    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2008, Book II)]
    [December 18, 2008]
    [Pages 1476-1492]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the American Enterprise Institute and a Question-and-Answer
    Session
    December 18, 2008

        Christopher DeMuth. Mr. President,
    what's on your mind this morning?
        The President. First, thanking you for being the leader that you've
    been, and thanking AEI for generating good thought. People in the public
    arena need to have support for philosophy, and that's what you provide.
    So I appreciate all your hard work.
        I thought I'd share some thoughts about the Presidency; you could
    call it ``reflections on a--by a guy who's headed out of town.''
    [Laughter] And then I'd be glad to answer questions--and foreign policy,
    if you want to.
        First, I have found that--and by the way, every President is going
    to conduct their own way of doing business there in the White House. So
    mine is just mine. I have found that in order to have good
    decisionmaking and a White House that functions well, that the President
    needs to articulate a set of principles from which he will not defer. In
    other words, a set of principles that are inviolate, such as the
    universality of freedom. That's part of my foreign policy. A cornerstone
    of my foreign policy is my firm belief that freedom is universal. And
    freedom applies to Methodists and Muslims, men and women.
        I've just come from an Afghan Women's Council that Laura was hosting. I believe that Afghan women have a right
    to be free

    [[Page 1477]]

    just like women in America have a right to be free.
        I believe in the collective wisdom of the American people. In other
    words, I believe we ought to trust individuals to be making decisions
    for their families. And it's always a tension between government--who
    can spend the money better, government or the individual? And that's
    been the basis of my tax cut policy.
        The tax cuts, of course, have been, you know, obscured--the benefits
    of the tax cuts have been obscured by the recent economic crisis, no
    question about it. But when they finally take a look back at whether or
    not tax cuts were effective or not, it's hard to argue against 52
    uninterrupted months of job growth as a result of tax policy. And so my
    hope is, is that after this crisis passes--and it will--that people
    continue to write about and articulate a public policy of low taxes.
        My health care policy also was all aimed at empowering individuals
    to make decisions for themselves and an attempt to establish a
    marketplace for individual policy by changing the Tax Code or health
    savings accounts.
        I've been a firm believer in markets. That may sound contradictory
    to some of the policies that I have been making recently, which I'd be
    glad to discuss with you. [Laughter] But I strongly believe in the
    principle that markets really do represent the--a free society. I mean,
    after all, people produce goods and services based upon the demand of
    the individual.
        I can remember going to China when my dad was the envoy there, and everybody had the same clothes
    on. It was like there was no demand. And then having gone back at the
    Olympics and saw a society in which the marketplace is beginning to
    function, it's just a vastly different society. And I happen to believe
    it's a society that--societies based upon the marketplace will be not
    only more free but more hopeful.
        I have found that a President should take on tough problems. The
    temptation in politics sometimes is just kick them down the road; like,
    it's too hard to do, so let's just let somebody else do it. One such
    problem was immigration reform. And in this case I chose to put the
    spotlight directly on the issue by giving an Oval Office address.
    Obviously, we weren't successful about getting comprehensive immigration
    reform. Nevertheless, I feel good about having tried.
        Part of the Presidency is the willingness to say, no matter how
    tough the issue may look, if it requires solution, go after it. And we
    did. And I do believe there will be a blueprint for a way forward. In
    other words, we must change the system. It's not working. Obviously,
    there needs to be more border enforcement--and we're doing that--but
    people need to be treated with dignity, and there needs to be a way
    forward for people who are lawful citizens. And there needs to be a
    temporary-worker program, for example, so that our employers who are
    relying upon people who are doing jobs Americans weren't doing aren't
    criminalized.
        Anyway, the job of the President is to tackle these problems. And
    finally, the job of the President is to look over the horizon. And
    that's--sometimes that gets you in conflict with the legislative branch.
    The legislative branch tends to have a shorter term horizon than the
    executive branch. And so Chris mentioned
    Social Security; it's an example of a President looking beyond the
    moment and recognizing that this system is going to be bust unless we
    change it.
        And I worked to lay out solutions. Rather than just call attention
    to the issue, I actually used my State of the Union Address a couple of
    times to talk about how we can look at changing the benefit structure,
    based upon wealth, as a way forward.
        And I also talked about something that was quite controversial, and
    that's personal savings accounts. And of course, any time you go from a
    defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, and you're the

    [[Page 1478]]

    person who gets to define the benefits, you're not likely to want to
    give up that ability. Nevertheless, there too is an issue where the--it
    didn't succeed. But nevertheless, I used the Presidency, the executive
    branch, the concept of the Presidency, to lay out a way forward. And so
    I appreciate you giving me a chance to come by and just share thoughts.
        One final thought on the Presidency is, the Presidency--the
    institution of the Presidency is more important than the individual. And
    that's what really makes our country great. The Presidents will come and
    go with their strengths and weaknesses, but the ship of state sails on
    because of the institution being greater than the person.
        And so the job of the President is to not only make decisions--you
    campaign for office, and you lay out what you're going to do--but a lot
    of times decisions come that you didn't expect. You got to be hoping for
    the best and planning for the worst in your Presidency. But it's also to
    bring stability to the institution itself.
        And so there are some reflections for you. I'd be glad to answer
    some of the questions.

    Presidential Powers

        Mr. DeMuth. I have a batch here for
    you. And I'd like to start with a few questions about the institution of
    the Presidency and with a genuinely hard, difficult question involving
    the President as constitutional officer. When you were a candidate in
    2000, you said that you thought that you would veto legislation that you
    thought was unconstitutional. In office you've done what all of your
    predecessors--recent predecessor--have done, which is to sign
    legislation and leave the constitutional questions to the courts.
        It was pretty clear, at least to me, that you had real
    constitutional reservations about McCain-Feingold. But you signed it,
    your Justice Department argued for it, rather than against it, in the
    Supreme Court and won. And I'm wondering if, looking back, what you
    think of the old practice, which is for the President to stick to his
    own views on the Constitution, rather than leaving the Supreme Court as
    the sole decider.
        The President. Well, there's been a big debate about war powers
    inherent in the Constitution. And I made some decisions during this war
    based upon what I thought was my constitutional power. And so there's an
    example of--as opposed to a piece of legislation, there's an example of
    me not allowing--you know, initially having the courts define what the
    power is. And that's--this has been a long-time debate, constitutional
    debate, is what are the war powers of a President?
        And as you know, I have been aggressive at pursuing the enemy within
    the bounds of the Constitution. And some of the decisions I have made
    are being adjudicated in the Court. And so I'll dodge the one on
    legislation, but I won't when it comes to taking a constitutional view
    of the office of the Presidency.

    Working With Congress

        Mr. DeMuth. On legislation and
    dealings with the Congress, tell me, which is harder for a Republican
    President, a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress? [Laughter]
        The President. Sometimes they're both equally difficult. [Laughter]
    A Republican Congress was easier in some ways because we were able to
    work with the leadership to--on the timing of votes, for example, or
    judicial nominees. In some ways it was more difficult because when you
    worked with the Congress, there was a ability at times to forgo
    Republican principles, and it put the President in a awkward position.
        For example, budgeting: Without the line-item veto, the President is
    in an awkward position when it comes to budgeting. So we sit down the
    leadership and say, here's the top line. We agreed to the top line.
    That's what the budgets did in the

    [[Page 1479]]

    top line--with the top line. And yet, the slices of the pie were, in the
    recent past, really earmarks. And so without the line-item veto, it made
    it very difficult for me to bring budgets discipline. They could have--
    people said, well, just veto the whole budget. And my answer to that is,
    we, in good faith, negotiated the size of the pie. And so some
    Republican principles were violated when it came to earmarks, for
    example.
        It's easier to veto bills when you're going against the--when the
    Democrats are in power, because, after all, it's Republicans who crafted
    the bills coming in. And so both are difficult, and both are necessary,
    and both have been interesting. [Laughter]

    No Child Left Behind Act/Medicare

        Mr. DeMuth. Presidents have to make
    compromises to get legislation that they really want. You made several
    compromises in winning your first big legislative victory, the No Child
    Left Behind program. Were there compromises that you made in obtaining
    that legislation, in legislation or execution, that you regret as you
    look back on it?
        The President. I'm pleased with the progress in No Child Left
    Behind. The philosophy of No Child Left Behind was that in return for
    money, you must measure. That, of course, created some issues. Some
    Republicans and conservatives said, ``What business is it of the Federal
    Government to insist upon accountability?'' After all, there shouldn't
    be much of a role for the Federal Government. And people on the other
    side said, ``We don't want to be measured.''
        I believe it is a Republican and conservative principle that we
    ought to ask for results. And if you're going to spend money, then it
    makes sense to say, ``Are we achieving results?''
        Secondly, as you know, I campaigned on compassionate conservatism.
    It's conservative to ask for accountability, and it's compassionate to
    insist that inner-city children be able to read at the fourth grade
    level. And yet, oftentimes the system was so process oriented that the
    school districts would say, how old are you, and if you're 10, you're
    supposed to be here; and 11, here; 12, here--without wondering whether
    or not the child can read or write and add and subtract. So the basic
    principle inherent in No Child Left Behind, the philosophy of it,
    remained very much intact in the bill, and it's working.
        And the Medicare bill--a quite controversial bill--was one where
    Republicans wrote the bill, and there was some compromising inherent in
    the bill. Nevertheless, the two broad principles remained intact: one,
    if you're going to make a promise, reform the program so it's effective.
    So, like, for example, we paid thousands of dollars for surgery but not
    a dime for the prescription drugs that could prevent the surgery from
    being needed in the first place. And we put market-oriented principles
    in the bill. You probably remember the debate where the--you know, there
    was a big debate about how much would this cost. And the CBO came up
    with a number, and I think it's now 40 percent less than what was
    anticipated because of market principles. Nevertheless, the bill wasn't
    as strong on market principles as I would have liked to have seen it.
        And so yes, you're obviously making compromises all the time with
    Congress. The key is to compromise without compromising principle. You
    can compromise points, but don't sell out the principle that is inherent
    in the bill.

    National Economy

        Mr. DeMuth. You'll be surprised that
    I have several questions about the auto bailout. [Laughter] Let me put
    it in the context of this discussion. Isn't the Detroit bailout an
    example of interest groups thinking they can get a better deal from the
    executive branch than from the Congress?
        The President. That's an interesting way of putting it. First, let
    me take a step back.

    [[Page 1480]]

    I haven't made up my mind yet, so you're assuming something is going to
    happen. [Laughter] This is a difficult time for a free market person.
    Under ordinary circumstances, failed entities--failing entities should
    be allowed to fail.
        I have concluded these are not ordinary circumstances, for a lot of
    reasons. Our financial system is interwoven domestically,
    internationally. And we got to the point where, if a major institution
    were to fail, there is great likelihood that there would be a ripple
    effect throughout the world, and the average person would be really
    hurt.
        And what makes this issue difficult to explain is--to the average
    guy is, why should I be using my money because of excesses on Wall
    Street? And I understand that frustration. I completely understand why
    people are nervous about it. I was in the Roosevelt Room, and Chairman
    Bernanke and Secretary Paulson, after a month of every weekend where they're
    calling, saying, we got to do this for AIG, or this for Fannie and
    Freddie, came in and said, the financial markets are completely frozen,
    and if we don't do something about it, it is conceivable we will see a
    depression greater than the Great Depression.
        And so I analyzed that and decided I didn't want to be the President
    during a depression greater than the Great Depression or the beginning
    of a depression greater than the Great Depression. So we moved, and
    moved hard. The autos obviously are very fragile, and I've laid out a
    couple of principles. One, I am worried about a disorderly bankruptcy
    and what it would do to the psychology and the markets. They're
    beginning to thaw, but there's still a lot of uncertainty.
        I'm also worried about putting good money after bad; that means
    whether or not these autos will become viable in the future. And
    frankly, there's one other consideration, and that is, I feel an
    obligation to my successor. I've thought about what it would be like for
    me to become President during this period. I have an--I believe that
    good policy is not to dump him a major catastrophe in his first day of
    office. So those are some of the considerations that we're weighing.
        What was the question on autos? [Laughter]

    U.S. Auto Industry

        Mr. DeMuth. The President-elect
    said----
        The President. Oh, you said Congress and the executive branch.
        Mr. DeMuth. Yes, yes.
        The President. Well, just remember a majority of Congress voted for
    a plan that we thought was a good plan. It didn't get the requisite
    votes in the Senate in order to move it on, but there was a majority
    vote if you add up the House and the Senate. So the Congress, in one
    way, expressed its will for a way forward with some--with a plan, or a
    strategy for viability.
        Mr. DeMuth. But there must be some
    question in your mind whether the two political branches are better at
    bankruptcy restructuring than a bankruptcy court. I mean, we do have a
    law.
        The President. Absolutely.
        Mr. DeMuth. Do you think when
    everybody stops----
        The President. I think under normal circumstances, no question, the
    bankruptcy court is the best way to sort through credit and debt and
    restructuring, no question. These aren't normal circumstances; that's
    the problem. This is--it's a hard issue for political people, because
    people never know how bad it could have been. And so the decisions you
    make are easy to--for people to say, ``Why did he do that? Why is he
    wasting our money on this?'' Or, ``Why is he doing that?'' Because
    without a catastrophe, the reasoning doesn't--it just doesn't really
    make it down to the grassroots.
        People look at, ``My money being used because Wall Street got
    excessive.'' And I

    [[Page 1481]]

    make the case that I didn't want to do this. It's the last thing I
    wanted to do. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to do it, because it would
    make life worse for you. We lost 533,000 jobs last month. What would
    another million jobs lost do to the economy? What would that do to the
    psychology in markets? What would that do--how would that affect the
    working people? And so as you can tell, we're all in, in this
    administration. And if need be, we'll be in for more.

    National Economy

        Mr. DeMuth. It may be bad form to
    recall campaign rhetoric during a transition, but I remember President-
    elect Obama during the campaign blaming the crisis on Bush deregulation.
    Do you have any opinion on that assessment of the causes?
        The President. I'm looking forward to the true history of this
    financial crisis being written. No question, part of the crisis came
    about because of excesses in lending in the housing market. My
    administration early on expressed concern about implicit government
    guarantees and the mortgage industry in Fannie and Freddie, and that we
    were concerned about excesses in lending and concerned about Freddie and
    Fannie having too much capacity to lend because of the implicit
    guarantee. And so we called for a regulator.
        But this will all be sorted out when they finally analyze what went
    right or what went wrong. When you're the President, you can think about
    what went right and what went wrong; you can analyze it. But when you're
    getting phone calls from the Secretary of the Treasury saying, we got to do something on AIG, otherwise
    there could be an international collapse, that's where your mind is. And
    that's where my mind--it turns out this isn't one of the Presidencies
    where you ride off into the sunset, you know, kind of--[laughter]--
    waving goodbye.

    President's Advice to Elected Officials

        Mr. DeMuth. Do you have--on Fannie
    and Freddie, do you have any advice for our new President, such as that
    they be abolished? [Laughter]
        The President. No, my advice for all elected officials after this
    crisis passes is to remember that markets and free enterprise is what
    made the country great, and that these measures were temporary measures.
    They're not an excuse for the Government to be running automobile
    companies, if that's the decision I make, or for the Government to be
    always involved in mortgages; that there is a proper role for
    Government, which is oversight; and that the role of Government really
    is to create an environment in which risk takers feel comfortable taking
    risk and where capital moves as freely as possible.
        That's why I am a big believer in free trade, for example. Trade
    opens markets; trade gives--and fair trade, I might add--and trade gives
    people an opportunity to risk and have their products sold in
    environments other than the domestic environment.
        The danger is, of course, that people who believe the government can
    manage the economy better than the private sector will use this decision
    as an excuse to keep Government involved. And that's why AEI is going to
    be important long after my Presidency, to be talking about the merits of
    markets and the merits of free enterprise.
        I hosted this international conference, and what was interesting out
    of the international conference was that people said we should defend
    the marketplace and defend trade. One of the great fears I have is--a
    couple of things--one, that the United States could become isolationist.
    We have done so in the past, and it's kind of a--could be a fatigue
    about helping liberate people or helping people advance or helping
    people on HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa--you know: ``We're tired
    of doing this. Can't other people do it?''

    [[Page 1482]]

    That could lead to isolationism. I'm very worried about that. The world
    needs America's involvement. We're a compassionate, decent, strong
    nation.
        And I'm worried about protectionism. Protectionism tends to be the
    twin of isolationism. And I'm worried about protectionism because I--if
    you study the economic past, protectionism is what caused the Great
    Depression to be a greater depression: Smoot-Hawley Tariff. If you're
    interested in development and helping poor nations become less poor,
    then you ought to be an advocate for trade. It's one thing to give out
    grants, but the amount of wealth generated by trade overwhelms the
    amount of money that the world gives out in grants.
        And so anyway, keep going.

    Government Bureaucracy

        Mr. DeMuth. Keep going. I have a
    question or two about inside the executive branch.
        The President. Okay.
        Mr. DeMuth. Presidents also have to
    contend with the fourth branch of Government; that is the bureaucracy,
    the permanent Government.
        The President. Oh, I thought you were going to say the press.
    [Laughter]
        Mr. DeMuth. We'll leave the press----
        The President. Symbiotic relationship with the press, I want you to
    know.
        Mr. DeMuth. That's right, it's the
    bureaucracy and the press. The bureaucracy can outmaneuver the White
    House. And domestic and foreign policy agencies have, you may have
    noticed, opposed your policies and undermined them on occasion. And I
    wonder if you have any advice for future Presidents about how to contend
    with that very difficult problem.
        The President. Make sure information gets into the Oval Office on a
    timely basis so that when you find bureaucracies delaying policy, then
    you do something about it. It's not inevitable that--the best
    bureaucratic move, if people disagree with policy, is just to delay and
    hope the President isn't paying attention.
        And so therefore, the structure of the office is going to be
    important, and I've tried to keep a relatively flat organizational chart
    so that key players can come into the office on a regular basis. I did
    so for two reasons. I like to hear different points of view, and I want
    people to feel comfortable coming and saying, ``Here's what I think,''
    or, ``Here's this delay taking place.'' ``Do you understand that you
    said this and then nothing has happened, Mr. President?''
        And the other thing is, is that a lot of the job is to build a sense
    of teamwork, a sense of team. Listen, these people in the White House
    work incredibly long hours. And if they don't see the President, it
    creates anxieties. And so people walk in, and they tell me what's on
    their mind. They go home and say, ``You know, I told him--you know, I
    saw the President.'' [Laughter] They didn't say whether I listened or
    not. [Laughter]
        And so one way to deal with the bureaucracy is to be well informed.
    And the best way to be well informed is to make sure you have an
    organization that enables information to get in the Oval Office in a
    timely fashion. And therefore, you're going to need to have a Chief of
    Staff--at least this is the way I thought it should be done; I'm not
    telling anybody else how to do it. You scholars can figure out whether
    it's right or wrong, how it's worked relative to other Presidents.
        But my Chiefs of Staff, Andy Card
    and Josh Bolten, are--have been--are
    unusual people because they have not said, everybody must go to me
    before you go see the President. In other words, they're not junior
    prime ministers. They are facilitators who understand that this system
    suits me best, and therefore, aren't jealous about the time that I
    allocate to somebody who they haven't necessarily blessed in the White
    House, in the Oval Office. And so it's worked pretty good.

    [[Page 1483]]

    President's Staff

        Mr. DeMuth. That's fascinating. Let
    me pursue one point that you made. Ronald Reagan was once asked if it
    was true that his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense were
    arguing openly in front of him. And he said, ``All the time.'' Have you
    encouraged people to argue to move the hard questions in the Oval
    Office?
        The President. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Creating tension is good
    for decisionmaking, so long as it doesn't become destructive. And I see
    Leon there; we've had some serious debates inside
    the White House on stem cell. And they were open, and they were--all
    opinions were welcomed. And there was a variety of opinions.
        Sometimes issues are easy to resolve, where the national security
    adviser and the domestic policy adviser could come in and say, ``We've
    discussed the issue internally, Mr. President, and we all agree.'' But
    in matters of war, for example, there's difference of opinions, the
    surge, for example. There was a lot of different opinions on the surge.
    And that's the way it should be. People say, ``Well, do you ever hear
    any other voices other than, like, a few people?'' Of course I do. And I
    have enjoyed listening to the debates among people I work with. And I
    also like the idea of people being able to walk into the Oval Office and
    said, ``Have you thought of this?'' Or, ``The debate is headed this way;
    I'd like you to consider this.''
        And sometimes that can be disruptive, obviously, but the President
    has got to have a--be grounded enough and have enough judgment to know
    how to manage the advisers.

    Bioethics/Stem Cell Research

        Mr. DeMuth. You mentioned stem cell
    research.
        The President. Yes.
        Mr. DeMuth. Some people forget that
    before 9/11, that was one of the big issues of your first months in
    office.
        The President. It was.
        Mr. DeMuth. It was the subject of
    your first national address on television.
        The President. It was.
        Mr. DeMuth. And I wonder if looking
    back, you think--what you think you're most important legacy is in the
    area of bioethics? And what you think your most important
    accomplishments were? If there was more that could have been done?
        The President. Well, I told the American people I believe in a
    culture of life. I believe a healthy society is one that protects the
    most vulnerable among us. And clearly, the most vulnerable among us are
    those who aren't born yet. Obviously, abortion is a very controversial
    subject, and it's one that creates a lot of emotions.
        I try to diffuse the emotions by saying, look, good people disagree
    on the issue; I understand that. But throughout my Presidency, I have
    tried to help advance the culture of life. And one of the really classic
    tensions between the culture of life is that with science. And it's--
    Leon Kass instructed me throughout this process
    that tensions existed for a long time and will continue to exist.
        And the fundamental question with stem cells is, do you destroy life
    to save life? And it's a difficult issue for a lot of people. I came
    down on the side that there are other opportunities available to save
    lives other than the destruction of life. And secondly, I was concerned
    about using taxpayers' money to--that would end up destroying life.
    There's a lot of people in our country that don't want their money spent
    on--for that purpose.
        I developed a policy, which I thought sounded rational. And that is,
    there have been some stem cells lines already developed, embryonic stem
    cell lines developed prior to this decision; therefore, we should go
    forward with research on them. But from that point forward, no
    destruction of life with Federal money. Since then, adult skin cells
    have been used to develop the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. And so
    science has advanced, and at the same

    [[Page 1484]]

    time, we were able to stake a claim for the culture of life. It was a
    very emotional issue. And that's what happens when you confront
    controversial topics.
        And I believe the President should have a core set of beliefs and
    stand on those beliefs.

    Health Care System/Prescription Drugs

        Mr. DeMuth. Thank you. The U.S. is
    one of the--it's the only advanced society that doesn't have
    comprehensive price controls on pharmaceutical drugs. We have the
    highest-priced drugs, and we have the highest rate of innovation in
    lifesaving new drugs. We're moving, clearly, toward increased price
    controls at the administrative level and in Congress. Pharmaceutical
    companies are cutting back on their R&D investments. Do you think this
    trend is inevitable? Do you think that your Medicare Part D reforms will
    make that problem worse, or by introducing market mechanisms, help be
    the solution?
        The President. The whole medical debate is headed toward whether or
    not the Government ought to be setting the price of medicine. I believe
    that we ought to resist that and cause markets to flourish. And we don't
    have a real functioning market in health care right now. I'm going to
    get to the drugs in a minute but--generically, to use a drug term that
    the problem is, is that you've got many people's policies being paid by
    somebody else, and there's--so therefore, there's no market. People
    don't say, well, how much is this costing, or what's the quality of
    health care with this person or this hospital?
        So the consumer--there's no consumerism. There's no demand for
    better price. And so part of the policies I described early were to,
    like, do health savings accounts or changing the Tax Codes, all aiming
    at putting the patient in the midst of the market, getting that person
    to demand better quality at better price.
        In terms of drugs, I am concerned about Government pricing drugs to
    the point where drug manufacturers don't have enough capital to keep
    reinvesting in new discoveries. One of the great things about our
    medicine is we're the best in the world. And all policy ought to be
    aimed at keeping us the best in the world. There are policies in place
    that allow manufacturers to amortize the cost of their R&D, and then
    generics become available. And it seems like to me that we can do a
    better job of making people aware of generic drugs.
        And part of Medicare Part D does just that. It shows seniors what
    options are available, and they get to choose a variety of plans. I
    remember the debates on Medicare. People said, well--and kind of
    inherent in the debate was this sense of--that, well, maybe seniors
    don't know how to choose things. You know, they're used to the
    Government plan, and therefore, isn't it a--too much of an imposition to
    provide people with all different options? And when we were selling the
    Medicare reform, I can remember going to senior centers, and there would
    be seniors looking at 10 different plans to choose from. And people were
    competing for their business. And these plans would go out and find the
    generics, to make them available.
        And so I--the marketplace is a much better allocator of resources
    than the Government trying to allocate resources. And secondly, the
    American people need to know, if somebody needs financial help, if
    somebody is poor and destitute, they'll get help in our system. And
    there's a lot of help for people who are destitute.

    National Economy

        Mr. DeMuth. A related question is the
    ownership society, a major theme of yours. Will it survive the financial
    crisis? Will we recover our bearings? Are the initiatives you put
    forward in the name of greater ownership going to--are they going to
    come back after----
        The President. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, you know, the
    danger, of course, is that Government stays so involved that

    [[Page 1485]]

    markets don't really develop. Just some thoughts on this: I am--the
    markets sometimes create excesses. We're living through the consequences
    of the excess.
        I quipped in Texas that Wall Street got drunk, and we got a
    hangover. And that's what happened. There wasn't much transparency.
    There was so much liquidity that people felt like they needed to invent
    product to get in front of the money train. And the danger, of course,
    will be that we--instead of having rational regulation that's balanced,
    we'll overregulate. And if we do, then it's going to make it harder for
    the ownership society, because it's going to make it harder for free
    enterprise to flourish. But the idea of owning small businesses has been
    a integral part of our country's past and should be in the future.
        The key there is the tax policy. Will we price small businesses out
    of the capacity to retain capital and grow? So most small businesses pay
    individual income taxes because they're subchapter S or limited
    partnerships. And so when you hear people say, ``tax the rich,'' when
    they start raising that upper bracket, they're also taxing a lot of
    small-business owners. And policy ought to be asking the question, how
    do we encourage small business ownership growth, not how do we penalize
    it?
        So overregulating the overall economy will make it harder for the
    ownership society, and I just hope that doesn't happen. I don't think it
    will. I understand the concerns; I share the concerns, and there's going
    to be a lot of people like AEI speaking out against keeping the
    Government at the helm of the economy. And good tax policy and good
    regulatory policy beyond that will help small businesses grow. That's an
    integral part of the ownership society.
        Same with housing. The key on housing is, obviously, the interest
    rates: How much does it cost to buy a house? And people are going to own
    homes. And the housing market will lead this recovery when it starts.
    And it's going to take a while though. I'm not an economist, but it'll
    take a while. And there are some encouraging signs, not many, but some.
    Evidently the amount of mortgage applications rose, which is a good
    sign. I don't know whether that's working off unsold homes yet, but it's
    a good sign.
        And by the way, there's a lot of talk about stimulus. And I'd like
    to remind our fellow citizens, there is a stimulus package taking place
    right now, and that is the reduction of gasoline prices. And the
    reduction of gasoline prices from July to now on an amortized basis--if
    you take the reduction here, and you amortize it over a year, it's about
    $2,000 a family, which is an effective stimulus package.

    Energy

        Mr. DeMuth. Let me ask you two
    questions, if I may, about energy policy. The first is, are you
    satisfied with the progress in recent years in reviving nuclear energy?
    The second is about ethanol. The question says, ``Ethanol subsidies are
    popular with politicians of both parties''----
        The President. Like me.
        Mr. DeMuth. ----``but not with
    ordinary folk outside the State of Iowa.'' [Laughter] Does this have
    something to do with the timing of the first presidential primary?
        The President. Sounds like some of my friends in Texas asking that
    question. [Laughter]
        Mr. DeMuth. You can talk about
    nuclear power.
        The President. Yes. [Laughter] The country needs to overcome its
    fear about nuclear power if we want to have ample electricity so we can
    grow and be good stewards of the environment.
        Part of the problem with nuclear power was that the regulatory
    scheme was such that people would risk a lot of capital and then have to
    seek permission for final approval late in the process and would find
    themselves tied up in a court of law. And so they had enormous capital
    spent, earning no money, waiting for permission to build

    [[Page 1486]]

    the plant. And therefore, capital chose not to go into the nuclear
    industry.
        In terms of safety, the engineering has changed dramatically from
    the past. And I think people who are objective on this issue would tell
    you that nuclear power plants are very safe.
        In terms of regulatory relief, as a result of the last energy bill I
    signed--I think it's the last energy bill--we began to streamline the
    process, and as well was we provided some insurance incentives for
    people to start building. I'm satisfied that we're beginning to change
    the environment. I'm satisfied that more Americans understand why we
    ought to be using nuclear power. I am pleased that there are, I think,
    like, 13 permits that have been on application. And I am pleased that
    some plants are beginning to expand on their current footprint.
        I am not pleased about how slow we're moving overall though. I think
    we ought to really get after nuclear power, I mean, if we really want to
    solve our dependency upon foreign energy.
        What's going to happen is, by the way, the technologies will help
    change our habits. For example, there's going to be battery technologies
    in automobiles that will enable people to drive the first 40 miles on
    electricity. And everybody is going to--oh, that's great, hybrid plug-in
    batteries. The question will be, where do we get the electricity? And
    it's very important to pursue nuclear energy.
        Secondly, I'm a big supporter--I presume I'm one of those guys you
    were talking about on ethanol, pandering to the corn. Actually, I think
    it's important--I felt it was important to begin a diversification of
    our energy sources. And whether or not the ethanol market will stay
    viable, I don't know, but it has certainly become a relatively
    significant part of our mix right now. And I laid out a mandatory goal
    that we ought to head toward, because I'd rather have our farmers
    growing our energy than rely upon certain parts of the world that don't
    like us.

    Presidential Transition/Defense Spending/U.S. Armed Forces

        Mr. DeMuth. You mentioned the word
    stimulus. And as you know, your successor is thinking about a big new
    stimulus program emphasizing public works, I believe. An issue that has
    interested a lot of people at AEI recently is this: While we're looking
    for public expenditures to help stimulate the economy, we're also at a
    point where defense expenditures are I think something like 3.4 or 3.5
    percent of GDP, very, very constrained. A lot of weapons systems that a
    lot of people like to buy from us are being closed down, even after
    we've only produced fewer of the weapons than had been anticipated.
        One of the things we're pursuing is that a very effective stimulus
    program would be a significant increase in defense expenditures. Have
    these ideas been kicking around the White House, the Pentagon? This is
    just think-tankery so far. I wonder if----
        The President. No, that's good. I'm glad you're doing it. No, no,
    we're not going to tell President-elect Obama
    how to run his administration, nor will I spend a lot of time second-
    guessing him. I believe once the President gets off the stage, you get
    off the stage and let the next man do the job.
        Matter of fact, I worked hard to make this transition a smooth
    transition. I want him to succeed. And I know you do as well. And so we
    really haven't been trying to help him fashion an economic policy. It's
    his job when he gets sworn in.
        And I fully understand, however, your concerns about the defense
    budgeting. There will be a lot of debate about systems, what's relevant
    and what's not relevant. One of the successes of this administration--
    and Secretary Rumsfeld gets a lot of

    [[Page 1487]]

    credit for having started a major transformation of our military, so
    that the weapons systems we build are relevant to the war that we're
    going to be fighting in the 21st century, or hopefully, not fighting,
    but be prepared to fight.
        I'm sure you follow this, Chris.
    We've changed our basing around the world so that our forces no longer
    are configured based upon cold war problems, but based upon the ability
    to keep morale high and move quickly. Our soldiers are carrying
    unbelievably new technologies, using Predators to use over-the-wall
    intelligence to be able to have better battlefield awareness. They're
    well equipped.
        In terms of the big systems, those will be choices that are always
    in conflict. I can remember campaigning in 2000, and they said, ``Name a
    weapons system you'll get rid of.'' I said, the Arrow. [Laughter] I
    think it was the Arrow system; not the bow and arrow, but it was a big,
    huge cannon. And it turns out, the cannon had parts made in 42 States.
    Needless to say, it was hard to put the cannon on the shelf. I didn't
    think we needed a huge cannon that required enormous ships and trucks to
    move around in a--what turns out to be a battle that requires special
    operators to move in the dark of night, on real-time intelligence, in a
    quick way.
        So there will be a lot of debate about weapons systems, no question
    about it. And a lot of communities around the country rely upon defense
    spending and the jobs that accrue as a result of defense spending.
        By the way, people say, ``What are you going to miss?'' I know I'm
    not--I'm asking myself questions. [Laughter] But I'm going to miss being
    the Commander in Chief of our military. My view of America is obviously
    different from everybody else's, but I get to look at these troops, and
    I marvel at their courage. And I marvel at the fact that these folks
    have volunteered in a time of war.
        And the Commander in Chief--at least I've tried to say to our
    troops: Thank you. Thank you for your courage; thank your families. You
    do that by visiting the wounded and meeting with the families of the
    fallen. I've been reading a lot about Abraham Lincoln recently. I just
    finished James McPherson's book, and once
    again, he talks about how Lincoln would visit with the enlisted folks as
    well as the generals, visit with the widows as well as the moms, visit
    with the wounded. And it's going to be very important for the country as
    we head down the future to recognize that this all-volunteer force is--
    needs to be sustained by commitment as well as--by monetary commitment
    as well as psychological commitment. We got to be with these kids.

    War on Terror

        Mr. DeMuth. Another book that you
    famously read was Eliot Cohen's ``Supreme Command.'' And he later went
    to work for you.
        The President. Yes, he did.
        Mr. DeMuth. Do you think he got it
    right in that book?
        The President. I can't even remember the book. [Laughter] I remember
    reading it, but give me a synopsis. [Laughter]
        Mr. DeMuth. That----
        The President. You can't remember it either. [Laughter]
        Mr. DeMuth. No. [Laughter]
        The President. Just teasing. Did he work
    for you at AEI? Is that why you're----
        Mr. DeMuth. He was on our council of
    academic advisers.
        The President. Yes, okay. I did read it.
        Mr. DeMuth. The essential point is
    that in history, in wartime, Presidents do well not leaving the war to
    the military, but being the supreme commander themselves.
        The President. Oh, that's right, yes. Well, you're going to have to
    rely upon the military a lot. There's four basic constituencies for a
    President during war; one is the American people. And this has been a
    difficult assignment, to convince the people that what happens in Iraq
    matters to our own security at home, that what happens

    [[Page 1488]]

    in Afghanistan matters to the security, and that--the first task was to
    remove the regimes that threatened peace and threatened our security.
    And the next task is to not replace one strongman with another, but
    encourage a democracy to grow, because we're in an ideological struggle.
    And it's the ideology of liberty that defeats the ideology of hate every
    time.
        A second constituency was the enemy. And they got to know we're
    going to go after them all times, all places, unrelenting pressure on
    them.
        Third, in the case of Iraq, were the Iraqi people; they wanted to
    know whether or not America was going to keep its word, because if not,
    they're going to find a local militia that could keep their families
    safe.
        And the fourth is the military. And the military must know that the
    mission is just, the goals are clear, and the President will not be
    making decisions with their lives based upon an opinion poll. And,
    anyway.

    Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia

        Mr. DeMuth. Thank you. You said that
    you'd entertain a question or two about foreign policy.
        The President. Sure.
        Mr. DeMuth. Let me ask you another
    one. You caught a lot of flak for saying that you'd looked into Vladimir
    Putin's soul and seen a friend.
        The President. I looked in his eyes and saw his soul.
        Mr. DeMuth. In his eyes and saw his
    soul.
        The President. Right.
        Mr. DeMuth. Thank you. He----
        The President. Sometimes Presidents get misquoted. [Laughter]

    Russia-U.S. Relations

        Mr. DeMuth. That was in I think 2001.
    And the Putin of 2004 was very different, and in 2008 is different
    still. What's your thinking on the evolution of the Kremlin during your
    Presidency?
        The President. First of all, there's common ground between Russia
    and the United States. And one area of common concern is the issue of
    proliferation. And there's a lot of cooperation taking place to work
    constructively with Russia to make sure that raw materials don't get in
    the hands of rogue regimes or terrorist groups.
        Secondly, we found common ground on Iran, believe it or not. People
    don't think we have, but I know we have. And that is that the Russians
    are just as worried about Iran developing a nuclear weapon and the
    capacity to deliver it as we are.
        And I've told this story publicly, that Vladimir and I were talking--I think it was, like, '06 maybe--and
    he went to the leader in Iran and said,
    ``You know, George Bush thinks you should have civilian nuclear power
    and so do I, but we don't believe you should have the right to make that
    uranium, to enrich it, because you've violated IAEA treaties, and
    therefore, we don't believe you're trustworthy. And therefore, why don't
    you just take--we'll deliver the fuel, and we'll pick up the fuel, and
    you can have your nuclear power. And if you continue to insist on
    enriching, it must mean you want something other than nuclear power--
    civilian nuclear power like you've claimed.''
        Obviously, we have big differences over Georgia. And I saw
    Vladimir at the Olympics right as the
    troops moved into Georgia. And I was--I expressed my concerns, and he
    expressed his. I would say that our relationship is still friendly,
    although I haven't seen him much because there's a new
    President. And I really haven't had that
    much of a chance to get to know President Medvedev.
        I will tell you that--my only point is there's common interests, and
    there's going to be a lot of tensions. And the President has got to be
    in a position where he can deal with those tensions in a way that
    doesn't send chilling signals with other allies.

    [[Page 1489]]

    President-Elect Barack Obama

        Mr. DeMuth. I have a few general
    questions. At some point--maybe it's already happened--you'll sit down
    with President-elect Obama and give him a little candid President-to-
    President advice, lessons learned. Would you be willing to share any of
    that advice with the rest of us?
        The President. No. [Laughter] He came in the Oval Office. We had a
    very good discussion. I was impressed by the questions he asked. And I
    told him I wouldn't reveal them, so that if he ever asked for my advice
    again, he would feel comfortable doing it knowing that it wouldn't be
    out there for public consumption.
        I'll tell you this though, I will say this: The guy loves his family
    a lot. And we spent some time talking about what it meant to be--for me
    to be a dad with two daughters in the White House. And he's a dad who will have
    two daughters in the White House. And his family is a top priority
    for him.

    Presidential Advice for Conservatives

        Mr. DeMuth. I have another advice-
    like question. Political conservatives believe that they're in for a
    period in the wilderness. What advice do you have for political
    conservatives in the years ahead?
        The President. Look at history. I think you're old enough to
    remember 1964. Nineteen sixty-four was a wipeout for conservatives and
    Republicans. In my State of Texas, the legislature was 149 Democrats and
    1 Republican. [Laughter] And there were no Republicans in the State
    senate. I think there was one elected Congressman--Bruce Alger out of Dallas--and John Tower wasn't up for
    election. I don't know if there were any elected Republicans at the
    courthouse. And yet in 1966, Republicans and conservatives rebounded;
    one of whom got elected that year, it was George H.W. Bush, by the way, out of Houston.
        And my point is, is that things go in cycles in politics. Now,
    what--in order to win, it's important to recruit good candidates who
    stand on principle. Most Americans believe what we believe: that
    Government ought to be limited and wise; that taxes ought to be low;
    that we ought to encourage entrepreneurship and small businesses; and
    that we ought to have a strong national defense.
        And I'm a little concerned about the tone of the immigration debate,
    labeling our party as ``anti'' people. It's one thing to say they want
    the border enforced, and I understand that. But if a group of people
    think that a political party is against them, it doesn't matter what
    else you stand for. And the tone, in my judgment, at times got to be
    ``anti.'' At one point in our history we had too many Jewish people and
    too many Italians. I don't know if you remember that. And it was--I'm
    just confident people were saying, ``I can't believe this is the America
    that I came to live in, where I'm `anti'--people are `anti' me.''
        And so we're going to have to work, like, with the Latino vote to
    say, we care about you, we hear you, and we share your values: faith and
    family, small businesses, military vets or, you know, disproportionate--
    more Latinos serve as a percentage of their--of population in the
    military than any other group, if I'm not mistaken.
        So we'll come back, absolutely. And I'll be out there, the old sage,
    sitting around, you know--[laughter]--``if only you did it this way.''
    [Laughter]

    President's Post-Presidency Agenda

        Mr. DeMuth. I have a couple of old
    sage questions for you.
        The President. Sure, an old sage at 62, but----
        Mr. DeMuth. Well----
        The President. ----headed to retirement. [Laughter]
        Mr. DeMuth. Immigration is a subject
    that you've--you thought a lot about----
        The President. I have.
        Mr. DeMuth. ----before you came to
    the White House, had very strong views on. Is this one of the issues
    that you might

    [[Page 1490]]

    stay involved in in your post-White House----
        The President. I'm going to stay involved in the freedom initiative,
    that's for certain. I am concerned that our country becomes
    isolationist, I really am. I--you know, there is a debate that basically
    says, well, maybe certain people shouldn't be free. It's like if you
    ever heard--people say, ``Bush is imposing his view.'' Well, if you ever
    hear somebody say that, they must not understand the universality of
    freedom. Freedom is not mine to give. I happen to believe it's a gift of
    an Almighty to everybody. And therefore, the role of the United States
    is to help people be free. And that--you know, sometimes, obviously, you
    never want to use--I mean, you only use your military reluctantly.
        But I'm not talking about just freedom from tyranny, I'm talking
    about freedom from disease. You know, an enemy that we face, and will
    face for the next decades, can only recruit when they find hopeless
    people. Think about their recruiting posters: ``Hey, join us, you get to
    be a suicide bomber.'' You have to be pretty hopeless to fall prey to
    that evil.
        And so therefore, it's in our national interests to help free people
    from poverty and disease.
        And so I'll be involved with the freedom movement. I'm particularly
    involved right now with the malaria and HIV/AIDS initiative, PEPFAR. I
    will be involved with free trade. As I told you, I'm worried about
    protectionism. I am very disappointed that the Colombia free trade
    agreement and the Panama free trade agreement and the South Korea free
    trade agreement did not get a vote prior to the election.
        An initiative that I believe is a very important initiative is the
    faith-based and community-based initiative. The fundamental principle
    behind that initiative is, if your program works, we should help you, if
    it meets a societal need. For example, if you're a drug addict, and you
    know, you believe you need a higher power to help heal your heart so you
    get off drugs, and the program that you're going to works, I have no
    problem giving a voucher to that person so they can redeem it at a
    program that works.
        And so there will be a lot of things I'm going to do out of Southern
    Methodist University. I will--this will not compete with AEI. It's going
    to be a policy center; it will be complementary--[laughter]--to AEI.
        Mr. DeMuth. We've talked to them.
        The President. And we'll be living in Texas. Laura is going to be--listen, my wife has been a fabulous
    First Lady, she really has. She has used her position to be able to
    articulate some important causes. She heralds teachers, she promotes
    literacy, she believes strongly in freedom in Burma, and she is very
    much involved in the Afghan women. And she will continue doing--using
    her position as ex-First Lady to do that.

    The Presidency/Texas Sport Teams

        Mr. DeMuth. I have two more questions
    along these same lines.
        The President. Okay.
        Mr. DeMuth. These are very serious
    questions, and I'll ask them both. The first is, what will you miss the
    least? [Laughter] And the second is, when you're back in the Lone Star
    State, which sports teams are you going to be paying the most attention
    to?
        The President. All Texas teams, of course. You know, I have been--
    first of all, some will probably say, ``Oh, the press.'' Well, that's
    not true. I've had a good relationship with the White House press. I
    don't like some of the things they say. Of course, they don't like some
    of the things I say. But we've had a good relationship with the press.
    And the press and the Presidency is a very important relationship, and
    it requires a lot of work to get along. But I recognize they need me for
    news, and I need them for outlets. And so it's been a good relationship
    in some ways. I don't--as I say, I don't like everything they write,

    [[Page 1491]]

    so therefore, ignore that part that I don't like. [Laughter]
        I'll miss the petty name-calling--I mean, I won't miss it. I have
    been disappointed at times about the politics of personal destruction.
    It's not the first time it's ever happened in our history, but I was--I
    came with the idea of changing the tone in Washington, and frankly,
    didn't do a very good job of it. You know, war brings out a lot of
    heated rhetoric and a lot of emotion; I fully understand that. I know
    that's the case. But surely we can do a better job in Washington of
    treating each other with respect. I don't want to be a self-serving
    fellow, but I have never used my position as President to personally
    denigrate somebody.
        And so that's something--I'm not going to miss it at all. I'm
    disappointed in how--the words that came out of people's mouth, and I'm
    very disappointed of how the process has treated some of my friends. I'm
    disappointed in the judicial process, for example, where our nominees
    just got held out there forever. Never had a chance to get a hearing,
    and yet all kinds of stuff were occasionally floated on them about their
    reputations. It's going to be hard to attract good people to the
    political process if people show up and feel like that their integrity
    or decency will be, you know, challenged at every turn. There's nothing
    wrong with challenging policy. There is something wrong with tearing
    people down for the--trying to help somebody else gain politically.
        And I won't miss--I'll miss a lot. As I told you, I'll miss being
    the Commander in Chief. I'll miss the people I've worked with in the
    White House. We have a--I tell people, some days happy, some days not so
    happy, every day is joyous. And that's a true statement. I'm working
    with some awesome people, and I love them dearly and will miss seeing
    them every morning. But since I'll be an e-mailer again, I'm sure I'll
    be able to--[laughter]--stay in touch.
        Mr. DeMuth. President Bush, I--permit
    me to thank you for coming over here and for these very deep
    reflections. I'd also like to impose my thanks and that of my colleagues
    to you for your great service to America----
        The President. Thank you.
        Mr. DeMuth. ----and for your
    steadiness of purpose and your tremendous optimism and idealism and
    serenity of mind, which has been just astonishing to behold.
        The President. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. DeMuth. And I know that these
    will not be your last words, and I know that we all look forward to
    welcoming you back to AEI as Citizen Bush early and often.
        The President. Thank you, sir. Thanks for letting me come by. God
    bless.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:44 a.m. at the Renaissance Mayflower
    Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Christopher DeMuth, president,
    American Enterprise Institute; Leon Kass, former Chairman, President's
    Council on Bioethics; former Secretary of State George P. Shultz; former
    Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; President Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad
    of Iran; President Dmitry A. Medvedev of Russia; and former Rep. Bruce
    R. Alger. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a Spanish
    language transcript of these remarks. A portion of these remarks could
    not be verified because the tape was incomplete.

    [[Page 1492]]