[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 29 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[Pages 978-993]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on the Federal Budget and a Question-and-Answer Session in 
Nashville, Tennessee

July 19, 2007

    The President. Thank you all. Please sit down. Thank you all for 
coming. I'm glad you're here. Thanks, Darrell. Are you sure you want the 
Federal Government moving to Nashville? [Laughter]
    Thanks for the invitation. I've got some thoughts I'd like to share 
with you, and then if you've got some questions, I'd love to answer 
some. My job is the Commander in Chief, and my job is the educator in 
chief. And part of being the educator in chief is to help our fellow 
citizens understand why I've made some of the decisions I've made that 
have affected your lives. And so thanks for letting me come.
    Here we are in the Presidential ballroom--smart move, Darrell, to 
pick a Presidential ballroom. [Laughter] I'm sorry Laura is not with me. 
She is, first of all, a fabulous woman. She is a patient woman. And she 
is doing a marvelous job as the First Lady.
    I want to thank Ralph Schulz, the president and CEO of the Nashville 
Area Chamber. I thank the business leaders who have allowed me to come 
and visit with you. You do have an exciting city here. This, of course, 
is not my first time here. I can remember being here in the Opryland 
hotel complex when I was the owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. 
And I can remember coming here for my mother and father's 50th wedding 
anniversary. They had a bunch of country and western singers sing to 
honor the 50th wedding anniversary, and it was a special time. And 
you're right; you've got a fabulous city here.
    I have just come from the Harrington's company, a small business 
here, the Nashville Bun Company. And I know that some of the employees 
from the Nashville Bun Company are here. Thank you for being here today. 
It's quite an operation. I love going to small businesses because the 
small-business sector of our economy is really what drives new job 
growth. If the small businesses are doing well in America, America is 
doing well.
    And so I went by to see this operation, and I want to spend a little 
time talking about small-business growth, if you don't mind. And so I 
want to thank the Harringtons; they're good, solid Tennessee citizens 
who are entrepreneurs, risk takers, dreamers.
    I don't intend to talk about this war against radicals and extremism 
in my remarks. If you've got questions, I'll be glad to answer them. I 
do want to, though, pay homage to those who wear the uniform. I'm 
honored to be with you. Thanks for serving the country.
    Cordia asked me in the limousine coming over here, ``Have you had 
any amazing experiences as the President?'' And, yes. [Laughter] I told 
her there's no more amazing experience than to meet those who have 
served in harm's way and to realize the strength of spirit of American 
citizens who volunteer during a time of danger. And one of the young men 
I have met during my Presidency--I did so in my home State of Texas--who 
is with us today, a man who is recovering from terrible injury but has 
never lost the spirit of life, Kevin Downs. He's a good man. We're going 
to get him some new legs, and if he hurries up, he can outrun me on the 
South Lawn of the White House. Proud that Kevin's mom and dad are here 
with us too.
    I want to spend a little time on the economy and, more particularly, 
the budget. You've got to worry about your budgets; we've got to worry 
about your budget too, since you're paying for it. [Laughter] There's a 
philosophical debate in Washington, and

[[Page 979]]

really it's kind of to calibrate how much money we need and how much 
money you need. Some say we need more of your money to expand the size 
and scope of government, or, they would argue, more of your money to 
balance the budget. Then there are those like me in Washington who say, 
there's ample money in Washington to meet priorities, and the more money 
you have in your pocket, the better off the economy is. In other words, 
let me put it bluntly: I think you can spend your money better than the 
Federal Government can spend your money.
    Part of my job is to deal with problems. And I try to do so with a 
set of principles in mind. A principle is, you can spend your money 
better than the government can, but a further principle is, if you have 
more of your money in your pocket to save, invest, or spend, the economy 
is likely to--more likely to grow.
    We were confronted--this administration has confronted some 
difficult economic times, particularly earlier in this administration. 
There was a recession. There were the terrorist attacks that affected 
the economy in a very direct way. There were corporate scandals which 
created some thousand--uncertainty about our system that needed to be 
corrected. And we responded to those problems by cutting taxes.
    See, if you believe in the principle, the more money you have--and 
all of a sudden, you see some rough economic times, you act on the 
principle. So I worked with Congress, and we cut taxes on everybody who 
pays taxes. On one of these tax cuts, we said, okay, you deserve a tax 
cut, but you don't deserve a tax cut. It was the belief that everybody 
who pays taxes ought to get tax relief.
    And as you can see from this chart here, this is what the tax cuts 
have meant in 2007. But ever since they have been enacted, it has got 
the same type of effect. So if you're a average taxpayer, you're 
receiving $2,200 of tax relief. Some receive more; some receive less; 
but the average for all taxpayers is $2,216.
    See--and the fundamental question is, does it make sense to have the 
average taxpayer have that money in his or her pocket? I think it does 
for a lot of reasons. It encourages consumerism; it encourages 
investment; it enables people to be able to put money aside for a 
family's priorities. You don't want the government setting your 
priorities; you set your own priorities. And if college happens to be a 
priority of yours--if you want to save for your little guys coming up, 
here's some money for you to put aside. That's what the tax relief 
meant.
    There's obviously more tax relief for married families with children 
because there's the child credit. I thought it makes sense to say, if 
you've got a child, you ought to get credit for that child when it comes 
to the Tax Code to help you raise the children. You know, we put the--
did something on the marriage penalty. Imagine a Tax Code that penalizes 
marriage. That's what the code did early on, and we mitigated the 
marriage penalty and the Tax Code. We ought to be encouraging marriage 
not discouraging marriage through bad tax policy.
    The Nashville Bun Company folks are organized so that they pay tax 
at the individual income tax level. A lot of small-business owners know 
what I'm talking about. If you're a LLC or a subchapter S, you don't pay 
corporate tax; you pay tax at the individual income tax rates so that 
when you cut taxes on all who paid income taxes, you're really cutting 
taxes on small-business owners as well. And if most new jobs are created 
by small businesses, it makes a lot of sense if you're dealing with 
economic problems to cut the taxes on those who are creating new jobs.
    The more money in the small business's treasury, the more likely it 
is they'll be able to expand. And when they expand, the more likely it 
is they'll be hiring new people. We also put incentives in the Tax Code 
that said if you purchase equipment--you're a small-business owner and 
you purchase equipment, like the English muffin rolling deal or whatever 
you want to call it--[laughter]--getting out of my lane here--
[laughter]--we provide an incentive in the Tax Code to encourage you to 
purchase equipment. That not only helps your business become more 
productive and more competitive; the more productive and competitive you 
become, the more likely it is you'll be able to sustain growth and, 
therefore, continue hiring.

[[Page 980]]

    But it also means that the English muffin manufacturing company--
English muffin machine manufacturing company is more likely to have 
work. In other words, there's an effect; the Tax Code can affect 
commerce. And that's exactly what we did, and we cut the taxes, and it's 
worked. This economy is strong. Unemployment has dropped. Since April 
of--August of 2003 we've added over 8.2 million new jobs. Productivity 
is up. People are working.
    People are working. And that's what we want. We want people to say, 
I'm making a living for my family, and I've got more money in my pocket 
so I can make decisions for the best of my family. And I'm going to 
spend a little time, if you've got any questions, on how to keep it 
going strong.
    But I now want to talk about the budget. People say, you can't 
balance the budget if you cut taxes. That's one of the arguments in 
Washington, DC. I think all of us would like to balance the budget. But 
they're saying, ``I'm going to raise your money--raise your taxes so we 
can balance the budget.'' There's a flaw in that argument, and that is, 
most of the time they raise taxes on you, they figure out new ways to 
spend the money, as opposed to reckon it to deficit reduction. I've got 
a better idea that I want to share with you and share with the American 
people, and that is, the best way to balance the budget is to keep taxes 
low, growing the economy, which will yield more tax revenue into the 
economy. And it works, so long as you hold spending down. And that's the 
most important thing, is to keep taxes low and spending down.
    And I got a chart here I'm about to show you. Yes, there you go. And 
so I submitted a budget based upon no tax increases and being fiscally 
wise with your money. And here's the record of that plan. As you can see 
there, we had a deficit of $413 billion in 2004. This economy started 
picking up steam, kept the taxes low, and tax revenues started coming 
in, and then the deficit dropped to 318, and it dropped to 245, and it's 
anticipated it's going to be 205 in the year 2007. You can see the 
projection. We've done this without raising your taxes. We've done this 
by saying, keep taxes low; keep the economy growing; and be wise about 
how we spend your money.
    I project--we project if we can continue to have fiscal sanity in 
Washington, DC, that we'll be in surplus by the year 2012. That's where 
we're headed. And I believe we can do so without penalizing the small-
business sector--or the large-business sector, for that matter. And 
particularly, we can do so without penalizing the families and 
individual taxpayers in the country. But that's the argument.
    Now, the Democrats have submitted their budget. Put up the next 
chart. Oops, that's my budget. This is non-defense discretionary 
spending. This is what we propose, see. We go to Congress and say, 
here's our budget proposals. We're going to make sure our troops have 
what it takes to win this war against these extremists and radicals. 
That's what the American people expect. But this is--[applause].
    So this is my proposal, and I'd like to show you what the Democrats 
have proposed. Here's their proposal. They've added billions of dollars 
in new spending on the budget they submitted. The reason I'm--this is 
not a--I'm not bashing anybody. I'm just--what I'm here to do is educate 
you on the different approaches to how we're dealing with your money 
when it comes to the Federal budget. And as you notice, there is a--
quite a disparity about the different approaches of how much money ought 
to be spent. You can't pay for the red lines unless you're willing to 
raise taxes on the American people. I would call that a return to the 
tax-and-spend days. I have showed you our budget to get to surplus, and 
it requires this level of increase in spending--the blue.
    The people now in charge of the House and the Senate have submitted 
their own budgets, their own blueprint for how we should spend your 
money, and it's reflected in the red lines. Now, you can't grow the 
economy fast enough to get to the red lines. And therefore, the only way 
to do so is to run up your taxes.
    I'd like you to see the next chart, if you don't mind. This is the 
tax increases inherent in a different approach. As you can see, will 
raise taxes 392 billion over 5 years and with a $1.8 trillion increase 
in taxes in order to

[[Page 981]]

make the budget projections that they have spent. I would warn the 
Nashville Bun Company to be very careful with this kind of approach 
because you can't keep making buns if the Democrats take all your dough. 
[Laughter]
    I don't disparage anybody; there's just a difference of opinion. 
Part of my job is to make it clear to people that there are choices to 
make. And people got to understand this budget process. You know, we're 
throwing around huge numbers in Washington, DC. And the reason I've come 
today is to clarify the difference of opinion so you can make your own 
choice about the right approach. I've obviously got my choice, but the 
American people need to know the facts so they can make up their mind as 
the best approach to dealing with the finances of the United States 
today and tomorrow and for the next decade to come. This is the tax 
increases that will be required under one vision of dealing with your 
money, and here's my view of what we ought to do on taxes--and, of 
course, the comparison. [Laughter]
    We don't need to raise your taxes in order to balance the budget. We 
shouldn't raise your taxes in order to balance the budget. As a matter 
of fact, we ought to keep your taxes as low as possible to make sure 
this economy continues to grow. So you'll watch this budget process and 
the appropriations process unfold here. And it's really important for 
the leadership in Congress to pass the appropriations bills--that's the 
spending bills--as quickly as possible. There's 12 spending bills that 
are supposed to get to the President's desk.
    And they need to be passing these things; they need to be doing the 
people's business in Washington, DC. They need to have an honest debate 
about the appropriations for the different Departments that they're 
dealing with--an open, honest debate. They ought not to be trying to 
slip special spending measures in there without full transparency and 
full debate; those are called entitlements. And they ought to be wise 
about how they spend your money. And they ought to get these 
appropriations bills to my desk as quickly as possible and not delay.
    Now, I will tell you that there's an interesting relationship 
between the President and the Congress. The President [Congress] * has 
got the right to initiate spending bills, and they do; they've got the 
right to decide how much money is spent. And I've got the right to 
accept whether or not the amount of money they spend is the right 
amount. That's what's called the veto. If they overspend or if they try 
to raise your taxes, I'm going to veto their bills.
    * White House correction.
    So I'd like--that's why I appreciate you letting me come and give 
you a little budget discussion. But I thought it would be appropriate, 
if you don't mind, to answer some of your questions, any question; I'd 
be glad to answer them. I've been there for 6\1/2\ years; if I can't 
answer them, I can figure out how not to answer them. [Laughter]
    Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman.

Health Care Reform/Energy

    Q. Your administration has been pro-small business. How do we 
continue that philosophy in Washington?
    The President. Look, here's the thing that the country--first of 
all, tax policy helps small businesses. If a small-business owner has 
got certainty in the Tax Code that taxes will remain low, it causes 
people to be more interested in investment.
    The biggest issue I hear facing small-business owners, however, is 
health care. We got--a lot of small-business owners are really having 
problems dealing with the rising cost of health care. When I talk to 
risk takers and entrepreneurs, I find that people have a lot of anxiety 
about how to deal with health care for two reasons: one, whether they 
can afford it; and two, they have this great sense of obligation to 
their employees. In other words, they want their employees--really good 
CEOs or owners of small businesses care deeply about the life of their 
employees.
    There is a--as you can imagine, and this is the great thing about 
our democracy--there tends to be differences of opinion. And we got a 
big difference of opinion on health care. And I would like to tell you 
where I'm worried--my worries and my recommendations. I'm worried that 
there are people in Washington who want to expand the scope of the 
Federal Government in making health

[[Page 982]]

care decisions on behalf of businesses and individuals. There is a 
debate in Washington, DC, now taking place on whether or not to expand 
what's called SCHIP, which is a health care program designed primarily 
for poor children. I support the concept of providing health care to 
help poor children, just like I support the concept of Medicaid to help 
provide health care for the poor.
    The problem, as I see it, is this: That the people--some in 
Washington want to expand the eligibility for those available for SCHIP, 
in some instances up to $80,000 per family, which really means, if you 
think about it, that there will be an incentive for people to switch 
from private health insurance to government health insurance. I view 
this as the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the Federal 
Government on the health care system. Now, the Federal Government has 
got a huge role in health care--as I say, Medicare, Veterans Affairs, 
Medicaid, poor children. But I am deeply worried about--further 
expansion will really lead to the undermining of the private health care 
system, which would take the greatest health care system in the world 
and convert it into a mediocre health care system.
    Now, you can't--not only am I against what they're trying to do; I 
am for something else, and I'd like to share with you what it is. First, 
there is a common goal, and we all share the goal in Washington--is to 
make sure health care is available and affordable. If you're worried 
about available and affordable health care, there are some practical 
things you can do, like stopping these junk lawsuits that are running 
good doctors out of practice and forcing professionals to practice 
defensive medicine so they can defend themselves in a court of law.
    Secondly, small businesses ought to have the right to pool risk 
across jurisdictional boundaries. If you're a restaurant owner in 
Nashville, Tennessee, you ought to be allowed to pool risk. In other 
words, you ought to be allowed to put your employees in a larger risk 
pool with a restaurant, say, in Texas or in Minnesota. Part of the 
problem small businesses have is, they unable to get the economies of 
purchase that big businesses are able to get because they have got such 
a small number of employees. And so we ought to be--encourage the 
pooling of assets, the pooling of risk so small businesses can buy 
insurance at the same discounts that big businesses get to do.
    Thirdly, I'm a strong proponent of health savings accounts. Health 
savings accounts is an insurance product that has got high-risk 
deductibles or high deductibles for catastrophic illness, plus the 
ability for an employee to be able to put money in--with employer's 
help--put money into the account tax-free, save tax-free, and withdraw 
money tax-free. And the reason I am is because I believe one of the real 
problems we have in health care is that there is no market, in essence. 
In other words, somebody else pays your bills; we have a third-party 
payer system. I think you know what I'm talking about. You submit your 
claims; somebody else pays the bills.
    I don't know many of you have ever asked the doc, ``What's your 
price?'' Or, you know, ``How good are you?'' Or, ``What's your 
neighbor's price?'' You certainly do that in most aspects of your 
consumer decisionmaking; you think about price and you think about 
quality, but not in health care. And the reason why is, is that somebody 
else has been paying the bills under our traditional system. But what 
health savings accounts do--and products like it--is that it puts the 
consumer, the patient in charge in the decisionmaking. And in order to 
make that effective, there needs to be more price transparency and more 
quality transparency in the marketplace. In other words, when people 
shop, it helps affect the cost of a good, or a service in this case.
    And so since we're such huge health care providers, one of the 
things we're working with is large corporations and entities to say, 
look, you've got to post your price to providers and hospitals. It 
creates some angst, but nevertheless, it is a much better alternative 
than the Federal Government making all decisions. So one of the things 
we're trying to do from a philosophical perspective is to encourage more 
consumerism in health care.
    Another thing that needs to happen in health care is, there needs to 
be better information technology in health care. The way I like to make 
this point is that this is an

[[Page 983]]

industry that still--where a lot of the paperwork is still filled out by 
hand. Most businesses have been able to use these fantastic new 
technologies to be able to make their companies more productive--but not 
health care. You got doctors writing prescriptions. They don't know how 
to write very well anyway, and secondly, it's easy to lose paperwork.
    And so the health care industry lags behind when it comes to the 
modernization that a lot of other industries have been through by the 
advent of information technology. There's a role for the government. 
Remember, we're huge providers of health care. The Veterans Affairs 
Department, for example, now has got electronic medical records for each 
person covered through Veterans Affairs. So somebody can just take your 
chip, show it into the--run it into the computer, and out comes the 
medical records. And they estimate that as we help develop a common 
language so that IT can take hold in the health care system, that we can 
save up to 30 percent of the costs in the current system.
    But finally, I want to share another idea with you. They've got--
those folks up there who want to spread further government into health 
care have got their ideas--and you've got to beat a bad idea with a good 
idea, in my judgment. And I want to share with you another idea that 
seems to make sense.
    If you work for a corporation, you get your health care free. 
There's a tax break for you. If you're an individual, you have to pay 
for your health care. People are not treated the same in the Tax Code. 
If you're working for a big company, you come out pretty good when it 
comes to health care. It's a tax-free benefit. If you're out there on 
your own, you got to purchase your health care. It's an after-tax 
purchase. If you're working for a small business that has trouble 
affording health care and they have copayments, for example, a lot of 
times the employee is not treated as fairly in the Tax Code as someone 
who works for a larger company.
    And so I propose that we change the Tax Code; we treat everybody 
fairly. For example, if you're a married couple--a married couple, yes, 
you ought to get a $15,000 deduction, no matter where you get your 
health care, so long as you then use the savings to purchase health 
care. If you're single, you ought to get a $7,500 tax deduction. So it's 
like a mortgage deduction off your income tax. But it levels the playing 
field. And then what ends up happening is, the market starts to respond 
as more individual decisionmakers are now able to use the fairness in 
the Tax Code to demand product.
    Part of the problem we have is, there is no individual market that 
is developed. If you're out there trying to find your health care on 
your own, it's very difficult to find competitive--something that you 
can live with, something that's competitive. And we believe that 
changing the Tax Code will help. There are some in Congress who believe 
a better approach would be a tax credit. I happen to believe that 
deductions are a better way to go, but I know that either approach is 
better than the nationalization of health care. And so one of the real 
issues that we got--[applause]--anyway, thanks for the question.
    Don't get me started on energy. If you're a small-business person, 
you better worry about the cost of energy. And that's why I have said 
that it is in our national interest to diversify away from oil. It's in 
our national interest to promote alternative fuels, and I believe we can 
do so with current technology and new technology. It's in our national 
security interests that we're not heavily dependent on oil. I think you 
know what I mean by that. I mean, there's a lot of parts of the world 
where we buy oil that don't like us. That's not in the national security 
interest of the country.
    It's in our economic security interest to diversify because when the 
demand for crude oil goes up in a developing country, for example, it 
causes the price of crude oil to go up, unless there's a corresponding 
increase in supply. And when that price of crude goes up, it runs up the 
price of your gasoline. And therefore, it is in our interest to promote 
ethanol, for example, or biodiesel as ways to power our automobiles. It 
also happens to be good for the environment that we diversify away from 
crude oil.
    On the electricity side, I'm a big proponent of nuclear power. I 
think if you're genuinely interested in dealing with climate change, you 
have to be a supporter of nuclear power

[[Page 984]]

because nuclear power will enable us to grow our economy. And if we grow 
our economy, it'll mean we'll be able to afford new technologies, and at 
the same time, there are zero greenhouse gas emissions.
    And so to answer your question--obviously, a little long-winded--
[laughter]--is, good tax policy, good health care policy, and good 
energy policy will make it more likely that this small-business sector 
of ours will remain strong.
    Yes, sir. Go ahead and scream. You don't have to----

Immigration Reform

    Q. Sir, thank you very much for your service to our country so far.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. We appreciate that very much.
    The President. Appreciate it.
    Q. My question is, in light of the immigration bill, I'm not 
understanding exactly how if, with the amnesty of this many people 
coming in and then with the still concern about the borders being 
somewhat porous, how do we really achieve your desired effect in this, 
which, you know, would be, I guess, for obviously taking care of them, 
but yet afford not to be a big bulk sort of expense and the lack of the 
safety of the border?
    The President. Thank you for bringing that question up. It's a very 
important question that the Nation is confronting. You can sit down. 
[Laughter]
    Here are the commonsense objectives that need to be addressed when 
it comes to immigration. First, we need to enforce the border. A 
sovereign state--[applause]--it is the job of a state, of a nation, to 
enforce its borders. That's not an easy task. I'm real familiar with the 
border. I was a border-State Governor. I understand how difficult it is 
to fully enforce a border. But nevertheless, as a result of 
congressional action and the administration working with the Congress, 
we're making substantial progress on modernizing the border.
    Now, you go down to Arizona, for example; you can't find the border. 
Man, it's just desert. It is, like, wide open desert. And so what you're 
beginning to see is new infrastructure, new technologies, some fencing, 
berms to prevent automobiles from moving, all aimed at making the Border 
Patrol agency, which we are now doubling on the border, more effective. 
And we're making progress. The number of arrests over the last 12 months 
are down significantly. That is one way to measure whether or not people 
are making it into our country illegally. Last year, we arrested and 
sent back 1.1 million people on the southern border. Now, you divide 
that by 365. There is active participation on the border to do that 
which the American people expect us to do.
    Secondly, you're about to find--I think the country is about to find 
out that we're going to need hard-working, decent people to do jobs that 
Americans aren't doing. And that is why, for the sake of the economy, I 
support a temporary-worker plan.
    There are people who are coming--look, let me start over. There are 
people in our hemisphere whose families are really hungry, particularly 
compared to the lifestyle we have in America, and they want to work to 
feed their families. And they're willing to do jobs Americans don't want 
to do. That's just--that's reality. Some say, ``Well, force Americans to 
do the jobs they're unwilling to do.'' Well, that's not the way the 
system works. And yet there are people willing to come, to get in the 
fields, the agricultural sector. There are people willing to pick apples 
in Washington, you know, hitting those vegetable fields in California. 
And they want to do so because they want to feed their families.
    And the interesting problem we have, sir, is that because they're 
motivated by the same thing you're motivated by, I suspect--love of 
family and desire to provide for your family--they will go to great 
lengths to get in to the country. You think about somebody who's willing 
to get stuffed in the bottom of an 18-wheeler and pay one of these thugs 
that are smuggling them into the country to do work Americans aren't 
doing. So I've always felt like a temporary-worker program will be--
recognize an economic reality and also help keep pressure off the 
border. It's a long, hard border to enforce.
    By the way, in my State of Texas, when it comes to the fencing, I 
would strongly urge those who advocate it not to go down there and go 
face to face with some of these Texas

[[Page 985]]

ranchers down there. They're really not interested in having the Federal 
Government on their property. See, most of our property down in Texas is 
private land. The farther you go west, it's Federal land.
    And the reason I say that, it just shows how difficult it is to do 
what some assume can be done, which is, like, totally seal off the 
border. One way to make it easier for our Border Patrol is to have this 
temporary-worker program with verifiable identification and say, yes, 
you can come for a limited period of time, and then you're going home.
    Now, the--I suspect I'm all right so far with some of those who 
worry about immigration reform. The other question is--I'm not trying to 
elicit applause--[laughter]--the other question is, there are about 11 
million people who have been here over time who are working--some not 
working--but they're here. And what do we do with them? Now, some say 
that if you don't kick them out, that's called amnesty. I disagree.
    First of all, I think it's impractical to kick somebody out. I feel 
like if you make a person pay a fine--in other words, a cost for having 
broken our law--I agree with those who say that if you're an automatic 
citizen, it undermines the rule of law; I agree with that argument. I 
have a little problem with the argument, though, that says, if you pay a 
fine, if you prove you're a good citizen, if you've paid your back 
taxes, if you go home and re-register and come back, that you ought to 
be allowed to get in the back of the line. I don't think that's amnesty, 
but that's a lot of where the argument came.
    This is a difficult subject for a lot of folks. And I understand 
it's difficult. I was disappointed, of course, that the Senate bill 
didn't get moving. I think it's incumbent upon those of us in 
Washington, DC, to deal with hard problems now and not pass them on to 
future Congresses. And so, as you know, the bill failed, and I can't 
make a prediction to you at this point, sir, where it's going to head. I 
can make you a prediction, though, that pretty shortly, people are going 
to be knocking on people's doors saying, ``Man, we're running out of 
workers.'' This economy is strong. Remember, we've got a national 
unemployment rate of 4.5 percent. A lot of Americans are working, and 
there are still jobs Americans don't want to do. And the fundamental 
question is, will we be able to figure out a way to deal with the 
problem?
    Let me say one other point. I feel strongly about this issue. I do 
not like a system that has encouraged predators to treat people as 
chattel. We have a system that has encouraged the onset of coyotes--
those are the smugglers--and they prey upon these poor people. And they 
charge them a lot of money to smuggle through routes. And as a result of 
that system, there is innkeepers that charge exorbitant fees. There are 
document forgers. You're a small-business guy out here in Tennessee, and 
you're trying to run your nursery or whatever it is, and somebody shows 
up--you're not a document checker; the government can't expect the 
small-business owners to be able to determine whether or not the Social 
Security card has been forged or not. We need a new system. The system 
we've got is broken. And therefore, the fundamental question is, are we 
going to be able to deal with it?
    Let me say one other thing, and this is important for America to 
remember too. We have been a fabulous country when it comes to 
assimilating people. You know, ours is a country that has got such a 
fabulous spirit to it that the newcomer can come, work hard, obey law, 
and realize dreams. And that's what America has been about. And in my 
judgment, that's what America should always be about: the idea of people 
realizing dreams. And so the question people say is, ``Well, certain 
people can't assimilate.'' But there has been that argument throughout 
our history, that certain people of certain ethnicity or certain 
backgrounds can't assimilate. We must never lose faith in our capacity 
for people to assimilate. It's what has made us great in the past and 
what will make us great in the future.
    And so thank you for bringing up a tough subject for people in 
Washington.
    Yes, sir.

Music Industry

    Q. Mr. President, Al McCree with Altissimo Records representing the 
music industry. Music is one of our largest exports the country has. 
Currently, every country in the world--except China, Iran, North Korea,

[[Page 986]]

Rwanda, and the United States--pay a statutory royalty to the performing 
artists for radio and television air play. Would your administration 
consider changing our laws to align it with the rest of the country--the 
world?
    The President. Help. [Laughter] Maybe you've never had a President 
say this--I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about. 
[Laughter] Sounds like we're keeping interesting company, you know? 
[Laughter]
    Look, I'll give you the old classic: Contact my office, will you? 
[Laughter] I really don't--I'm totally out of my lane. I like listening 
to country music, if that helps. [Laughter]
    You've got a question? Yes. You can yell at this thing.

War on Terror/Progress in Iraq/Spread of Democracy

    Q. Mr. President, I appreciate your position on the war in Iraq. 
We've got a debate that's going on as much about should we stay or 
should we come home. Is there a way to change the tenor of the debate to 
determine how we win in Iraq?
    The President. Thank you. The hardest decision a President makes are 
the decisions of war and peace, are putting kids, men and women in 
harm's way. And I have made two such decisions after we were attacked. 
And I did so because I firmly believe we're at war with ideologues who 
use murder as a tool to achieve political objectives, and that the most 
important responsibility is to protect--for the government is to protect 
the American people from harm, and therefore, went on the offense 
against these radicals and extremists.
    We went on the offense wherever we can find them; we are on the 
offense wherever we can find them. And of course, in two theaters in 
this global war, we have sent troops--a lot of troops into harm's way.
    Afghanistan still is a part of this war on terror, and a lot of the 
debate in Washington, of course, is focused on Iraq, as it should be. 
But I do want our fellow citizens to understand we've still got men and 
women in uniform sacrificing in Afghanistan, and their families are just 
as worried about them as the families of those in Iraq.
    The short-term solution against this enemy is to keep the pressure 
on them, keep them on the move, and bring them to justice overseas so we 
don't have to face them here. In other words, no quarter--[applause].
    I would just tell you, you can't hope for the best with these 
people. You can't assume that if we keep the pressure off, everything 
will be fine. Quite the contrary. When there wasn't enough pressure on, 
they were able to bunch up in safe haven and plot and plan attacks that 
killed 3,000 of our citizens. And they have been active ever since--not 
here on our soil, but they've got a global reach. They have been trying 
to kill the innocent.
    Of course, I made the decision to go in to remove Saddam Hussein. I 
firmly believe that this world is better off without Saddam Hussein in 
power, and I believe America is more secure.
    The long-term solution for your grandkids' sake is to defeat their 
ideology of hate with an ideology of light, and that's called liberty 
and democracy. The fight in Iraq is evolving. We've been through several 
stages in this difficult theater. First was the liberation stage. 
Secondly was a--the nascent political movement, reflected in the fact 
that 12 million Iraqis went to the polls under a modern Constitution. 
And then a thinking enemy, primarily Al Qaida, blew up, used their 
violent tactics, to blow up holy sites of religious people trying to 
incent--incite sectarian violence, and they succeeded. In other words, 
at the end of 2005, when the 12 million people voted, and we were 
training the Iraqis to take more responsibility, I felt like we would be 
in a much different force posture as the year went on. That's what I 
felt.
    But the Commander in Chief always, one, listens to the military 
commanders on the ground, and two, remains flexible in the 
decisionmaking. The enemy succeeded in causing there to be murderous 
outrage. And so I had a decision to make, and that was, do we step back 
from this capital of this new democracy--remember, forums of government 
will ultimately determine the peace, and that a government based upon 
the principles of democracy and liberty is the best way to defeat those 
killers who incited this sectarian violence in Iraq, the same ones--
people ask me, ``Are these really Al Qaida?''

[[Page 987]]

Well, they have sworn allegiance to Usama bin Laden; what else are they? 
They are coldblooded killers who have declared publicly that they would 
like to drive us out of Iraq to develop a safe haven from which to 
launch further attacks. And I believe we better be taking their word 
seriously in order to do our duty to defend.
    And so we're now watching this democracy unfold. The decision I had 
to make was, do we continue to stand and help this democracy grow, or do 
we stand back and hope that the violence that was happening in the 
capital doesn't spread anywhere else? I made the decision that it was in 
our interest, the Nation's security interest, instead of stepping back 
from the capital, to actually send more troops into the capital to help 
this young democracy have time to grow and to make hard decisions so it 
can become an ally in the war on terror not a safe haven from which Al 
Qaida could launch further attacks.
    And it's hard work, and it's tough work. And it's tough work because 
there are ruthless people who have declared their intent to attack us 
again, trying to prevent success.
    And I can understand why the American people are tired of this. 
Nobody likes war. Nobody likes to turn on their TV set and see needless 
death at the hands of these extremists. But I want to remind our fellow 
citizens that much of the violence they're seeing on their TV screens in 
Iraq is perpetuated by the very same people that came and killed 3,000 
of our citizens. People sworn--not the exact same person; those are dead 
who got on the airplanes--but they have sworn allegiance to Usama, just 
like the killers in Iraq have sworn allegiance to Usama bin Laden. And 
so I listen to David Petraeus and, of course, the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
and the Secretary of Defense have made the recommendation to send more 
in.
    Victory is--I remember a guy asking me at one of these town halls, 
he said, ``Well, when are you going to, like--when are they going to 
surrender,'' or ``When is this thing going to end?'' He looked like an 
older fellow, I think, and it was like he was remembering the USS 
Missouri. This is an ideological struggle, more akin to the cold war. 
What makes it different is, is that we have an enemy that is murderous 
and is willing to use asymmetrical warfare.
    And so there is not a moment of ending. But there will be a moment 
in Afghanistan and Iraq where these Governments will be more able to 
support their people, more able to provide basic services, more able to 
defend their neighborhoods against radical killers. It's going to be a 
while though. And there's a lot of debate in Washington--yes, so how do 
you change the debate? Just keep talking about it. Today David Petraeus 
and Ryan Crocker, who is our Ambassador in Iraq, are briefing Congress 
about the difficulties we face and the progress we're making.
    Let me give you one example. I'm optimistic. We'll succeed unless we 
lose our nerve. We will succeed. Liberty has got the capacity to conquer 
tyranny every time. Every time we've tried, it has worked. It takes a 
while--[applause]--here's the definition of success. The enemy, by the 
way, defines success as, can they pull off a car bombing. If we ever 
allow ourselves to get in a position where it's ``no car bombings, 
therefore we're successful,'' we've just handed these killers a great 
victory.
    So there's a Province called Anbar Province, and this is the 
Province out in western Iraq, where it's mainly Sunni and where Al Qaida 
had declared its intention to really drive us out and establish a safe 
haven, with the declared intention of spreading--using it as a base to 
spread their ideology throughout the Middle East, as well as a safe 
haven from which to make sure that they inflicted enough pain on us that 
we actually help them by leaving. I know this is farfetched for some 
Americans to think that people think this way; this is the nature of the 
enemy. And they are an enemy, and they're real, and they're active.
    So Anbar Province was declared lost by some last November. And 
literally, we were--there was an intel report that came out, and the 
person was not very encouraging, and some of the press, it was the 
beginning of the end for the policy in Iraq. And we started working the 
issue hard. That's why I sent some more marines into Anbar Province. It 
turns out that people were sick and tired of Al Qaida. Al Qaida had no 
vision. You see, our citizens have got to remember

[[Page 988]]

that most mothers want their children to grow up in peace; that's 
universal. Most mothers want something--it's just something instinctive 
when it comes to motherhood and children, where they want a child to 
have a chance to succeed in life, to have a chance to grow up in a 
peaceful world.
    Well, it turns out that many people in Anbar hate violence. They 
want something better. They may not--they may distrust their central 
Government because it's new. Remember, Saddam Hussein sowed great seeds 
of distrust during his time as a tyrant. It takes time to get over 
distrust and to develop trust with a citizen.
    But there's something instinctive involved with people when it comes 
to normal life. And they got sick of this Al Qaida threat and bullying 
and torturing. These people don't remain in power because they're loved; 
they remain in power because they're feared. And all of a sudden, tribal 
sheikhs begin to turn on them. And Al Qaida is now on the run in Anbar 
Province. What's happening is there's two types of political 
reconciliation, one from the bottom up, where grassroots people just get 
sick of something, and with our help, they're dealing with the problem. 
And then there's reconciliation from the top down, as you watch 
government wrestle with the different factions inside their legislature. 
And we expect progress on both fronts because the military can't do it 
alone. But the decision I made was that neither front will work, neither 
aspect of reconciliation will work if there was violence in the 
country's capital. And that's what you're seeing unfold.
    And so you'll see a debate in Washington, DC, here about troop 
levels and funding those troop levels. First, whatever the troop level 
is, it needs to be funded by the United States Congress. Our troops need 
all the support they can get when they're in harm's way. And secondly, 
most Americans, I hope, understand that the best way to make decisions 
on troop levels is based upon the sound advice of people in the field, 
not based upon the latest focus group or political poll.
    I'd like to share a story with you, and then I'll answer some 
questions. I'm not attempting to have just a few questions by giving you 
really long answers. It's called the filibuster. [Laughter] You know 
what's interesting about my Presidency, another interesting aspect of 
the Presidency, is the friendship I had with Prime Minister Koizumi of 
Japan, and his successor, a man named Prime Minister Abe. What makes it 
interesting, to me at least, is the fact that my dad fought the Japanese 
as a young guy. I think he--I know he went in right after high school, 
became a Navy fighter pilot, went overseas, and fought them. They were 
the sworn enemy. He was willing to risk his life, like thousands of 
others did, because the Japanese were our bitter enemy.
    And here we are, 60 years later or so, that I am at the table with 
the leader of the former enemy, working to keep the peace, whether it be 
in North Korea, or--[applause]--let me finish here--or thanking the--or 
working with the Japanese who committed self-defense forces to help the 
young democracy in Iraq because they understand the power of liberty to 
be transformative. Liberty has got the ability to change an enemy into 
an ally. Liberty has got a powerful ability to transform regions from 
hostility and hopelessness to regions of hope. And it's hard work, and 
it takes a long time, but it has been repeated throughout modern 
history, whether it be on the continent of Europe or in the Far East. 
And it can happen again if Americans don't lose faith in the great power 
of freedom.
    And so this is an interesting time. We're in the beginning--trying 
to get to your question--we're in the beginning of a long ideological 
struggle that's going to take patience, perseverance, and faith in 
certain basic values. I'm a big believer in the universality of liberty. 
I believe deep in everybody's soul--I'll take it a step further--I 
believe in an Almighty, and I believe a gift from that Almighty to each 
man, woman, and child is the desire to be free. And I believe that 
exists in everybody's soul is the desire to be free. I wasn't surprised 
when the 12 million people showed up; I was pleased. But I wasn't 
surprised because I believe, if given a chance, people will take a--will 
choose liberty. Now, having a form of government that reflects that is 
hard work, and it takes time. And not every democracy, of course, will 
look like us, nor should it. But there's just some basic principles 
inherent in free governments that

[[Page 989]]

will enable us to be more likely to be secure and peaceful over the next 
years. And that's what I've been thinking about.
    Yes, sir.

Border Security/War on Terror

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Thank you, sir.
    Q. ----the last, I'd say about 15 or 20 minutes about terrorism and 
Al Qaida, and I expect--[inaudible]--feel very bullish when it comes to 
that subject. But what I want to know is, this is an open society, 
right? It's supposed to be open society. People come from every which 
way, most of them very decent and stuff, but like you say, Al Qaida and 
the terrorists. What about the borders? I always see on TV they jumping 
the borders, Spanish people jumping at borders, and could it be some 
time--it could be Al Qaida jumping the borders, with--[inaudible]--or 
anything. Our borders are not secure, like they should be, I don't 
think. It's up to you; you're my President. I'm supposed to ask you.
    The President. Okay, you are. [Laughter] Well, listen, thank you 
very much for that. Listen, the reason--a reason to have a verifiable 
temporary-worker card is to make it more likely that if Al Qaida does 
try to come across the border illegally, that we can catch them.
    You ask a very good question. The other half of the equation, by the 
way, in securing the homeland, is to take measures necessary to catch 
people--know who's coming in and why, and catch them before they come 
in. It's a very legitimate question. On one hand, we stay on the 
offense, in the long run defeat their ideology with a better ideology, 
but we got to secure the homeland, and we're working hard to do so. One 
of the interesting management challenges was when we merged these 
different Departments all into the Department of Homeland Security, and 
I must say, it's gone pretty well. It's hard to take separate cultures 
and merge them into a common culture, working for a common purpose, 
but--it takes time again--but we're making good progress on that; we 
really are. Are we perfect? No. Are there flaws? Yes. But we're making--
can I say, the country is more secure than it was before 9/11? 
Absolutely.
    Now it's interesting, sir. I have made some--I made one--a couple 
controversial decisions about how to better find information about who 
might be coming to our country so that we can anticipate. The best way 
to be able to protect ourselves from Al Qaida--no question, good border 
control, but it's the good intelligence as well. I mean, if we can learn 
intention before somebody begins to make a move, we're more likely to be 
able to say we're a lot more--we'll be able to say we're a lot more 
secure.
    And that's why one of the controversial programs that I suggested 
was that we take a known phone number from one of these Al Qaida types 
or affiliates--and you can find them. We get them all kinds of ways. 
We're picking people up off the battlefield, for example, in one of 
these theaters I just describe to you. They may have a laptop. On the 
laptop might be some phone numbers. Off the phone numbers may be 
somebody else's. I mean, there's ways to get information as a result of 
some of the operations we have taken overseas. And my attitude is, if we 
do have a number of a suspected Al Qaida and/or affiliate and that 
person is making a phone call to someone in the United States, we ought 
to understand why; we ought to know.
    And so the reason I bring this up to you is that, yes, enforcing the 
border and being wise about how we enforce the border is an important of 
trying to detect--find out whether terrorists are coming into our 
country to inflict harm. Same with airports. You got to take off the 
shoes? Well, there's a reason. It's because we're doing our job that you 
expect us to do about--trying to affect the security of all ports of 
entry. But as well, we're beefing up our intelligence and trying to get 
a better handle on the actions somebody may be taking before they do so.
    It requires enormous cooperation. We spend a lot of time in your 
Government working with other nations. Curiously enough, as a result of 
Al Qaida's activities in other countries, it's caused people to say, ``I 
think we better work together more closely.'' And we do. There's a lot 
of information sharing that goes on between governments; a lot of 
intelligence sharing that goes on. And

[[Page 990]]

there's better communication now between the intelligence services and 
the law enforcement services. One of the reasons why we had to pass the 
PATRIOT Act was because there was a prohibition about people sharing 
information between intel and law, and that made no sense in this new 
world in which we live.
    I just want to assure you that I fully understand the need to make 
sure assets are deployed properly to protect you, and I fully understand 
the need to safeguard the civil liberties of the United States of 
America. One of the worst things that would happen is this enemy, in 
trying to respond to them, would force us to lose part of our very soul. 
And I believe we're able to achieve--take the necessary steps to protect 
you, and at the same time, protect the civil liberties that Americans 
hold so dearly to their heart.
    Yes, ma'am.

U.S. Foreign Aid/Situation in Darfur

    Q. Okay, thank you.
    The President. The price is right. [Laughter]
    Q. Come on down. [Laughter] I am here representing--Nashville is a 
strong city of lots of communities of faith, and as a part of that, 
there are lots of people going back and forth and caring about the 
people of Africa. And I want to first thank you; I know that your 
administration has taken lots of initiative on AIDS and malaria nets, 
and we really appreciate that. And then I--my hard question is, what we 
can we do to stop the genocide in Darfur?
    The President. Thank you very much. For starters, the fact that 
Americans care about people in faraway lands is a great testimony to our 
compassion. I believe--good foreign--you've heard about one aspect of 
our foreign policy--two aspects, really, when you think about it. One is 
the combination of military and diplomatic assets trying to achieve 
objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Another is the working 
coalitions. And by the way, there are a lot of other countries in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't get nearly the credit they deserve, but 
a lot of other people besides us understand that this is the beginning 
of a long ideological struggle, and now is the time to make the hard 
decisions so little guys in the future don't have to deal with the 
consequences of that.
    The other aspect of foreign policy is, I believe to whom much is 
given, much is required. And people say, ``Well, we got plenty of 
problems in America; why do you worry about something going on 
overseas?'' First of all, we're wealthy. We're spending enormous sums of 
money. If we set proper priorities, we can not only help our own 
citizens, but I believe it helps our soul and our conscience, and I 
believe we have a moral obligation to help others.
    And so when it comes to--let met talk about HIV/AIDS. A lot of 
people don't know what we're doing. The United States has really taken 
the lead in saying to other nations, here is a problem that we can help 
solve, and therefore, follow us. We picked 17 of the most deeply 
affected nations, most of which are on the continent of Africa, and you 
provided $15 billion to get antiretroviral drugs in the hands of faith 
givers, community givers, nurses, to save lives. And in 3 short years, 
the United States of America has taken the lead to getting 
antiretroviral to people, and it's gone from 50,000 people to over 1.1 
million people receiving antiretroviral drugs.
    It is--conditions of life matter in this struggle, by the way, 
against extremists and radicals. Where you find repressive forms of 
government, you're likely to find somebody who's frustrated so they can 
become recruited by these cynical murderers and then become suiciders. 
Or where you find disease and pestilence or hunger, the conditions of 
life matter at whether or not the future of the world is going to be 
stable.
    We're very much involved in a Malaria Initiative--Laura is really 
active in that--where the Government is spending $1.6 billion aiming to 
get mosquito nets and sprays and information to save lives. There are 
too many young babies around the world dying from something that we can 
prevent, and it's in the national interest to do that.
    Interestingly enough, a lot of the deliverers, those who are 
delivering the help are from the faith community, people who are 
volunteering their time saying, what can I do, how can I love my 
neighbor? And it's really heartwarming.

[[Page 991]]

    She asked about Darfur. First we--as this administration has proven, 
it's possible to achieve some success in Sudan with the north-south 
agreement that we were able to achieve with Ambassador Danforth at the 
time. We are now working to make sure that holds by insisting that the 
revenue-sharing agreement of the oil on Sudan is effective. She's 
referring to Darfur.
    I made the decision not to send U.S. troops unilaterally into 
Darfur. The threshold question was: If there is a problem, why don't you 
just go take care of it? And I made the decision, in consultation with 
allies, as well as consultation with Members of Congress and activists, 
that--and I came to the conclusion that it would--it just wasn't the 
right decision.
    Therefore, what do you do? And if one is unwilling to take on action 
individually, then that requires international collaboration, and so 
we're now in the United Nations. And it doesn't seem--I talked to Ban 
Ki-moon about this, and this is a slow, tedious process, to hold a 
regime accountable for what only one nation in the world has called a 
``genocide,'' and that is us.
    Now we have taken unilateral moves other than military moves. I 
have--we have put serious economic sanctions on three individuals that 
are involved with--two with the government, one with one of the rebel 
groups. We have sanctioned 29 companies that are involved in Sudan. In 
other words, we're trying to be consequential. We're trying to say that, 
you know, change, or there's consequences.
    By the way, the same approach we're dealing with Iran on: We are 
going to continue to press you hard until you change your behavior. And 
so my challenge is to convince others to have that same sense of anxiety 
that you have and that I have about the genocide that's taking place.
    Ban Ki-moon actually gave a pretty encouraging report when he talked 
about--see, the idea is that if countries aren't going to--willing to do 
it unilaterally, in our case, or other cases, then we try to get the AU 
force that's in place to get complemented by further peacekeepers to the 
U.N. And that's what we're working on. Good question on a tough, tough 
issue.
    Yes, sir. There you go. Don't mean--you can sit down or stand up.

Border Security

    Q. I personally admire the way you've conducted the Government, and 
I admire your backbone, where you just stand and take a position. I'm 
not happy about the influx from Mexico. Seems that far too many came 
over in waves. I know that during the days of San Jacinto that they were 
fighting, using rifles and everything, but this is the first time I've 
ever seen an influx like this to try to take over our country. Now then, 
thirdly, when they do these polls to determine how you're rated, how 
come, if they have 1,000 people, they call 750 Democrats and only 25 
Republicans? [Laughter]
    The President. Thank you. I thought when you started talking about 
Texas history, that you were going to say we couldn't have existed 
without Tennessee. That's where I thought you were headed, you know. 
[Laughter] You're a Texan? Where are you from?
    Q. Waco.
    The President. There you go. Right at Waco, Texas.
    Q. This young lady in the red dress over here--[inaudible].
    The President. There you go. Your daddy. Well, as you know, Crawford 
is not very far from Waco, same county.
    Let's see, yes, ma'am. You guys got--one of them uniformed guys got 
a question? No. Okay. I'm proud to be in there with you.
    Q. Mr. President, welcome to Nashville.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. And I want to thank you for the appointments or the nominations 
for our Supreme Court. That will be a wonderful legacy for you.
    The President. Thank you.

Texas Border Patrol Agents

    Q. My question to you is this: There are two border guards presently 
in jail. The Tennessee General Assembly passed a resolution, with 91 
votes in the house and 30 in the senate, asking our Tennessee delegation 
to support--to go to you asking for a pardon for these two men that were 
tried, where information was left not with--was kept back from their 
trial. And there's also a resolution

[[Page 992]]

in the house, H.R. 40, with a number of our Tennessee delegation signed 
on to that. Will you pardon these men that are unjustly imprisoned?
    The President. I'm not going to make that kind of promise in a forum 
like this. Obviously I am interested in facts. I know the prosecutor 
very well, Johnny Sutton. He's a dear friend of mine from Texas. He's a 
fair guy. He is an even-handed guy. And I can't imagine--you've got a 
nice smile, but you can't entice me into making a public statement--
[laughter]--on something that requires a very--I know this is an 
emotional issue, but people need to look at the facts. These men were 
convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts as my 
friend, Johnny Sutton, presented them. But anyway, no, I won't make you 
that promise.
    Yes, ma'am.

President's Legacy

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. [Inaudible] As the mother of a 6-month-
old named after Sam Houston, a great person----
    The President. You've got to be kidding me, awesome, yes. Is it 
Houston or Sam?
    Q. It's Houston----
    The President. There you go.
    Q. ----because we wanted somebody that was a great representative of 
both Tennessee and Texas within our family. But while your Presidency 
has been important to me, personally, I want to know about your legacy, 
and I want to know what one policy would you hope would affect your 
predecessor and he would continue on what maybe you might not be able to 
finish by the time your term ends.
    The President. Thank you. Freedom agenda. The only way to secure 
America in the long term is to have great faith in the spread of 
liberty. And it's--I really view it as the calling of our time. People 
have--some people have said, ``Well, he is a hopeless idealist to 
believe that liberty is transformative in a part of the world that just 
seems so difficult.'' But I would like to remind fellow citizens that we 
have had this sense of difficulty in parts of the world before, where 
liberty has been transformative.
    And so it's--look, first of all, let me talk about Presidential 
legacies. I'll be dead before--long gone before people fully are able to 
capture the essence of--the full essence of a Presidency. I'm still 
reading books about George Washington. My attitude is, is they're 
writing about 1, 43 doesn't need to worry about it. [Laughter] And so 
you know what the lesson is in life? Just do what you think is right. 
Make decisions based upon principle. And that's the only way I know to 
do it. I've disappointed this lady in the red, I'm confident, because I 
won't tell her--but I can only tell you what I think is the right thing 
to do. It's the only way I know how to live my life. And it's--for 
youngsters here, it's just like--it's really important not to sacrifice 
principle to try to be the popular person. It's important to--
[applause].
    Yes, sir. Semper Fi, there you go.

Media/War on Terror

    Q. Semper Fi. First of all, Mr. President, I want to thank you, 
personally, for your support for our veterans. My son was lost in Iraq, 
and I want to thank you very much for your strength.
    The President. Thanks. Thanks for sharing that.
    Q. I also wish that there was some way that, as the press make so 
much to do about what goes on in areas around--pretty much a 50-mile 
area around Baghdad, which is pretty much where everything is going on, 
if there was some way to offset that with all of the great things that 
are going on. I have had communication with a gentleman by the name of 
Azzam Alwash, who is from Nasiriyah area, and what's going on there, the 
building of water sheds and the building of new items and the fact that 
they're building colleges in the Kurd area.
    I wish that there was some way that your administration could offset 
the negative press by a consistent influx of very positive press that's 
going on in the majority of that country. Is there some way that could 
be done?
    The President. Well, thanks. I'm asked that a lot by people. The 
interesting thing about this fight in Iraq is that the families and the 
troops have got a really different view, in many ways, than a lot of 
other folks do, because they're firsthand; they see what's happening. 
And it's--I hear from--I talk to our people in the field a lot, talk to 
people

[[Page 993]]

who have been to the field a lot, and these stories of just incremental 
change that add up to something different over time, they're prevalent. 
The best messengers are the people who are actually there.
    What's interesting about the world in which we live is, there's no 
question there's the electronic media that people watch, but there's 
also the blogosphere. You're on it, I know; you're hearing from people, 
your son's comrades that are constantly e-mailing you. There's a lot of 
information that's taking place that is causing people to have a 
different picture of what they may be seeing on TV screens. See, this 
enemy of ours is very effective; they're smart people. They're effective 
about getting explosions and death on TV screens, and they know it 
affects Americans because we're good people; we're compassionate; we 
care about human life. Every life matters. And therefore, when human 
life is taken through a car bomb, it causes people to say, is it worth 
it? Does it matter what happens over there?
    See, one of the interesting things about this war I forgot to tell 
you is, unlike, say, the Vietnam war, that if we fail in Iraq, the enemy 
won't be content to stay there. They will follow us here. That's what 
different about this struggle than some of the others we're had. What 
happens overseas matters.
    We ask this question a lot about how we can do a better job. As I 
say, Ryan Crocker and David Petraeus are briefing today. It's good to 
have them on TV, on these talk shows and stuff like that, but they've 
also got a job to do. And they're very credible people because they see 
firsthand what's going on. But they've got a lot of work to do over 
there as they command these troops.
    I hope you're doing okay. I'll tell you something interesting in 
meeting with the families of the fallen. I get all kinds of opinions, of 
course. But one of the most universal opinions I get is one, I'm proud 
of my son; two, he was a volunteer; and three, do not let his life be in 
vain, Mr. President, you complete the mission. [Applause] Thank you, 
brother.
    All right, guess what? You got to get to work. [Laughter] And so do 
I. Thank you all for giving me a chance to come and visit with you. I 
found this to be an interesting exchange. I appreciate your questions. I 
hope you have a better sense for why and how I have made decisions that 
have affected the individual lives of our citizens, as well as the life 
of our Nation. I'm an optimistic person. I believe that those decisions 
were not only necessary, but I firmly believe they will yield the peace 
that we all want; peace of mind and peace of heart. God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 11:35 a.m. at the Gaylord Opryland Resort 
and Convention Center. In his remarks, he referred to Darrell Freeman, 
Sr., executive committee chairman, Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce; 
Cordia Harrington, chief executive officer, the Bun Companies; Al 
McCree, owner and chief executive officer, Altissimo! Recordings; Usama 
bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; Gen. David H. 
Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Secretary 
of Defense Robert M. Gates; former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations 
John C. Danforth; Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations; 
and Johnny Sutton, U.S. District Attorney for the Western District of 
Texas. A participant referred to Azzam Alwash, director, Eden Again 
Project. A portion of these remarks could not be verified because the 
tape was incomplete.