[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 28 (Monday, July 16, 2007)]
[Pages 920-937]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to the Greater Cleveland Partnership and a Question-and-Answer 
Session in Cleveland, Ohio

July 10, 2007

    The President. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Fred. Thanks for having 
me. Thank you,

[[Page 921]]

Fred. Thanks for coming. Thanks for having me. It's a smart marketing 
tool, you know, all the cameras. [Laughter] I thought for sure the 
largest chamber of commerce was in Texas, but I guess not. [Laughter]
    I'm thrilled to be back in Cleveland. I've had a fascinating day. I 
went to a small business that is on the cutting edge of changing the way 
we're going to consume energy. I just came from the Cleveland Clinic, 
which is one of the most fabulous hospitals in America.
    I do want to spend a little time talking about our economy, talking 
about health care and energy policy that will be an integral part of 
making sure the economy continues to grow. I'd like to spend a little 
time talking about the war against extremists and radicals. And I'd like 
to answer some of your questions, if you have any.
    Before I do, I want to tell you, Laura sends her best. She's 
arguably the most patient woman in America. [Laughter] She's a fabulous 
First Lady and a great mom. I love her dearly, and she told me to say hi 
to you all, so, hi. [Laughter]
    I appreciate Joe Roman, who works with Fred. Thanks for setting this 
deal up. Appreciate the chance to come and visit with fellow citizens 
here in Cleveland. I'm the Commander in Chief; I'm also the educator in 
chief. Part of my job is to explain the philosophy behind the decisions 
that I have made. I'm honored you'd give me a chance to do so.
    I'm traveling with a good man, the Congressman from this area--one 
of the Congressmen from this area, Steve LaTourette. Proud to be with 
you, Congressman. Thank you for your time. State Auditor Mary Taylor is 
here. Thanks for being here, Mary. I met the mayor of Cleveland across 
the street at the hospital. I was proud to be with him. I thank him for 
his time, for taking time out of his day. I thank Toby Cosgrove of--Doc, 
thank you for being here--from the hospital there across the street. I 
thank the docs, by the way, for taking time to show me some amazing 
technology.
    Let me first talk about our economy. It's--our economy is changing, 
and it's strong. I remember back to--early on in my administration when 
we were confronted with some very difficult times. There was a 
recession; the economy had gotten overheated, and it was correcting. And 
then we got hit by an enemy that killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens, 
which such an attack obviously would have an effect on the economy. Then 
there were some corporate scandals that had a psychological effect on 
our economy. I mean, people were beginning to worry about the system 
where people were not upholding the law, taking advantage of the 
situation, taking advantage of shareholders.
    And yet we acted and cut taxes--and cut them hard because I 
believe--[applause]--because one of the philosophical drivers of this 
administration is, is that if you have more money in your pocket to 
spend, save, or invest, the economy is more likely to grow. In other 
words, there's always a conflict in Washington about how--what's the 
proper amount of money in Washington and what is the proper amount of 
money in your pocket. I'm one of these fellows that err on the side of 
trusting people to spend their money more than trusting government. And 
therefore, we cut--[applause].
    I'm not trying to elicit applause--thank you, but--[laughter]--and 
our plan has worked. I don't know if you noticed last month that we 
added another 132,000 new jobs. We've added over 8 million new jobs 
since August of 2003. Entrepreneurship flourishes when people have got 
more capital in their pocket.
    One of the interesting things about the tax cuts that we proposed is 
that a lot of the tax cuts were aimed at small businesses. One of the 
statistics that makes our economy interesting and, I believe, robust is 
that 70 percent of new jobs are created by small-business owners. And 
that's an important thing for our fellow citizens to remember, 
particularly those in Congress who are thinking about something to do 
with the Tax Code.
    Most small businesses are subchapter S corporations or limited 
partnerships. In other words, they pay tax at the individual income tax 
rate. So therefore, when you cut income taxes on everybody who pays 
taxes--in other words, when you lower the rates, it affects the ability 
of small businesses to keep capital; in other words, keep more of what 
they earn. And when a small business keeps more of

[[Page 922]]

what they earn, it is more likely that business will expand. And 
therefore, when you hear me say that 8 million new jobs have been 
created since August of 2003, I might as well have said, as well, the 
small-business sector of America is strong. And the best way to keep it 
that way is to keep taxes low.
    And now we're going to have a debate on that in Washington. And 
that's going to be the interesting philosophical argument. You'll hear 
people say in Washington, ``Well, we need to raise taxes in order to 
either pay for new programs or balance the budget.'' I happen to believe 
we can balance the budget without raising taxes if we're wise about how 
we spend your money. And we're proving it possible.
    Tomorrow I'm going to talk about the size of the deficit. I'm not 
going to guess what that will be, but I can predict it's going to be 
substantially lower than it was 3 years ago. And we didn't raise your 
taxes. We kept your taxes low, which caused the economy to grow, which 
yielded more tax revenues. And because we set priorities, the deficit is 
shrinking.
    And the big fight in Washington is going to be whether or not the 
budgets that the Congress is trying to now pass is going to go through. 
It's not; I'll veto them if they're excessive in spending. I'm not going 
to let them raise your taxes. I think it would be bad for the economy. I 
think it would be bad for entrepreneurship.
    Let me talk about health care, since it's fresh on my mind. 
[Laughter] The objective has got to be to make sure America is the best 
place in the world to get health care, that we're the most innovative 
country, that we encourage doctors to stay in practice, that we are 
robust in the funding of research, and that patients get good, quality 
care at a reasonable cost.
    The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private 
insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America. 
After all, you just go to an emergency room. The question is, will we be 
wise about how we pay for health care? And I believe the best way to do 
so is to enable more people to have private insurance. And the reason I 
emphasize private insurance, the best health care plans--the best health 
care policy is one that emphasizes private health. In other words, the 
opposite of that would be government control of health care.
    And there's a debate in Washington, DC, over this. It's going to be 
manifested here shortly by whether or not we ought to expand what's 
called SCHIP. SCHIP is a program designed to help poor children get 
insurance. I'm for it. It came in when I was the Governor of Texas. I 
supported that. But now there are plans to expand SCHIP to include 
families--some proposals are families making up to $80,000 a year. In 
other words, the program is going beyond the initial intent of helping 
poor children. It's now aiming at encouraging more people to get on 
government health care. That's what that is. It's a way to encourage 
people to transfer from the private sector to government health care 
plans.
    My position is, we ought to help the poor, and we do through 
Medicaid. My position is, we ought to have a modern medical system for 
the seniors, and we do through Medicare. But I strongly object to the 
government providing incentives for people to leave private medicine, 
private health care to the public sector. And I think it's wrong, and I 
think it's a mistake. And therefore, I'll resist Congress's attempt to 
federalize medicine.
    I mean, think of it this way: They're going to increase the number 
of folks eligible through SCHIP. Some want to lower the age for 
Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a--I wouldn't call 
it a plot, just a strategy--[laughter]--to get more people to be a part 
of a federalization of health care. In my judgment, that would be--it 
would lead to not better medicine but worse medicine. It would lead to 
not more innovation but less innovation.
    And so--but you got to be for something in Washington. You can't be 
against the federalization; you've got to be for a plan that enhances 
the relationship between doctor and patient, and that's what I'm for. 
Here's what I believe in: One, I believe in health savings accounts as 
an alternative to the federalization of medicine. It gives people the 
opportunity to save, tax-free, for routine medical costs and, at the 
same time, have a catastrophic health care plan to back them up.

[[Page 923]]

    I like the idea of people making decisions that are--that will, one, 
enhance their health and, two, save money. The doc told me that--we were 
looking at one of these brilliant heart guys working for him. You're not 
going to believe the technology in this hospital, by the way. If you're 
a Cleveland resident, you ought to be proud of this hospital. It's 
unbelievable.
    He said something pretty wise, though. He said, ``You can have all 
the technology that man can conceivably create, but if you continue to 
smoke, we're going backwards. If you're not exercising, if you're not 
taking care of the body yourself, all the technology isn't going to save 
your life.'' In other words, there is a certain responsibility that we 
have as citizens to take care of ourselves. And a health savings account 
actually provides a financial incentive for you to do that.
    I believe in plans that enable small businesses to congregate across 
jurisdictional lines so they can afford insurance, afford spreading risk 
just the way big corporations can do. In other words, one way to control 
costs is to enable small businesses, many of which are having trouble 
affording insurance, to pool risk.
    I'm a strong believer in medical liability reform. We've got a legal 
system which is driving up the costs of medicine because docs are 
practicing defensive medicine, and driving good doctors out of practice. 
And it makes no sense to have a legal system that punishes good 
medicine. And therefore, I strongly believe that the Congress ought to 
pass Federal medical liability insurance for our doctors and our 
providers.
    I believe in information technology. The first time I came to 
Cleveland Clinic, we were talking about how to modernize our hospital 
systems and our doctors' offices into the 21st century. Perhaps the best 
way to describe the problem is, we've got too many doctors still writing 
out prescriptions by hand. Most of them can't write to begin with. 
[Laughter] And then they pass the file from one person to the next. 
That's inefficient in this new era. I mean, technology is changing the 
way we live; it ought to be changing the way medicine operates. And it 
is at Cleveland Clinic. I envision the day, one day, when all of us will 
have our own medical electronic record that will be safe from snoopers. 
In other words, it will be private but will make health care more 
efficient.
    Cleveland Clinic did something interesting. I went to four different 
stations, and after every station, they gave me an outcomes book. In 
other words, ``We're willing to be measured,'' says the good doc. There 
ought to be transparency in medicine. How many of you have ever actually 
tried to price a medical service? Probably not many. How many of you 
have ever said, ``Gosh, I wonder whether this health care quality is 
better than the neighbors.'' I doubt any of you have--many of you have 
done that. Why? Because the system is not geared toward that. Somebody 
else pays your bills. If you really think about it, and you're working, 
say, for a company in America, and they provide a health care plan for 
you, there's a third-party payer. Well, if somebody else pays the bills, 
why do you care what the cost is at the time of purchase?
    In other words, the whole plan has got to be to bring more 
accountability into health care, to make the consumer more responsible 
for making proper and rational decisions. That's what accountability 
does. And I applaud you for that, Doc. That's what transparency in 
pricing means. In other words, you would be able to shop for price.
    But the system, by the way, the tax system does not enable the 
individual to be incented to buy insurance in the private sector. If you 
work for a company and you get insurance, you get a good tax benefit. If 
you're an individual and buy insurance, you don't get the same tax 
benefit. That doesn't make any sense. The Tax Code needs to be reformed. 
The Tax Code ought to treat everybody equally when it comes to health 
care. And therefore, one proposal, one way to deal with that is 
something I talked to the Congress about, and said, if you're a married 
person and you're working, you ought to get a $15,000 deduction, just 
like a mortgage deduction, from your income whether you're working for 
corporate America or you're working on your own, whether you're working 
for a small-business owner or you're looking for a job.
    And that way, you begin to make sure the Tax Code is a level playing 
field. And that

[[Page 924]]

way, an individual market begins to grow because you have got an 
incentive at that point in time to go out and purchase health care. As a 
matter of fact, you won't get your deduction unless you purchase health 
care if you're in the individual market.
    The whole point I'm trying to make is, there's an alternative to the 
federalization of health care. It doesn't make a nice, neat sound bite. 
It's not something that's easy to sell--what do you care about making 
sure you expand SCHIP, which sounds nice and cozy. But nevertheless, it 
is an alternative that will work, and it is working right here in 
America today.
    The technological changes in the hospital across the street have 
been amazing. The quality of care has been fantastic. There's just more 
we can do to make sure we continue to be the leader, without wrecking 
the health care system.
    Energy--in order to keep this economy strong--and we do have a 
strong economy--not only have we added 8.2 million new jobs since August 
of 2003; interest is low; inflation is down. I mean, this thing is 
buzzing. There are some parts of the country that are hurting. The 
manufacturing sector up here isn't doing as well as other parts of the 
country. However, I would remind you that the unemployment rate in Ohio 
is 5.8 percent. Is that perfect? No. Is it better than it has been? You 
bet it is.
    But the--one of the issues to make sure that we continue to grow 
strong in the years to come is energy. I mean, we're just too dependent 
on oil. I know that sounds hard for a Texas guy to say. [Laughter] 
You're probably wondering whether I mean it. [Laughter] I do. It's a 
national security issue, to be dependent on oil from parts of the world 
where some of the folks don't like us. It's an issue that's got to be 
dealt with--now.
    There's an economic security issue when it comes to being dependent 
on oil. When the demand for crude oil goes up in a place like China 
because of economic growth, it causes the international price of oil to 
go up, which affects the gasoline price here in Cleveland, Ohio. That's 
the way it works. High crude oil prices yield to higher gasoline prices. 
And therefore, there's an economic issue for being dependent on oil.
    And there's an environmental cost for being dependent on oil. When 
we're burning carbon, it creates greenhouse gases, which is an issue 
that we need to deal with. So we have a fantastic opportunity to do 
something different for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our 
national security, and for the sake of the environment.
    Today I went to a fascinating, little company here that is building 
hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen is the input; water is the output; and in 
the meantime, your car is going. Hydrogen fuel cells are coming. And 
there's a role for the Federal Government to--spending your money to 
promote new technologies to enable us to become less dependent on oil 
and better stewards of the environment.
    Imagine one day being able to drive your car with hydrogen as its 
power source and water driblets as the output of your engine. And that 
day is coming. Now, it's down the road a little bit, but nevertheless, 
it is a part of a comprehensive plan to make sure we become less 
dependent on oil. In the meantime, when it comes to powering your cars, 
I want to tell you, I'm a big believer in having our farmers grow a 
product that will enable us to drive our cars. I think it makes sense to 
spend your money to invest in new technologies or to research new 
technologies, so that when a fellow grows switch grass, for example, 
that grass can be processed into ethanol, which can power your 
automobile.
    Now, I don't know if you know this or not; we're up to about 7 
billion gallons of ethanol being produced and used in America. That's up 
from 2 billion 3 or 4 years ago. That's a good deal, if you're 
interested about energy independence, because that energy is coming from 
corn growers here in America. The problem is, we're growing a lot of 
corn for ethanol, which means the price of corn is going up for the pig 
farmer. So we've got to relieve the pressure on the pig farmer--
[laughter]--well, not all--everybody--but pig farmer is paying--use a 
lot of corn. And therefore, we're spending money on technologies. And I 
believe more and more people are going to be using ethanol to power 
their automobiles.
    It's happening in the Midwest a lot now. Cellulosic ethanol 
breakthroughs will mean

[[Page 925]]

that we're going to be having ethanol produced from wood chips or switch 
grasses, which means the market will spread across the United States, 
which will make us less dependent on oil. And by the way, the exhausts 
from ethanol are a lot cleaner than the exhaust from hydrocarbon-based 
fuels.
    We need to be promoting nuclear power. If you're really interested 
in the environment, like a lot of people are, then we ought to be 
promoting a renewable source of energy that emits no greenhouse gases. 
And one of the places where your government is spending money and is 
part of this comprehensive plan to change our energy mix is to figure 
out a better way to deal with the waste, nuclear waste. And I'm a big 
believer in reprocessing and fast-burner reactors, which is fancy words 
for, we can burn down the fuel--reuse it, burn it down to less volume 
and less toxicity.
    We've got 250 years of coal, at least, in America. If we're 
interested in becoming less dependent on foreign sources of energy, we 
ought to be using energy here at home in a wise way. But coal can be 
dirty, and therefore, we're spending a lot of your money on developing 
clean coal technologies.
    And my only point to you is, is that one of the reasons I've come to 
Cleveland is to herald some of the new technologies. As a matter of 
fact, a fellow came up to me at this place, and he said, ``Now, you're a 
wind person.'' I said, ``Well, yes, you know, I--a lot of hot air 
here.'' [Laughter] And he said, ``We got a new industry evolving here: 
windmills.'' That's fine. I support that. I think it makes a lot of 
sense. It makes us less dependent on foreign sources of oil. And that's 
an--important for making sure this economy continues to grow.
    So my stop here has been really aimed at heralding technology. You 
got to be optimistic about America's future because of some of the great 
technologies that are taking place. And two of the areas where 
technology is really going to change America for a long time coming is 
in the energy field and in the medical field.
    I want to talk about this war we're in. First of all, I regret I 
have to tell you we're in war. I never wanted to be a war President. I--
now that I am one, I'm going to do the best I can to protect America.
    My mind changed on September the 11th, 2001. It changed because I 
realized the biggest responsibility government has is to protect the 
American people from further attack and that we must confront dangers 
before they come to hurt us again. That's one of the really valuable 
lessons of September the 11th, is to recognize that oceans can't protect 
us from an enemy that is ideologically driven and who will use murder as 
a tool to achieve their political objectives.
    Some in America don't believe we're at war, and that's their right. 
I know we are and, therefore, will spend my time as the President doing 
the best I can to educate people about the perils of the world in which 
we live and that we have an active strategy in dealing with it.
    First, the enemy--these folks aren't isolated folks, you know; they 
just kind of randomly show up. They have an objective. They believe as 
strongly in their ideology as I believe in ours. They believe that they 
have a obligation to spread a point of view that says, for example, if 
you don't worship the way we tell you to worship, there will be a 
consequence; just like I believe we have an obligation to defend a point 
of view that says, what matters is the right for you to choose your 
religion, and you're free to do so in the United States of America.
    They believe that they can use--they have no value for human life, 
see. That's what distinguishes them from us in another way. They will 
kill a Muslim, a child, or a woman in a moment's notice to achieve a 
political objective. They are dangerous people that need to be 
confronted.
    And that's why, since September the 11th, our policy has been to 
find them and defeat them overseas so we don't have to face them here at 
home again. Now, that is a strong--a short-term strategy because the 
long-term strategy has got to be one that marginalizes these extremists 
and radicals by promoting an alternative ideology--I like to say, an 
ideology based on light, an ideology that promotes hope, an ideology 
when given a chance has worked every time to lift people's spirits. And 
that's the ideology based upon liberty,

[[Page 926]]

the chance for people to live in a free and open society.
    And it's hard work. And this war is on a multiple of fronts. One 
front is Afghanistan. And the front that is consuming the American 
people right now is Iraq. And I fully understand how tough it is on our 
psyche. I fully understand that when you watch the violence on TV every 
night, people are saying, is it worth it? Can we accomplish an 
objective? Well, first, I want to tell you, yes, we can accomplish and 
win this fight in Iraq. And secondly, I want to tell you, we must for 
the sake of our children and our grandchildren.
    You know, I was very optimistic at the end of '05 when 12 million 
Iraqis went to the polls. I know it seems like a decade ago. It wasn't 
all that long ago that, when given a chance, 12 million people voted. I 
wasn't surprised, but I was pleased; let me put it to you that way. I 
wasn't surprised because one of the principles on which I make decisions 
is that I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe that freedom 
belongs to every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. As a 
matter of fact, to take it a step further, I believe it is a gift from 
an Almighty to every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. And 
therefore, I wasn't surprised when people, when given the chance, said, 
I want to be free. I was pleased that 12 million defied the car bombers 
and killers to vote.
    Our policy at that point in time was to get our force posture in 
such a position--is that we would train the Iraqis so they would take 
the fight to those who would stop the advance of democracy, and that 
we'd be in a position to keep the territorial integrity in place and 
chase down the extremists. That was our policy. We didn't get there in 
2006 because a thinking enemy--in this case, we believe Al Qaida, the 
same people that attacked us in America--incited serious sectarian 
violence by blowing up a holy religious site of the Shi'a. And then 
there was this wave of reprisal.
    And I had a decision to make. Some of Steve's colleagues--good, 
decent, patriotic people--believed the best thing for the United States 
to do at that point in time was to step back and to kind of let the 
violence burn out in the capital of Iraq. I thought long and hard about 
that. I was deeply concerned that violence in the capital would spill 
out into the countryside. I was deeply concerned that one of the 
objectives of Al Qaida--and by the way, Al Qaida is doing most of the 
spectacular bombings, trying to incite sectarian violence. The same 
people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now 
bombing people, killing innocent men, women, and children, many of whom 
are Muslims, trying to stop the advance of a system based upon liberty.
    And I was concerned that the chaos would more enable them to--more 
likely enable them to achieve their stated objective, which is to drive 
us out of Iraq so they could have a safe haven from which to launch 
their ideological campaign and launch attacks against America. That's 
what they have said. The killers who came to America have said, with 
clarity, ``We want you out of Iraq so we can have a safe haven from 
which to attack again.''
    I think it's important for the Commander in Chief to listen 
carefully to what the enemy says. They thrive on chaos. They like the 
turmoil. It enables them to more likely achieve their objectives. What 
they can't stand is the advance of a alternative ideology that will end 
up marginalizing them.
    So I looked at consequences of stepping back--the consequences not 
only for Iraq but the consequences for an important neighborhood, for 
the security of the United States of America. What would the Iranians 
think about America if we stepped back in the face of this extremist 
challenge? What would other extremists think? What would Al Qaida be 
able to do? They'd be able to recruit better and raise more money from 
which to launch their objectives. Failure in Iraq would have serious 
consequences for the security of your children and your grandchildren.
    And so I made the decision, rather than pulling out of the capital, 
to send more troops in the capital, all aimed at providing security, so 
that a alternative system could grow. I listened to the commanders that 
would be running the operation--in this case, the main man is a man 
named General David Petraeus, a smart, capable man who gives me his 
candid advice. His advice: ``Mr. President,

[[Page 927]]

is--we must change the mission to provide security for the people in the 
capital city of Iraq as well as in Anbar Province in order for the 
progress that the 12 million people who voted can be made.'' That's why 
we've done what we've done.
    And we just started. He got all the troops there a couple of weeks 
ago. He asked for 20-something thousand troops, and I said, if that's 
what you need, Commander, that's what you got. And they just showed up. 
And they're now beginning operations in full.
    And in Washington, you got people saying, stop. And here's my 
attitude about this--and I understand there's the debate, and there 
ought to be a debate in our democracy, and I welcome it. I welcome a 
good, honest debate about the consequences of failure, the consequences 
of success in this war. But I believe that it's in this Nation's 
interests to give the commander a chance to fully implement his 
operations. And I believe Congress ought to wait for General Petraeus to 
come back and give his assessment of the strategy that he's putting in 
place before they make any decisions. That's what the American people 
expect. They expect for military people to come back and tell us how the 
military operations are going.
    And that's the way I'm going to play it as the Commander in Chief. 
I'll be glad to discuss different options. I mean, the truth of the 
matter is, I felt like we could be in a different position at the end of 
2005. I believe we can be in a different position in awhile, and that 
would be to have enough troops there to guard the territorial integrity 
of that country, enough troops there to make sure that Al Qaida doesn't 
gain safe haven from which to be able to launch further attacks against 
the United States of America, enough troops to be embedded and to help 
train the Iraqis to do their job.
    But we couldn't get there without additional troops. And now I call 
upon the United States Congress to give General David Petraeus a chance 
to come back and tell us whether his strategy is working. And then we 
can work together on a way forward.
    In the meantime, the Iraqis have got to do more work. This coming 
week, I'll be presenting a--to the Congress a list of some of the 
accomplishments and some of the shortfalls of their political process. 
They've asked us to report on 18 different benchmarks. That's what the 
Congress said in this last supplemental spending bill. They said, come 
back here in mid-July and give us an interim report as to whether or not 
any progress is being made in Iraq. And that's what we'll be doing. So 
at the end of this week, you'll see a progress report on what's been 
happening in Iraq--and then in September, a final report on the 
benchmarks that I accepted and that Congress passed.
    And so that's the challenge facing the country. And it's a 
necessary--in my judgment, it's necessary work. I wouldn't ask a mother 
or a dad--I wouldn't put their son in harm's way if I didn't believe 
this was necessary for the security of the United States and peace of 
the world. And I strongly believe it. And I strongly believe we will 
prevail. And I strongly believe that democracy will trump 
totalitarianism every time. That's what I believe. And those are the 
belief systems on which I'm making decisions that I believe will yield 
the peace.
    You know, it's really interesting; in my position, I obviously have 
a unique view of things at times. And one of the most interesting views 
that I've been able to--of history that I've been able to really focus 
on is our relationship with Japan. I've told this story a lot because I 
find it to be very ironic.
    When my dad was a young guy, right out of high school, he joined the 
United States Navy, became a Navy torpedo bomber pilot and fought the 
Japanese. They were the sworn enemy of the United States of America. And 
he, like a lot of other young people, gave it their all. And a lot of 
people died on both sides of the war. As a matter of fact, it was--the 
Japanese, as you rightly know, was the last major attack on the United 
States prior to September the 11th, 2001. Some 60 years later, I'm at 
the table talking about the peace with the Japanese Prime Minister, 
Prime Minister Koizumi.
    I find that to be an inspiring story and a hopeful story. It's a 
story about the ability of liberty to transform enemies into allies. 
It's a story about the ability for those who fought to become partners 
in peace. Prime Minister Koizumi and now Prime Minister

[[Page 928]]

Abe are close friends of mine in the international arena. We talk about 
the spread of democracy in the troubled part of the world because we 
both have seen the effects of democracy in our own relationship.
    I've got great faith in the power of liberty to transform the world 
for the sake of peace. And the fundamental question facing our country 
is, will we keep that faith?
    Thanks for letting me come and visit with you. And now I'll be glad 
to answer some questions.
    Main guy, first question. Sure, okay. [Laughter]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Appropriations

    Q. Well, this may seem like it was rigged, Mr. President----
    The President. Okay.
    Q. ----but there are people----
    The President. There have been a few rigged questions in my day. 
[Laughter] I'm not telling you which way they were rigged though. 
[Laughter]
    Q. Mr. President, like this world-class health care institution, 
NASA Glenn is one of the crown jewels, along with the talented people 
there, in our new economy crown. As you know, we recently won the crew 
exploration vehicle contract. We're very happy about that. Given all the 
competing demands for resources in Washington, what kind of funding do 
you see for NASA and its mission going forward?
    The President. Yes. That's a awkward question to ask a Texan. 
[Laughter] I think that NASA needed to become relevant in order to be--
to justify the spending of your money, and therefore, I helped changed 
the mission from one of orbiting in a space shuttle--in a space station 
to one of becoming a different kind of group of explorers. And 
therefore, we set a new mission, which is to go to the Moon and set up a 
launching station there from which to further explore space.
    And the reason I did that is, I do want to make sure the American 
people stay involved with--or understand the relevance of this 
exploration. I'm a big--I support exploration, whether it be the 
exploration of new medicine--through, like, NIH grants--the exploration 
of space through NASA. I can't give you the exact level of funding.
    I would argue with you that we got a lot of money in Washington--not 
argue, I'll just tell you, we got a lot of money in Washington. 
[Laughter] And we need to make sure we set priorities with that money. 
One of the problems we have in Washington is that unlike the books I saw 
at the hospital--of which, you're on the board--that said ``results,'' 
we're not very good about measuring results when we spend your money. A 
lot of time, the program sound nice; a lot of time, the results don't 
match the intentions.
    So one of the things I've tried to do through the OMB is to be 
results-oriented, and when programs don't meet results, we try to 
eliminate them. And that's hard to do. Isn't it, Steven? Yes. But, no--I 
believe in exploration, space exploration. And we've changed the mission 
to make it relevant. Thanks.
    Yes, sir.

Relations With the Muslim World/U.S. Foreign Policy and Diplomacy/War on 
Terror

    Q. Mr. President, I'm originally from Pakistan.
    The President. Pakistan, good.
    Q. When I travel there, my friends over here say that I'm crazy to 
go back----
    The President. Yes.
    Q. And when I'm there, the people over there say I'm crazy to go 
back. [Laughter]
    The President. You're, like, in between a rock and a hard place, 
brother. I mean----
    Q. That's right, that's right. My question for you is, what are we 
doing with public diplomacy to change the minds and the hearts of a 
billion and a half Muslims around the world?
    The President. Yes. I appreciate that; great question. First, let me 
say that I'm confident your answer is, I love living in America, the 
land of the free and the home of the brave, the country where you can 
come and ask the President a question and a country where--are you 
Muslim?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. ----where you can worship your religion freely. It's 
a great country

[[Page 929]]

where you're able to do that. Go ahead and sit down. Have you made a 
living?
    Q. Yes, I do----
    The President. ----a country where can come and make a living 
regardless of your background. [Laughter] Seriously. It's a great thing 
about America. If you dream and work, you can achieve. And we need to 
keep it that way.
    His question is a good question. A lot of people in the Muslim world 
believe that the United States is at war with Islam, that the response 
to the attack on our country was one where we attacked somebody based 
upon their religion. And I, for one, obviously need to battle that image 
because we're not facing religious people; we're facing people whose 
hearts are filled with hate, who have subverted a great religion.
    Most Muslims reject the kind of violence perpetuated on innocent 
people by Al Qaida. I happen to believe--I just don't--believe they're 
religious people who murder the innocent to achieve political 
objectives.
    And so step one is to make it clear that we reject radical and 
extremism and murderers, not reject a great religion. Step two is to 
encourage people like you to go to Pakistan. You're more credible than I 
am amongst your pals there. You can say, ``You're not going to believe 
America. You're not going to believe the country where people from all 
different backgrounds, all walks of life, can live in freedom.''
    And I don't exaggerate to you because the best diplomacy we have is 
when citizens travel overseas and/or people come here to America. One of 
the problems we faced when it came to diplomacy, public diplomacy, right 
after 9/11 is, we shut her down. You couldn't get in this country, 
particularly, perhaps if you were from Pakistan. I mean, this country 
said, ``Whoa, we got a new world,'' and therefore, it was, stop a lot of 
student visas. You might remember, some of the kids that flew those 
airplanes were on--here as students. And we did what most Americans 
expected us to do--made sure we inventoried where we were so we could 
best protect the American people.
    And we've learned a lot since then. So I'm pleased to report to you 
that, working with Condi--and it's her main responsibility--is that 
we've got now more students coming to America from other countries, but 
through a much better screening process. I can't think of a better way 
to help change people's attitudes about America than having them come 
here and see for themselves.

    One of the big issues we have, of course, is the public airways. 
There's a lot of television stations in the Middle East who spread some 
of this propaganda. It's easy to kick America around. And Karen Hughes 
is now the head of public diplomacy in the State Department, and we 
spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to counter the false and 
negative message about America with the true story of our country.

    And so we're on a multiple of fronts--visits, exchanges, better 
messaging. We've got to be careful about our language here, and I am. As 
a matter of fact, interestingly enough, right after September the 11th, 
one of the first places I went was to a mosque--or, actually, an Islamic 
center there in Washington, DC. I went back to the same center 50 years 
later--50 years after Eisenhower, Ike, dedicated it, to send a message 
about America.

    But we've got a lot of work to do on that front. It's a great 
question. Pakistan, by the way, is a--Musharraf is a strong ally in the 
war against these extremists. I like him, and I appreciate him. I'm, of 
course, constantly working with him to make sure that democracy 
continues to advance in Pakistan. But he's been a valuable ally in 
rejecting extremists. And that's important, to cultivate those allies.

    See, again I repeat to you--and this is hard for some Americans to 
understand--we are at the beginning stages of a major ideological 
struggle that will affect the security of the United States. And it's a 
struggle between moderation and extremists. It's a struggle between 
radicals who kill and rational people who want to live in peace.

    Most Muslim mothers want their children to grow up in peace; they're 
just like mothers in the United States. There's some universal 
characteristics of people. And the fundamental question facing us as a 
country is, will

[[Page 930]]

we have wise policies that confront these extremists? And the first step 
toward wise policy is recognizing they exist and we're at war with them.
    And it's--look, I spend a lot of time thinking about this issue. 
That's what you pay me to do. And I'm briefed every day about threats on 
the homeland. And you should be grateful to--the fact that there are a 
lot of good, good, honorable people, either at home or overseas, doing 
everything in their power to protect you.
    I wish I could report that this thing, this threat, this struggle, 
is going to end shortly; it's not. That doesn't mean we have to have 
kinetic action all the time. But it does mean America must not lose 
faith in our values and lose sight of our purpose. And that's going to 
be the challenge facing this country.
    I'm worried about isolationism. I'm worried about people saying, 
it's not worth it anymore; it's too hard; let it happen over there; it's 
not going to affect us. It will affect us. And frankly, I'm worried 
about protectionism, where people say, it's too hard to trade; let's 
just wall ourselves off from the rest of the world.
    Anyway, it's a long answer to a good question.
    Yes, ma'am.

Immigration Reform

    Q. Mr. President, I know immigration has been a big problem in the 
U.S. And what is your next step with the immigration bill?
    The President. Yes, thanks. [Laughter] I view it as--no, it's a 
great question. No, I appreciate that. Actually, I view it as a great 
opportunity. And thank you very much for that question. As you know, 
I've had a difference of opinion with people in both political parties 
on this issue. I felt like now is the time to address the immigration 
issue and not just pass it on and hope it gets better.
    I believe in rule of law, and therefore, I know that the Federal 
Government needs to enforce law. One law is--one part of the law is, 
don't sneak into our country. And therefore, we have been aggressive at 
border security, which is making sure we modernize our border. You've 
probably never been down there; I grew up down there. It's a big border. 
And it's really long, and in parts of it, between Arizona and Mexico, 
you don't know where the border is. There's no--it's like desert.
    Secondly, there is a powerful force in the world, and it's called 
parenthood. And when you're poor and you got mouths to feed and you got 
an opportunity to put some money on the table--food on the table, you're 
going to come if you can see that opportunity. And you'll do everything 
you can to get here to put food on the table. I used to say, family 
values don't stop at the Rio Grande River.
    And so you shouldn't be surprised that a whole industry has sprung 
up where people get stuck in the back of an 18-wheeler or--and come to 
work. That troubles a lot of Americans; I understand. What I'm telling 
you is, it's hard to enforce this border, but we're doing a better job 
of doing it.
    I happen to believe the best way to really enforce the border, 
however, is to recognize that people are coming to do work Americans 
aren't doing, and therefore, there ought to be a way for people to do so 
in a rational way. That's why I supported what's called a temporary-
worker plan that said, you can come and do a job an American is not 
doing, on a temporary basis, so you don't have to sneak across the 
border. In other words, one way to take pressure off the border is to 
have a way for people to come here on a temporary basis legally.
    Now, Steve was telling me--I was telling Steve--we're doing a good 
job, by the way. If you notice in the papers today, the arrests are 
down. In other words, fewer people are coming. Last year, by the way, we 
arrested and sent back across over a million people. In other words, 
there's a lot of action down there. It may not look like it or sound 
like it on your radios or TVs, but there's a lot of work going on.
    There's a lot of nursery people up here in this part of the world, I 
understand. But one of these days, these nursery people are going to 
say, ``We can't continue to grow our business because we can't find the 
workers.'' Americans are--I don't know what the proper terminology is 
for nursery worker--pruning, that's a--we'll try pruning--[laughter]--
planting, planting--starts with a ``P.'' [Laughter] The question is, can 
they find enough workers? I was talking to a fellow today at

[[Page 931]]

lunch. He said, ``We need more high-skilled workers here in Cleveland, 
H-1B visas.''
    The system isn't working, is what I'm telling you. It's a great 
question, by the way. The system--and I'm glad you asked it--the system 
isn't working. And I felt it needed to be fixed and went to Congress--
and, by the way, the other question is, what do you do with the 12 
million people already here? There's 12 million people, they estimate, 
here illegally. Some of them have been here a long time. Some of them 
been good citizens. You may even know some of them. They've raised kids. 
Some of the kids were born here, went to college--good, productive 
citizens in America. What do you do with them? You kick them out? I 
mean, I didn't think that was practical. As a matter of fact, I know 
it's not practical. Or you make them a citizen off the bat? No, you 
don't do that. That's called amnesty. That says, okay, fine, you broke 
the law; there's--you get rewarded. You can't have that kind of system.
    And so I supported a system that said, you pay a fine if you've been 
here that long; you show you're not a criminal; you show you paid your 
taxes; you go back home to touch base, to apply for the right to get in 
line--not ahead of somebody who has been trying to get here legally, but 
in line.
    Anyway, it didn't work. And we'll have to see whether or not the 
forces that recognize we've got to do something for the sake of the 
economy and sake of the border continue to mount because there wasn't 
the political will in Washington to get anything done on a comprehensive 
basis. And that's what happens sometimes in politics.
    One of the things I try to remind people in Congress is this--I've 
told this story a lot as well. You get stuck on a story when you're 
President; you generally stay on it. [Laughter] Anyway, I was at the 
Coast Guard Academy, giving a graduation speech there. And the number-
one guy in the class, his grandfather was a migrant worker from Mexico. 
And he talked with such unbelievable pride about a country where a 
fellow can come to do jobs Americans weren't doing, to work, and here 
his grandson is, speaking in front of the President, talking about a 
bright future.
    We should never lose confidence in the ability for this great 
country to assimilate people into our culture. I think it's healthy that 
people come to America with a dream. I think it's healthy that people 
say, ``Just give me a chance, and I'll work my heart out so a next 
generation can succeed.''
    And so in my line of work, ma'am, you just lay out what you think is 
right. I'm not the kind of fellow to tell you--I don't run focus groups 
and polls to tell me what I think is right. I try to lead--[applause]--I 
felt it was the right thing to do. It didn't work, but I'm glad I tried 
because when it's all said and done, I'll be able to look in the mirror 
and say, you came, and you did what you thought was the right thing for 
the country.
    Yes.

Visa Wavier Program

    Q. Mr. President, I have an organization that has supported the 
captive nations of the world for 48 years. And our members are sincerely 
interested in this Visa Waiver Program----
    The President. Yes.
    Q. ----for friendly countries so people could visit their relatives 
and friends on a shorter basis, like 30 days, 60 days. Are you in favor 
of this?
    The President. Great question. Are you from the Baltics? You are?
    Q. Sort of. I'm of Polish decent.
    The President. Polish decent. Well, that's right. Here's the thing 
she's talking about: In the Soviet era, we had a different visa policy 
with Soviet countries than we did with, say, Western European countries. 
And the danger--not the danger--the issue was--I take it back, not 
danger--issue--[laughter]--was that people would come and overstay their 
visas. In other words, people would say, I'm coming to travel and visit, 
but, in fact, they were coming to stay. And therefore, there was an 
accountability system in place that's been around for a long time.
    Fast-forward to today. Polish troops helped us liberate Iraq, and 
yet the citizens that supported a Government that helped us liberate 
Iraq aren't treated the same as citizens from other allies.
    And so to answer your question, yes, I am for changing the visa 
waiver policy for Poland

[[Page 932]]

and countries like Poland. And every time I go--as you know, I was in 
Poland--you may not know--I was in Poland the last trip and the Czech 
Republic and Bulgaria and Albania. And they wanted to know, question one 
is, when are you going to treat us like everybody else in the European 
Union? And my answer was, we're working on a comprehensive immigration 
bill--[laughter]--to address a lot of issues. And that was one of the 
issues we were trying to address.
    In the name of fairness, Condi and I are working on--with Congress 
on a new Visa Waiver Program. Great question.
    Yes, sir. Go ahead and yell it out.

War on Terror/Spread of Democracy

    Q. Mr. President, first of all, as a fairly conservative talk show 
host, I'd like you to please tell Congress to leave the fairness 
doctrine in the ground where it is.
    The President. Thank you--yes. [Laughter]
    Q. Second of all, going back to Iraq, sir, you mentioned Muslim 
mothers want their children to grow up in peace.
    The President. Right.
    Q. The children of extremists, however, are being trained right now.
    The President. Correct.
    Q. We've seen the videos. We have seen the indoctrination--
schoolchildren being indoctrinated to hate Americans and to hate Jews.
    The President. Correct.
    Q. The next generations of terrorists are already being bred. Isn't 
is true that regardless of how long it takes to win in Iraq or 
Afghanistan, the war on terror will never, ever truly be ended?
    The President. I think the strategy--first of all, I've read a lot 
of history, and I'm certainly no history expert, but I wonder what the 
rhetoric would have been like at the beginning of the cold war. Is it 
possible people might have speculated--and again, I can't tell you if 
this is--I'm just kind of speculating now--is it possible people 
speculated that, after the indoctrination of so many children about the 
wisdom of Marx, that this cold war would ever end?
    After Korea, I suspect no one would have predicted what I'm going to 
tell you now, that after years and years of bloodshed in the Far East, 
our relations in the Far East are strong, not only with Japan, the 
former enemy, South Korea, ally, but an ally, by the way, that went 
through a troublesome march to democracy. They're now a democracy, but 
you might remember that during the period of that change, they went 
through a pretty strong-handed military government.
    We got good relations with China. I don't think in the early fifties 
anybody would have predicted that the Chinese marketplace would more 
likely look like what Adam Smith envisioned rather than Karl Marx, 
although the political system lags, admittedly. But nevertheless, 
there's a lot of--my only point to you is, I don't think people could 
have seen what life was like.
    And so, yes, it's going to be a struggle--you're right--for a lot of 
reasons. But is it impossible to--achieve the marginalization of those 
who are able to radicalize people, and I think it is. I think it is. And 
not only I think it is; I think it's necessary.
    I believe that forms of government matter. I believe that 
frustration and hopelessness, because people don't have a sense of 
future, makes it easier for radical movements and radicals to be able to 
recruit. That's what I believe. And therefore, that's why I'm such a 
strong believer in advocating the march of democracy in the Middle East.
    And look, I fully understand that, and this is a very interesting 
ideological debate--people call me--he's a hopeless idealist, they say. 
But I also think it's realistic to understand, unless we change the 
conditions of how people live, that it's going to be hard to marginalize 
those who would prey upon the young. You notice, none of these guys that 
have given the orders are actually the suicide bombers. That's why 
they're still giving the orders. [Laughter] But they're able to prey 
upon young people. And I think a lot of it has to do with education. And 
no question, we're working with governments such as Musharraf's 
Government to address the madrassas. Education matters a lot, whether it 
be in helping to eradicate poverty or helping to deal with radicalism.
    But if you living in a society where you have no hope, then you're 
going to look for another form of false hope. So I happen to

[[Page 933]]

think the idea of encouraging people to adopt forms of government that 
give people hope is in our national interest.
    Now, this is a different foreign policy than what we used to espouse 
here. It used to be, in many ways, what mattered was calm, apparent 
calm. What mattered most was stability. Let's have a foreign policy that 
promotes stability to make sure we get plenty of cheap energy as well.
    After September the 11th, I came to the conclusion that such a 
foreign policy promoted instability because while things might look calm 
on the surface, beneath the surface broiled frustration and doubt and 
hopelessness. And so the policy that I advocate is one that promotes 
democracy as an alternative in this ideological struggle, all aiming to 
marginalize the recruiters and give hope to the recruitees. And do I 
believe it can work? I do. That's why I told you the Japanese story.
    History has been--history--liberty prevails every time if we stay 
with it, if you think about history. Think about Europe. There were two 
major wars on the continent of Europe, and today, Europe is whole, free, 
and at peace. Why? Because forms of government matter. And it's in our 
interest--and I've said this once, and I'll say it again: It's in our 
interest not to lose faith in certain fundamental values.
    And it's hard work, particularly hard work given the fact that we 
live in this world in which news and imagery travels instantly. The 
enemy knows that. The interesting thing, they know a lot about us in 
America. They know we're kind-hearted, decent people who value human 
life. And they understand that Americans will recoil from the violence 
on our TV screens. That's what they know. And I know--or I strongly 
believe that if we recoil and leave the region with precipitous 
withdrawals or withdrawals not based upon conditions on the ground, it's 
going to get worse, not better. And my attitude is, now is the time to 
do the hard work so your children can more likely grow up in peace.
    That's what I believe, sir. And that's why I'm making my decisions.
    Yes. A couple of more, then you're paying me a lot of money, and 
I've got to go back to work. [Laughter]

Native American Rights

    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Yes, sir.
    Q. ----Republican Presidents, going back to the Nixon 
administration, have strongly favored Indian self-determination.
    The President. India?
    Q. American Indian self-determination and first-nations communities. 
And it seems like the conservative Court, however, has been consistently 
eroding that self-determination. What has your administration--what 
position does your administration take with respect to sovereignty and 
Native American rights?
    The President. Very interesting question. I believe in the 
sovereignty of the Indian nations. And far be it for me to second-guess 
Court decisions. On the other hand, I will continue to put judges who 
strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. 
But I do support the notion of sovereignty. It's really interesting.
    Yes, sir. You're next, after him.

Disaster Preparedness and Response/Pandemic Flu

    Q. Sorry about that. Mr. President----
    The President. Doc.
    Q. ----I'm a pediatrician at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital 
across the street--[inaudible]--Cleveland.
    The President. Thank you, sir. Nutritionist?
    Q. Pediatrician, yes, sir.
    The President. Pediatricianist.
    Q. Yes, sir. Returning to a domestic item very quickly----
    The President. Must feel good to be a healer.
    Q. It is, sir. Thank you. Good to serve. One of the things that 
we're passionate about in pediatrics now, both at Rainbow and across the 
Nation, is disaster preparedness and disaster response, specifically the 
needs of children. Could you comment, Mr. President, on how well-
prepared we are as a nation for, God forbid, the next Katrina or 
pandemic flu or some such calamity?
    The President. We learned a lot of lessons from Katrina. Lesson one 
is, is that we've got to make sure local governments are better prepared 
to respond. Lesson two is that

[[Page 934]]

there's seamless decisionmaking between the State and local government. 
And lesson three is, is that if need be, the Federal Government needs to 
move troops in there, regardless of what the local people want.
    We are better prepared and drill it a lot. Great question. The more 
difficult question is his question on pandemic flu. I asked Mike 
Leavitt, who is the head of HHS, and Chertoff to--he's the Homeland 
guy--to chair--Department of Homeland Security--[laughter]--Secretary of 
Homeland Security. [Laughter] In Crawford, we kind of shortcut it. 
[Laughter] Anyway, look, nobody has accused me of being Shakespeare, you 
know? [Laughter] Anyway--I just hope you can figure out what I'm 
saying--[laughter]--is we spend a lot of time on pandemic flu. One way 
you anticipate a crisis is, you kind of war-game it.
    The first--I'm going to try to see if I can remember as much to make 
it sound like I'm smart on the subject. But I actually spend a lot of 
time on it because I am concerned that if the pandemic flu, the H5N1 
virus were to mutate to the point where it becomes transmittable from 
bird to human to human, we'll have a significant international problem 
on our hands. So step one is to work with countries where the virus is 
more likely to show up and mutate on transparent information systems.
    When I went to Vietnam, one of the things we looked at was the 
Vietnamese reporting process of the detection of chicken viruses and 
whether or not that virus was mutating to the point where it could 
become infectious. And we've done a good job of that. As a matter of 
fact, at the APEC--which is the countries around the Pacific Rim--
meeting, the last two meetings and this next one I'm going to in 
Australia, I always make it a point for--to talk about the need for all 
of us to be in a position where we can share information and track the 
mutation of the virus.
    The issue, as you know, is that there is no, like, inoculation that 
will stop the spread. Yet we're spending a lot of money on trying to 
develop new vaccines based not upon eggs but on genetics. And Leavitt 
says we're making some pretty good progress.
    Thirdly, just in case it were to hit here in the United States, we 
have stockpiled a lot of the spray. What's it called--anyway--Tamiflu. 
It may work, may not work. But just in case it does work, we got a lot 
of stockpile for you--[laughter]--we do, as a way to try to, at least, 
arrest somewhat the spread of the disease.
    But the ultimate effect--and this is what the dangerous thing about 
this is--is the ultimate public policy decisions are going to be, do we 
shut down America? Do you say that nobody can come in and out of your 
city? Or do you shut down all air travel? And so we've war-gamed a lot 
of options. And Mike has traveled the country--Mike Leavitt--to State 
and local government to help them think through different procedures 
that would be necessary to try to halt the spread of this virus if it 
were to mutate.
    For example, how would a local community deal with schools? We 
happen to believe that the local response would be a better response 
than the Federal Government trying to one-size-fits-all each community's 
response. And that, as you know--I mean, there's different responses to 
different hurricanes that have hit, and so it would be a little uneven. 
And so we're trying to train as best as we can and war-game it out. It's 
a very interesting question you got.
    I would give us a ``A'' for recognizing that we need to think about 
it. And until we get this vaccine--and by the way, we do have it teed up 
pretty well, where the vaccine makers will be willing to go full 
production if we can find the proper vaccine to manufacture. We're 
spending a lot of money on it at NIH--through NIH. And I'd give us good 
marks for recognizing the issue, good marks for doing something about 
it, and the only--I can't tell you what marks we'll get in response 
because, thankfully, we haven't had to respond, but we're watching 
carefully.
    Yes, sir. Good question.

Education/President's Domestic Agenda

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. If you talk to a lot of neighborhood 
folks here in Cleveland, they say that there's a war on terror brewing 
in our neighborhoods with an increase in crime over the past few months.
    The President. Yes.

[[Page 935]]

    Q. What are your thoughts on how we can improve opportunity and 
decrease crime in urban areas to make Cleveland an international 
metropolis?
    The President. No, thanks. Yes, great question. First of all, there 
is--crime is rising in some communities--under some crime, like, I think 
it was 1 percent last year. In other words, no question that--look, I'm 
an education guy; let me just put it bluntly. I don't see how you can 
provide a hopeful future for a child if the child can't read, write, or 
add and subtract. Now, that's pretty elementary. But it doesn't happen 
enough. And therefore, I strongly support accountability in public 
schools. I happen to believe that it is a huge advance in kind of 
providing--promoting opportunity.
    See, when I was the Governor of Texas, I was appalled at the number 
of schools that just shuffled kids through and hoped that they learned 
something. And then you know what happened? We get about the 9th or 10th 
grade, and lo and behold, they can't read. And oops, it's a little late. 
Too bad, just go on through. It's much easier, by the way, to give up on 
a kid early and just kind of socially promote. And so I insisted, as 
Governor of Texas and then working with people like Steve LaTourette, to 
change the way the Federal Government deals with education.
    Now, I believe strongly in local control of schools, okay. I believe 
you ought to chart the paths to excellence here. I believe that the 
government closest to the people governs best because you're most 
responsive to the needs of your particular community. That's what I 
believe. However, I also believe that if the Federal Government spends 
money, we have the right to ask whether or not certain objectives are 
being met.
    And so inherent in No Child Left Behind is a solid demand by 
results-oriented people who want to know whether or not an inner-city 
kid can read at grade level by the third grade. I don't think that's too 
much to ask, to set a standard and have expectations that must be met in 
return for Federal money. A matter of fact, I think that is the way to 
make sure that--I used to call it this way: challenge the soft bigotry 
of low expectations.
    Let's just face it--let me finish here--let's just face it; let's be 
honest about our ourselves. There is a mindset at times that certain 
kids are too hard to educate. Maybe the mother or daddy doesn't speak 
English as the first language or inner-city kids, as if there's no 
inherent God-given talent that, if properly motivated, can enable that 
kid to excel.
    And so I strongly believe it's in the national interests to say, we 
expect you to read--unless, of course, you happen to believe they can't. 
I'm a high expectations person. I believe if you set low expectations, 
you know what you're going to get? You're going to get low results. I 
believe every child can learn. That's what I believe. And I believe that 
governments ought to expect to have good results.
    And so inherent in this education proposal, which is now the law--
which, frankly, has irritated a lot of people; it just has. That's what 
happens when you hold people to account--that, I think, it makes sense 
to say, no excuses; we want you to read. And we want you to read not 
only at the third grade but at the fourth grade and at the fifth grade 
and at the sixth grade and at the seventh grade. And we're going to test 
to make sure you do.
    You design the test. If you believe in local control of schools, the 
test ought to be designed, and they ought to be rigorous. And by the 
way, if you're a poor inner-city student, and you can't read at grade 
level, we will use that diagnostic tool to provide you additional money 
to make sure that you get the help that you need in order to make sure 
you're not left behind.
    And frankly, I don't care if that parent spends that money at the 
public school or a church or a private tutor. All I want is to make sure 
that that child gets the extra help he or she needs to make sure that 
the next time they test on reading or math, they're at grade level. And 
if a school--no, wait, let me finish. I'm not through yet because you 
got me started on something I strongly believe in. [Laughter]
    And if the school won't change nor teach, I believe parents ought to 
be given different options. We shouldn't have a school system that locks 
people into persistent failure, if you're interested in changing the 
dynamics of an inner-city, for example.

[[Page 936]]

    You know, we did something in Washington very interesting--that I 
found interesting, at least. We have now got a scholarship program, 
opportunity scholarships. See, the Federal Government funds the DC city 
and--a lot of the DC city and the schools, and so we can do this in 
Washington. So we have opportunity scholarships that go to poorer 
parents, where the parent can take that money and send their child to a 
parochial school or a private school. The line is out the door. It's 
amazing what happens when you give parents options.
    Part of the accountability system, by the way, enables parents to 
understand reality as well. When I was Governor, I talked to a lot of 
parents, and they say, ``Man, my child's school is great. I'm real happy 
with the school, Governor; we're doing great.'' And then all of a 
sudden, the test scores get posted, and if the school isn't meeting 
expectations compared to the other schools, the parent might say, well, 
maybe the school is not doing so good, and they start getting involved.
    I--and so step one of your question is, let's get it right early. I 
believe strongly in after-school programs. I believe that we've got to 
change the aspirational notions of some of our children that college is 
a good thing to do and that success is available for people who go to 
college. I mean that--and community colleges--I'm a big believer in 
community colleges. I think that's part of having a hopeful tomorrow for 
inner-city--or not inner-city--to know that college is available. That's 
why I'm a big, strong supporter of Pell grants as a way to encourage 
kids to go to college.
    I am concerned about a society that has not--a part of our society 
that hasn't accumulated assets. It's interesting; a lot of us have grown 
up in a world in which asset accumulation, savings, has been an integral 
part of our societies. In parts of Cleveland, I suspect, people don't 
have assets. They haven't had the capacity or the willing--or the 
ability to save money. That's why I believe that when we reform Social 
Security, that we ought to give people the option of setting aside some 
of their own money they've earned in the Social Security system as a 
savings account that can earn compound interest, just like money that we 
put in our own savings account. I want people to own assets. One of the 
big reasons I've pushed homeownership is, I like the idea of encouraging 
and fostering independence by ownership.
    And so--and finally, one way to help inner-city youth--this is a 
subject I've thought a lot about--is to encourage the involvement of 
faith-based and community-based programs in the compassionate delivery 
of love and help. And that's a different idea for a welfare system, see. 
I am a big believer in the ability of faith-based programs to help 
change people's lives. I, for one, believe that a faith-based program 
can help people quit drinking--me, for starters. I believe that there is 
nothing more powerful than a mentor putting an arm around a child who 
needs love and says, I love you. Many of the faith-based programs are 
full of people who are in the program in the first place because they 
believe in the universal admonition to love a neighbor like you'd like 
to be loved yourself.
    And therefore, one of the initiatives that I have put forth in 
Washington, that is quite controversial, is that we ought to open up 
programs--Federal money to faith-based programs, so long as, one, they 
don't proselytize, and two, so long as they help meet a social 
objective. Why shouldn't we say that we ought to be spending your 
taxpayers' money on programs to help inner-city kids regardless of what 
the delivery system is? Why shouldn't we say, faith-based programs that 
many times are able to go into neighborhoods that other programs aren't 
able to go into--why shouldn't we empower them to help people realize in 
life that there may be a better path than the path one may be tempted to 
go down?
    So there's a comprehensive agenda. My dream is for all of us to feel 
that the promise of America belongs to them. And it's a great country. 
It is; it's a fabulous country. I know people are frustrated, and people 
get concerned. But I would hope we would all keep things in perspective 
and realize what a fantastic nation we have.
    I mean, when you really compare our life here compared to the lives 
of others around the world, we're blessed. To that end, to whom much is 
given, much is required. And

[[Page 937]]

that's why we're in the lead when it comes to solving the pandemic of 
HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa and working to end malaria. These 
are two achievable objectives. One is to get antiretrovirals into the 
hands of people who suffer. And American taxpayers have been incredibly 
generous. And it ought to make you feel good about a country that is 
willing to say, I see suffering, and I want to help. In other words, 
we're working on suffering at home, and we ought to work on suffering 
abroad as well.
    I'm asking Congress for $30 billion. It's double the HIV/AIDS 
initiative that we've got in place. But let me tell you an interesting 
statistic. When we first got going on the initiative in 2003, I think it 
was, 50,000 people were getting antiretrovirals in the countries that we 
were working in. Today, over 1.2 million people's lives have been saved 
because of the generosity of the American taxpayer.
    And now we're on an initiative to end malaria, or cut it at least in 
half, in affected countries around the world. Should we be doing that as 
a country? The answer is, absolutely, we should be. And the reason why 
is, is that we're a blessed nation. And we've become even doubly blessed 
by helping others be able to deal with disease and realize the blessings 
of an Almighty. That's what I believe.
    Listen, I got to hop. [Laughter] Thanks for your time. God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 1:42 p.m. at the InterContinental Hotel 
Cleveland. In his remarks, he referred to Frederick R. Nance, chairman 
of the board of directors, and Joseph D. Roman, president and chief 
executive officer, Greater Cleveland Partnership; Mayor Frank G. Jackson 
of Cleveland, OH; Delos M. ``Toby'' Cosgrove, chief executive officer 
and chairman of the board of governors, the Cleveland Clinic; Gen. David 
H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; and 
President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan.