi Government for a long-term 
security agreement is part of sustainability. And obviously, we're going 
to be pushing hard at the same time to get the political process moving 
forward.
    I don't know if you noticed yesterday, but it was a very interesting 
moment in Iraqi constitutional history, when part of the--a member of 
the Presidency Council utilized his constitutional right to veto one of 
the three pieces of legislation recently passed. I understand the use of 
the veto, intend to continue to use it, and I--but I thought it was a 
healthy sign that the people are thinking through the legislation that's 
passed, and they're worrying about making sure that laws are 
constitutional. And I feel pretty good about the fact that they're, of 
course, going to continue to work to make sure that their stated 
objective of getting Provincial elections done by October of 2008 will 
happen.
    So there's going to be a lot of work. My only point is, 
sustainability is political, economic, and security.
    Yes, Ed [Edwin Chen, Bloomberg News].

Monetary Policy

    Q. Good morning, sir.
    The President. Yes, thank you.
    Q. If I could get back to the economy--the GDP numbers today show 
that the--our economy is increasingly relying on U.S. exports to keep 
growing. How important is a competitive dollar in keeping U.S. exports 
strong and growing?
    The President. We believe in a strong dollar policy, and we believe 
that--and I believe that our economy has got the fundamentals in place 
for us to be a--is to grow and continue growing more robustly, 
hopefully, than we're growing now. And the dollar--the value of the 
dollar will be reflected in the ability for our economy to be--to grow 
economically. And so we're still for a strong dollar.
    Q. Can I follow up on that, sir?

Price of Gasoline/Taxes/Energy

    The President. Maybe.
    Q. Thanks.
    The President. I guess you are. Yes, I haven't said yes, but please. 
[Laughter]
    Q. What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, 
facing the prospect of four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline, a lot of people 
facing----
    The President. Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're 
predicting four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline?
    Q. A number of analysts are predicting----
    The President. Oh, yeah?
    Q. ----four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline this spring when they 
reformulate.
    The President. That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.
    Q. Yes, sir.
    The President. Yes. I know it's high now.
    Q. And the other economic problems facing people--beyond your 
concern that you stated here and your expectations for these stimulus 
checks, what kind of hope can you offer to people who are in dire 
straits?
    The President. Permanent tax--keep the tax cuts permanent, for 
starters. There's a lot of economic uncertainty. You just said that. You 
just said the price of gasoline may be up to $4 a gallon--or some expert 
told you that--and that creates a lot of uncertainty. If you're out 
there wondering

[[Page 295]]

whether or not--you know, what your life is going to be like and you're 
looking at $4 a gallon, that's uncertain. And when you couple that with 
the idea that your taxes may be going up in a couple of years, that's 
double uncertainty. And therefore, one way to deal with uncertainty is 
for Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.
    Secondly, it's--people got to understand that our energy policies 
needs to be focused on a lot of things: one, renewables, which is fine, 
which I strongly support, as you know; two, conservation. But we need to 
be finding more oil and gas at home if we're worried about becoming 
independent--dependent on oil overseas. And this--I view it as a 
transitory period to new technologies that'll change the way we live. 
But we haven't built a refinery in a long time. We're expanding 
refineries, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. I strongly 
suggested to the Congress that we build refineries on old military 
bases, but no, it didn't pass. But if you've got less supply of 
something as demand continues to stay steady or grow, your price is 
going to go up.
    Secondly, on oil, we--the more oil we find at home, the better off 
we're going to be in terms of the short run. And yet our policy is, you 
know, let us not explore robustly in places like ANWR. And there are 
environmental concerns, and I understand that. I also know there's 
technologies that should mitigate these environmental concerns.
    They got a bill up there in Congress now. Their attitude is, let's 
tax oil companies. Well, all that's going to do is make the price even 
higher. We ought to be encouraging investment in oil and gas close to 
home if we're trying to mitigate the problems we face right now.
    And so yes, there's a lot of uncertainty, and I'm concerned about 
the uncertainty. Hopefully, this progrowth package will help--this 100--
I think it's $147 billion that will be going out the door, starting 
electronically in the first week of May and through check in the second 
week of May. And the idea is to help our consumers deal with the 
uncertainty you're talking about. But yes, no question about it, it's a 
difficult period.
    Yes, Ken [Ken Herman, Cox News].

Presidential Library

    Q. Thank you, sir. Now that you've found a location for your 
Presidential library, you've got to find the money to build it. Reports 
indicate that you may be trying to collect as much as $200 million. Is 
that figure accurate? Do you believe it's important for the American 
people to know who is giving that kind of money to their President? Will 
you disclose the contributions as they come in? And will you place any 
restriction on who gives money and how much they can give?
    The President. No, yes, no, yes. [Laughter] Next question. 
[Laughter] I haven't--phew, man. You obviously haven't asked a question 
in a long time. It was like, you know, one, I haven't seen the final 
budget. Two, as Donnie Evans said, who is 
the chairman of the foundation, we'll look at the disclosure 
requirements and make a decision. Here's the--well, I--there's a lot of 
people--or some people; I shouldn't say a lot--some people who like to 
give and don't particularly want their names disclosed, whether it be 
for this foundation or any other foundation. And so we'll take that into 
consideration.
    Thirdly--and what was the other?
    Q. Any restrictions on who can give? Will you take foreign money for 
this?
    The President. Yes, I'll probably take some foreign money, but don't 
know yet, Ken. We just haven't--we just announced the deal, and I 
frankly have been focused elsewhere, like on gasoline prices and, you 
know, my trip to Africa, and haven't seen the fundraising strategy yet. 
And so the answer to your question--really, I can't answer your question 
well.
    Q. Where does the people's right to know this fit into all of that?

[[Page 296]]

    The President. You know, I don't--we're weighing, taking a look, 
taking consideration, giving it serious consideration. Nice try, though.

2008 Beijing Olympics/China/Human Rights

    Olivier [Olivier Knox, Agence France-Presse].
    Q. Thank you, sir. In China, a former factory worker who says that 
human rights are more important than the Olympics is being tried for 
subversion. What message does it send that you're going to the Olympics? 
And do you think athletes there should be allowed to publicly express 
their dissent?
    The President. Olivier, I have made it very clear, I'm going to the 
Olympics because it's a sporting event, and I'm looking forward to 
seeing the athletic competition. But that will not preclude me from 
meeting with the Chinese President, expressing my 
deep concerns about a variety of issues, just like I do every time I 
meet with the President.
    And maybe I'm in a little different position. Others don't have a 
chance to visit with Hu Jintao, but I do. And every 
time I meet with him, I talk about religious freedom and the importance 
of China's society recognizing that if you're allowed to worship freely, 
it will benefit the society as a whole; that the Chinese Government 
should not fear the idea of people praying to a god as they see fit. A 
whole society, a healthy society, a confident society is one that 
recognizes the value of religious freedom.
    I talk about Darfur and Iran and Burma. And so I am not the least 
bit shy of bringing up the concerns expressed by this factory 
worker. And I believe that I'll have an 
opportunity to do so with the President and, at the 
same time, enjoy a great sporting event. I'm a sports fan. I'm looking 
forward to the competition. And each Olympic society will make its own 
decision as to how to deal with the athletes.
    Yes, Mark [Mark Smith, Associated Press Radio].

Price of Oil/Tax Breaks for Oil Companies/Energy

    Q. Mr. President, back to the oil price--tax breaks that you were 
talking about a minute ago. Back when oil was $55 a barrel, you said 
those tax breaks were not needed; people had plenty of incentive to 
drill for oil. Now the price of oil is $100 a barrel, and you're 
planning to threaten a plan that would shift those tax breaks to 
renewables. Why, sir?
    The President. I talked, Mark--I talked about some of the breaks. 
And this is a--this generally is a tax increase, and it doesn't make any 
sense to do it right now. We need to be exploring for more oil and gas. 
And taking money out of the coffers of the oil companies will make it 
harder for them to reinvest. I know they say, well, look at all of the 
profits. Well, we're raising the price of gasoline in a time when the 
price of gasoline is high.
    Secondly, we've invested a lot of money in renewables. This 
administration has done more for renewables than any President. Now, we 
got a problem with renewables, and that is, the price of corn is 
beginning to affect food--cost of food, and it's hurting hog farmers and 
a lot of folks. And the best way to deal with renewables is to focus on 
research and development that will enable us to use other raw material 
to produce ethanol. I'm a strong believe in ethanol, Mark. This 
administration has got a great record on it. But it is a--I believe 
research and development is what's going to make renewable fuels more 
effective.
    Again, I repeat: If you look at what's happened in corn out there, 
you're beginning to see the food issue and the energy issue collide. And 
so, to me, the best dollar spent is to continue to deal with cellulosic 
ethanol in order to deal with this bottleneck right now. And secondly, 
the tax--yes, I said that a while ago, on certain aspects. But the way I 
analyze this bill is, it's going

[[Page 297]]

to cost the consumers more money. And we need more oil and gas being 
explored for; we need more drilling; we need less dependence on foreign 
oil.
    And as I say, we're in a period of transition here in America, from 
a time where we were--where we are oil and gas dependent to, hopefully, 
a time where we got electric automobiles, and we're spending money to do 
that; a time when we're using more biofuels, and we've taken huge 
investments in that; a time when we've got nuclear power plants and 
we're able to deal with the disposal in a way that brings confidence to 
the American people--so we're not dependent on natural gas to fire up 
our--a lot of our utilities and a time when we can sequester coal.
    That's where we're headed for, but we've got to do something in the 
interim. Otherwise, we're going to be dealing, as the man said, with 
four-dollar gasoline. And so that's why I'm against that bill.
    I thank you. It's been a pleasure. Enjoyed being with you.
    Q. Sir, do you think Hillary Clinton is the nominee?
    The President. Pardon me?
    Q. Do you still think Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?
    The President. I'm not talking about politics.
    Q. You've said that before, though.
    The President. You're trying to get me to be pundit in chief.
    Q. Are they qualified to be Commander in Chief?
    The President. I appreciate you very--Jackson [David Jackson, USA 
Today]--Jackson. Nice to see you. [Laughter] Thank you.
    Q. Thank you.
    The President. Glad to see you back. [Laughter]

Note: The President's news conference began at 10:05 a.m. in the James 
S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he 
referred to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates; Russian Presidential 
candidate Dmitry A. Medvedev; Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the 
Czech Republic; Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea; President Alvaro 
Uribe Velez of Colombia; President Raul Castro Ruz and former President 
Fidel Castro Ruz of Cuba; Democratic Presidential candidates Barack 
Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, 
commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Donald L. Evans, 
chairman, George W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation; and former 
factory worker and human rights activist Yang Chunlin, who was arrested 
on July 6, 2007, in China. Reporters referred to Republican Presidential 
candidate John McCain; and former Homeland Security and Counterterrorism 
Adviser Frances Fragos Townsend. The Office of the Press Secretary also 
released a Spanish language transcript of this news conference.