[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 41, Number 9 (Monday, March 7, 2005)]
[Pages 332-340]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 
Leadership Conference

March 1, 2005

    Thank you all. Thank you for coming. Please be seated. Thanks for 
coming. Thank you for the warm welcome. It is great to be here with 
leaders from around our country who are leading our Nation's faith-based 
and community groups.
    I am here to talk about my continued commitment to faith-based and 
community groups because I'm firmly committed to making sure every 
American can realize the promise of our country. It is said that faith 
can move mountains. Here in Washington, DC, those helping the poor and 
needy often run up against a big mountain--[laughter]--called 
bureaucracy. And I'm here to talk about how to move that mountain so 
that we can reach out and partner with programs which reach out to 
people who hurt.
    You know, one of the tests of character for America is how we treat 
the weakest of our citizens. Interesting test, isn't it? What are we 
doing in Government to help people who need help? Part of the test of 
Government is to understand the limitations of Government. Government--
when I think about

[[Page 333]]

Government, I think about law and justice; I really don't think about 
love. Government has got to find ways to empower those whose mission is 
based upon love in order to help those who need love find love in 
society. That's really what we're here to talk about.
    I was talking earlier with some of our leaders, and I was reminding 
them that I think de Tocqueville, the Frenchman who came to America in 
the early 1800s, really figured out America in a unique way when he said 
that ``Americans like to form association in order to help save lives. 
Americans formed association in order to channel the individualistic 
inputs of our society to enable people to serve a cause greater than 
themselves.''
    Really, what we're doing is we're carrying on that philosophy today, 
a vision and philosophy that I think makes America a unique country and 
gives us, those of us responsible for helping lives, a unique 
opportunity to empower people, encourage people, partner with people to 
save lives in America. And that's what we're here to talk about today.
    I want to thank the members of my administration who've joined us, 
because the efforts to partner with faith-based and community programs 
require a commitment by all of us in the administration, not just the 
President or not just the people in the White House Office but people 
throughout Government.
    Margaret Spellings--Madam Secretary, thank you for coming. I 
appreciate you. She's the Secretary of the Department of Education. I 
see my friend Robert McCallum, who's the Associate Attorney General for 
the Department of Justice. Thank you for coming, Robert. Hector Barreto 
is the Administrator for the Small Business Administration. Yes, there 
is a connection between faith- and community-based groups and business. 
It's called helping make sure the entrepreneurial spirit and 
entrepreneurial know-how reaches every corner of America.
    I want to thank David Eisner, the CEO of the Corporation for 
National and Community Service, for joining us. And I want to thank 
Stephen Goldsmith, sitting right next to David, who's the Chairman. I 
want to appreciate everybody else who is here from my administration. 
Make sure you get back to work right after the speech is over. 
[Laughter]
    I appreciate three Members of the United States Congress who have 
joined us: Congressman Mike Ferguson from New Jersey; Congressman Mark 
Green from Wisconsin; and Congressman Jim Ryun from Kansas. I'm not 
interested in jogging--[laughter]--if you know what I mean.
    I appreciate the leaders in the armies of compassion--one of my 
favorite phrases, the armies of compassion. It's a strong word, isn't 
it? I want to thank the generals and sergeants and privates--
[laughter]--who are here from the armies of compassion. Thank you all 
for taking time out of your day to come and hopefully be reassured that 
this initiative is one that has got a lot of momentum and impetus and 
reassured that we want to help change America.
    I appreciate the fact that many in this room have come from many 
different faiths and traditions. The Faith-Based Initiative is not about 
a single faith. In this country we're great because we've got many 
faiths, and we're great because you can choose--whatever faith you 
choose or if you choose no faith at all, you're still equally American. 
It's one of the great traditions of America that we will always hold 
sacred and always should hold sacred.
    But no matter what your faith is, we're united in the conviction 
that to whom much is given, much is expected, and that the liberty and 
prosperity we enjoy, the great freedom we enjoy in America, with that 
freedom comes an obligation to reach out to brothers and sisters who 
hurt. And so I recognize--and the first point I want to make is, I 
recognize the great work faith organizations are doing in this country. 
In other words, I stand here in confidence knowing that this initiative 
makes sense because I'm a results-oriented guy, and faith organizations 
are achieving results we want.
    I just met Curtis Jones. He was an 11-year-old boy from one of our 
Nation's Capital's rough neighborhoods. And he walked into the doors of 
UNIQUE Learning Center. A volunteer would tutor and mentor Curtis for 
the next 7 years. I just asked Curtis about the volunteer. He said he 
was the local judge. Think about that. It's interesting, isn't it? 
You've got a really busy person; he's on the bench; and so he decides to 
tutor Curtis for

[[Page 334]]

7 years, not 7 days, 7 hours, 7 minutes, but 7 years. All those who 
helped Curtis, particularly the mentor, must have taken great joy when 
they realized Curtis graduated from Penn State University with a degree 
in telecommunications. Where are you, Curtis? There you go.
    The mentors and the folks at the Learning Center get a lot of 
credit. As Curtis said, ``I wouldn't be here--I wouldn't be where I am 
today without the Learning Center.'' But Curtis, never forget that 
ultimately it was your decision. You made the choice. You decided to 
receive help and then aim big and get your degree. And I congratulate 
you. I'm proud of you, as is everybody else. But it's important for 
people to know there are stories like this all across America. This 
isn't just a story for Washington, DC; this is a story where lives have 
been transformed because somebody has put their arm around somebody who 
hurts, somebody out of a faith-based organization or community-based 
organization, and said, ``What can I do to help you, Curtis? What can I 
do to make sure that you can, with your choice, have an opportunity to 
realize the dreams of America?''
    And the goal is to bring the healing touch, like Curtis found at the 
UNIQUE Center, to lives all across America. That's what we're here to 
talk about today.
    Unfortunately, there are some roadblocks, such as the culture inside 
government at the Federal, State, and local level that is unfriendly to 
faith-based organizations. One of the keys to solving a problem and 
achieving a goal is to recognize roadblocks and then have the will to 
remove those roadblocks. But there is a cultural problem. You know, it's 
manifested itself, for example, when the Federal Government denied a 
Jewish school in Seattle emergency disaster relief because the school 
was religious. That's an indication that there's a roadblock. We have a 
cultural problem when FEMA money--we're going out to help lessen the 
effects of a disaster that hurt--hit, and all of a sudden, the school 
was denied Federal money because of the nature of the school.
    Or for example, the Federal Government--when I came in office, I 
found out the Federal Government was threatening to cut off funds for an 
Iowa homeless shelter. The shelter was receiving money from the Federal 
Government, and the shelter was doing good work. The shelter was helping 
to meet an objective, which was to provide housing for the homeless, but 
they were threatening to cut off money because the governing board was 
not sufficiently secular. Think about that. It kind of defeats the 
purpose of a faith-based organization, doesn't it, when the Government 
says, ``We will design the board of directors for you.'' It's a process 
world we live in, oftentimes, in the Nation's Capital. Instead of 
focusing on the results, instead of asking the question, ``Was this 
homeless shelter working,'' they asked the question, ``Tell me about the 
board of directors you've got.''
    And so today, after 4 years of work, we continue to confront this 
culture, a culture of process instead of results, head on. And the goal 
is, over the next 4 years, to change the culture permanently so faith- 
and community-based organizations will be welcomed into the grantmaking 
process of Government. That's the goal.
    I like to ask questions. The job of a President is to call people 
and say, ``How are we doing?'' Part of my job is to be the 
accountability person in the White House, you know, ``Are we making 
progress?'' So let me give you some of the progress that has been made 
in terms of achieving our goal, which is a hopeful America for every 
person. Today, 10 Federal agencies have got faith-based offices, 3 of 
them set up last year. In other words, a lot of money comes out of these 
different bureaucracies, and in order to make sure people feel 
comfortable accessing the grantmaking process, and/or that the 
bureaucracy itself is fair in enabling faith-based organizations to 
apply, there's an office in these different bureaucracies. You know, 
Housing and Urban Development has got one; Margaret has got one; 
McCallum's organization, the Justice Department, has got one.
    And so I've not only said, ``You must have one,'' I then asked, to 
make sure, ``How are they working? How are you changing the rules on 
Federal contracting?'' And the answer is universally, ``Yes, we have, to 
make sure that faith-based bidders are not being

[[Page 335]]

unfairly shut out of the competition for Federal money.'' That was the 
first thing I looked for in these offices, ``Tell me whether or not 
people are allowed to apply for money on an equal basis.''
    I want to call attention to my friend Jim Towey. Towey is in charge 
of the Faith-Based Office in the White House. His job is to answer your 
questions, to hold meetings such as this. His job is to answer my 
questions. [Laughter] He did such a good job, he got a promotion in the 
White House, so that the man who works full-time to help others feed the 
hungry can feed his own five children. [Laughter] Towey, by the way, 
interestingly enough--he's probably tired of hearing me say this, but I 
find it an interesting comment about our society--Jim Towey was Mother 
Teresa's lawyer. Think about that. [Laughter] Maybe we're a little too 
litigious in America. [Laughter]
    Anyway, he did a heck of a job being a lawyer, and he's doing a fine 
job of judging faith-based groups by their results. And that's important 
for our society to do. We ought to judge faith-based groups by results, 
not by their religion. And that's part of the cultural change that we're 
working on here.
    Since 2003, the administration has increased grants to faith-based 
organizations by 20 percent. That's a positive development. That's the 
kind of news that I like to hear, particularly when those faith-based 
programs are changing America one soul at a time. Last year, 10.3 
percent of all Federal grants--those are grants coming out of 
Washington; those are not formula-based grants to States--10 percent of 
those grants went to faith-based organizations. That's up from 8.1 
percent. So I asked Towey, I said, ``How are we doing?'' He said, 
``Well, the percentage of grants to faith-based programs has grown, and 
that's good.'' Ten percent isn't perfect. Ten percent is progress. That 
means about $2 billion in grants were awarded last year to religious 
charities. That's a start. And so, 6 months from now, I'm going to say, 
``Jim, how are we doing?'' Then he's going to call the faith-based 
offices, and he's going to say, ``The President wants to know how you're 
doing.'' [Laughter]
    I also asked the question, ``Are we encouraging social 
entrepreneurship in America?'' That's one of my favorite words. Think 
about it: social entrepreneurship. Oftentimes, you think about 
entrepreneurship, you think about starting a business or balance sheets 
or income statements. There's a different kind of income statement in 
life, and that's the income statement of the heart, the balance sheet of 
the heart. And so I like to talk about social entrepreneurship, those 
courageous souls who are willing to take a stand in some of the toughest 
neighborhoods in America to save lives.
    So what we want to know is, what I want to know is, are we helping 
increase the number of new groups, small groups, first-time appliers for 
Federal money? Are we doing that? Are we getting beyond those great, 
courageous faith-based programs that have been providing help for a long 
period of time? Are we reaching beyond the Salvation Army or the 
Catholic Charities, the fantastic pillars of the faith-based program? 
And the answer is, we are.
    Let me give you an example. The Peacemaker Family Center in Miami is 
a small ministry of the Trinity Church that helps low-income and 
unemployed families. Towey visited there, so he's telling me on the way 
over in the limousine, that this is a desperate part of Miami--that this 
program is in a desperate part of Miami. And yet, in the midst of 
desperation is a little beacon, a light. And so the center received a 
$50,000--seed money, it's called--from the Compassion Capital Fund mini-
grant program. It's the first Federal funding the organization had ever 
received.
    And so the pastor there is a woman named Linda Freeman, and says 
that the funding, the mini-grant, was the turning point for her 
program--exactly what Jim Towey and I were hoping to hear. Why? Because 
the center was able to raise--was able to hire a writer for grants with 
that money. In other words, the center was able to take a leap forward 
in terms of being able to convince others that the program was 
worthwhile, leveraged the grant, and has expanded from 3 employees to 25 
employees in a quick period of time. That's exactly what we hope 
happens.
    So this little program, in a dark neighborhood, had three employees. 
Think about that. It was somebody with an idea, somebody who

[[Page 336]]

heard a call, not from Government but from a higher authority, to try to 
help people in need. And so they had a program with three people. Three 
people--I mean, it's a small program but working hard to save any life 
they could save. And so the mini-grant enabled the person, Linda, to 
leverage, to hire somebody to help in the grantmaking process, to expand 
their scope, to get more notice. And obviously, more help is coming in, 
not from the Federal Government, from local government--local charities, 
so they're now up to 25 people, and they're expanding, helping to 
achieve the goal, which is to save as many lives as possible. It's the 
Federal goal, State goal, local goal, universal goal for America to help 
people realize the great promise of the country.
    And so I asked the question, ``How many programs like Linda's did we 
help last--over the last 2 years?'' And it's 600--600 programs. So we're 
beginning to fuel social entrepreneurship. Those are the kinds of 
questions I will continue to ask, you'll be happy to hear, in order to 
help us achieve the objective.
    So we've making progress. There's more to do. And I want to talk 
about four steps that we intend to take and will take--not ``intend'' to 
take, ``will'' take over the next 4 years to achieve our goal of helping 
the poor and the needy.
    The first step will be to expand individual choice when it comes to 
providing help for people who hurt. I believe citizens in a free society 
must make responsible choices about their lives every day. And by giving 
those who look for help the opportunity and the responsibility to choose 
the help that's best for them, we'll not only give them better care but 
we'll put them on the path to productive citizenship.
    Now, we are expanding individual choice in programs in Washington. 
And the first place that we really worked hard to expand that choice 
is--that my administration has, is in the drug treatment programs. It 
is--there's all kinds of ways to quit drinking, but one of the most 
effective ways to quit drinking is for a person to make a choice to go 
to a place that changes your heart. If you change your heart, then you 
change your habits.
    The idea in the Access to Recovery program was to direct resources 
to the individual--there's some 100,000 a year who aren't able to get 
help for their alcohol and drug issues--to let them make the choice 
about the program that suits their needs. See, that's how it works. It 
says, ``We will fund you, and you choose. If you think a--kind of the 
classic clinical approach will work for you, give it a shot. If you 
think the corner synagogue will work for you''--like the synagogue I saw 
in Los Angeles that's saving life after life after life because of a 
belief in the Almighty--``give it a shot. But you get to make the 
choice.''
    And so, giving an example, there's the Meta House in Milwaukee, is a 
nonprofit that specializes in treating women addicts. And the people of 
the Meta House know better than a lot of other type of programs that 
kicking addiction is never easy, and they've got what they call a 
``tough love'' program. This is their approach. It's not a universal 
approach; it happens to be their approach, tailormade to what they think 
will work.
    And one mother said, as a result of this approach, of ``tough 
love,'' admitting you've got an addiction--they make people stand up and 
say, ``I've got an addiction,'' and they talk about what amends they're 
going to make--says--and I love this quote--she says, she feels like she 
has ``an angel on her shoulder.'' Isn't it an interesting description 
about a tough love addiction program for somebody who says--who's made 
the choice--in other words, she was given the coupon that's redeemable 
where she chooses. She chose the Meta House in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And 
as a result of that, she said, ``I feel like I've got an angel on my 
shoulder.'' It's an inspirational program that makes people feel like 
they've got an angel on their shoulder as they're trying to recover from 
alcohol or drugs.
    And so what I want to do is apply this concept of individual choice 
beyond just the alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, such as 
mentoring programs or housing counseling or traditional--transitional 
housing programs or after-school programs or homeless services. And so 
I've asked the Cabinet officers and their faith-based and community 
offices to come up with ways to expand individual

[[Page 337]]

choice into how their departments can implement this philosophy.
    Now, I understand people are skeptical about this approach, because 
they say, you know, ``People in need don't want it.'' Or the other 
classic excuse is, ``People in need are not sophisticated to make the 
choices for themselves.'' I firmly reject that point of view. This 
approach has worked, by the way.
    President Bush--former President Bush, affectionately known as 
Number 41--[laughter]--introduced choice in the childcare and 
development block grants to States. In 1990, he started to implement 
this philosophy. And it turns out that when you analyze the results of 
that decision, that American parents decided they liked making the 
decisions as to where they send their children to child care.
    Today, more than 80 percent of the money in this program that goes 
out the door is in the form of individual coupons. In other words, 
consumer demand was quite large when it came to saying, ``I'd like to 
make the choice where my child goes, where I put my child, not you, 
Government.'' And these were people from all walks of life, by the way. 
These are the people that some say aren't sophisticated enough to make 
the choice. Parents are sophisticated enough to decide what's best for 
their children, and the Government has got to realize that.
    The second step is to continue to build our culture of compassion by 
making sure State and local agencies do not discriminate against faith-
based and community-based programs when they hand out Federal dollars. 
In other words, one of the roadblocks to full implementation of this 
initiative is to not only make sure the Federal Government responds 
positively but the State and local governments do as well.
    Let me give you an example of part of the issues that faith-based 
programs face at the State and local government. Janesville, Wisconsin, 
authorized the Salvation Army to use Federal funds to help purchase a 
small apartment building to use for transitional housing for the 
homeless. The city council wisely said, ``Why don't we go to an expert? 
The Army--the Salvation Army has done this for years. They know what 
they're doing.'' And that was good news. The bad news is, is that when 
it approved the funding, the city added a provision declaring that 
religious ceremonies are not to be conducted on the site initiated by 
the Salvation Army. That doesn't make any sense, to tell a faith-based 
provider that they cannot practice the religion that inspires them in 
the work of compassion.
    And so when we learned what happened there with the city council, 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the office we set up, 
sent a letter informing the city that as long as the religious services 
were not funded with Federal money--in other words, the money was not--
Federal money was not used to proselytize--and participation was 
voluntary, the city had no right to tell the Salvation Army that the 
price of running a center was to give up its prayers. It's an important 
concept that you just heard. I mean, it's a--and fortunately, the 
Janesville city council reversed its previous stand.
    Now, we've got to continue to encourage State and community and 
local governments to not discriminate against faith-based programs, to 
welcome faith-based programs, to understand a faith-based program will 
not use money to proselytize, that faith-based programs fully understand 
that participation in any religious ceremony is voluntary, but that the 
governments have got to understand that faith-based programs can help 
Governors and mayors achieve the common goal that we all share, which is 
a hopeful America for every single citizen. That's an important 
objective of this administration. And one of the roadblocks, frankly, 
happens because some States and some local governments receive formula 
grants--all of them receive formula grants from the Federal Government, 
but they haven't opened up those grants to competitive bidding.
    And so, yesterday, when I spoke to the Governors, I urged them to 
set up faith-based offices in their Governors' offices. Now, half of the 
Governors have done so. And if you're in a State where your Governor 
hasn't, I would urge you to get the Governor to say, ``Wait a minute,'' 
to the State bureaucracies, ``Allow faith-based and community-based 
groups to bid on Federal money that has been sent down by formula to the 
States.'' In other words, we've talked about the Federal grantmaking 
process, but a lot of money goes out of Washington, DC--

[[Page 338]]

about $40 billion of it--through formula grants. And to me, that's an 
area where the faith-based community ought to have the chance to bid as 
well. There's about a hundred mayors have set up faith-based offices, so 
that's progress. Half the States, 100 cities--we're making progress to 
make sure that this initiative is accepted at the Federal, State, and 
local governmental level.
    Third step is to get Congress to pass charitable choice legislation. 
The legislation guarantees in law that faith-based organizations are 
treated equally when they compete for Federal dollars, and it also 
protects their religious independence in hiring workers. Charitable 
choice is something I've supported every year, and every year it's got 
stuck. There's kind of a consistent pattern there. [Laughter]
    And so I acted. I signed an Executive order that said that all 
faith-based groups should have equal access to Federal money. In other 
words, instead of waiting for Congress to pass charitable choice 
legislation, I said that a group with a cross on the wall or a rabbi on 
the board of a faith-based program would not be excluded from the 
awarding of Federal grants. That's what the initiative said; it said, 
``Since Congress isn't moving, I will.'' And that Executive order still 
stands, but I believe that Executive order ought to be codified into 
Federal law, and Congress needs to act this year to do so. I think it's 
important.
    Faith-based organizations also need a guarantee they will not be 
forced to give up their right to hire people of their own faith as the 
price of competing for Federal money. There are some in our society in 
the faith community that say, ``Why would I want to interface with 
Government?'' And we've got to rid people of that fear. In other words, 
if we want this program to be effective and to save lives, people have 
got to say, ``Interfacing with Government will not cause me to lose my 
mission.'' And part of Towey's job and part of the faith-based offices--
the job of the faith-based offices is to go around the country assuring 
people about the new culture in Washington, DC.
    One of the key reasons--and it's important for people here in 
Washington to understand--one of the key reasons why many faith-based 
groups are so effective is a commitment to serve that is grounded in the 
shared values and religious identity of their volunteers and employees. 
In other words, effectiveness happens because people who share a faith 
show up to help a particular organization based on that faith to 
succeed. And that's important now for people in Washington to 
understand.
    The right of religious groups to hire within their faith is included 
in Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act. But Congress has sent 
conflicting signals about whether that right still applies when a group 
gets Federal funding. When it comes to drug treatment and aid to needy 
families, Congress has included language in law that affirms their right 
to preserve their religious identity in their hiring decisions--the 
``their'' being the faith-based groups. Congress has affirmed that 
right.
    When it comes to programs such as the Workforce Investment Act, 
Congress has required faith-based groups to forfeit the right. In other 
words, we're seeing mixed signals. Conflicting laws and regulations 
discourage faith-based groups. The purpose is to remove roadblocks, to 
encourage people to participate, not discourage people.
    And so I want this issue resolved. Congress needs to send me the 
same language protecting religious hiring that President Clinton signed 
on four other occasions. And they need to do it this year. And if we 
can't get it done this year, I'll consider measures that can be taken 
through executive action.
    The fourth step in advancing a culture of compassion is in ridding 
the Federal Tax Code of provisions that can discourage charitable 
giving. Today, a retired American who wants to donate a portion of his 
or her IRA to charity first pays taxes on the money withdrawn. In other 
words, ``I want to give some money. I've retired. I've got an IRA. I 
feel compassionate. I want to help an organization that's changing 
lives. I want to be a part of achieving your goal for America, and so, 
therefore, I'm going to give you some money, but I have to pay tax on it 
first.''
    So we've decided to do something about that, and my 2006 budget 
includes a proposal that will allow all retirees to make contributions 
to charities from their IRAs tax-free.

[[Page 339]]

    It's a simple change, but it's a substantive change to law. And I 
believe it will help encourage giving. Listen, America is a generous 
country, and a lot of people give. They don't need the tax law to 
encourage tithing, for example. But it always helps on the margin to 
have good tax law. [Laughter]
    We've also got another interesting provision in the 2006 budget, and 
I appreciate the Members of Congress being here to listen to this. It 
would allow greater deductibility for food donations at a time when food 
pantries are having trouble keeping their shelves filled. And we're 
doing a better job of managing surpluses in America. In other words, 
technology is--and the agricultural sector is coming down, so the ag 
community does a better job of managing surpluses in America. It's 
harder to get those surpluses, since there aren't--the surpluses are 
smaller, to the food pantry, so we've got a problem. And plus, current 
law discriminates against farmers or ranchers or small businesses or 
restaurants who do not get the same break, tax break, that some 
corporations get, and that's not right.
    And so the proposal would encourage more food donations by expanding 
and increasing the deduction of all taxpayers, large and small, sole 
proprietorships, incorporated, all who are engaged in a trade or a 
business, that can claim deductions for food donations. It's a practical 
thing to do, isn't it? I mean, if food pantries are having trouble 
getting food, why not have the Tax Code encourage people to give food? 
And so Congress needs to work on helping us help those who want to be 
generous anyway with a little help in the Tax Code.
    It's important for our fellow citizens to understand that the 
efforts that I've spoken about today do not involve the Government 
establishing religion. The State should never be the church, and the 
church should never be the State. And everybody in America understands 
that.
    Anybody who accepts money from the Federal Government, any faith 
provider, cannot discriminate based on religion. It's an important 
concept for our fellow citizens to understand, that no one in need will 
ever be forced to choose a faith-based provider. That's an important 
concept for people to understand. What that means is if you're the 
Methodist church and you sponsor an alcohol treatment center, they can't 
say only Methodists--only Methodists who drink too much can come to our 
program. [Laughter] All drunks are welcome, is what the sign ought to 
say--welcome to be saved, so they become sober.
    When the Government encourages the helping hand offered by the 
armies of compassion, it is important to understand that Government is 
acting through common sense, that Government is doing what you would 
want it to do, saying, ``Can we achieve results? How best to achieve an 
objective?''
    The goals that we've set here in our Nation, which is a 
compassionate country for everybody, to bring light where there's 
darkness, to help people who struggle, that goal--they are large. I 
mean, these goals are large goals; I mean, really big goals, important 
goals. And it's important for our fellow citizens to understand that to 
achieve those goals, we need all the help we can get. And the best help 
you can find, in my judgment, is the help from the armies of compassion, 
those brave soldiers who on an hourly basis answer a universal call to 
love a neighbor just like they would like to be loved themselves.
    I can't think of a better motto for an army, to love a neighbor just 
like you'd like to be loved yourself. And I can't think of a better role 
for Government, to say we stand with that army. We stand ready to help 
energize that army. We want that army to succeed because we want every 
American from every background in every neighborhood to realize the full 
promise of this blessed country.
    I want to thank you for being generals, lieutenants, sergeants, and 
privates in the army of compassion. Thank you for giving me a chance to 
lay out an agenda for the next 4 years that will invigorate this 
incredibly important initiative of Government.
    May God bless you, and may God bless your work.

Note: The President spoke at 10:11 a.m. at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.

[[Page 340]]