[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 40 (Monday, October 8, 2007)]
[Pages 1282-1297]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session in West Hempfield Township, 
Pennsylvania

October 3, 2007

    The President. Thanks for the warm welcome. Sit down. Thanks for 
coming. It's great to be back in your county again. Marion, I appreciate 
the invitation. I'd like to share some thoughts with you, and then I'd 
like to answer some of your questions if you got time--because I do. 
[Laughter]
    I really appreciate the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce for giving me 
an opportunity to explain why I have made some of the decisions I have 
made. My job is a decisionmaking job. And as a result, I make a lot of 
decisions. And it's important for me to have an opportunity to speak to 
you and others who would be listening about the basis on which I have 
made decisions, to explain the philosophy behind some of the decisions I 
have made. And so I'm looking forward to your questions, and I thank you 
for giving me the opportunity to come and share them with you.
    I'm sorry Laura is not with me. She's, by far, the better half of 
the Bush family. [Laughter] And she's a--she really is a remarkable 
woman. She--when I married her, she didn't like politics or politicians. 
[Laughter] And now she's the First Lady of the United States. And she's 
come to realize what I understand: It doesn't take much to be able to 
put influence--to influence somebody in a positive way. And so she cares 
deeply about issues like malaria. She believes, like I believe, that we 
can eliminate the scourge of malaria and save lives all around the 
world. She cares deeply about literacy. She cares deeply about making 
sure women have got good information to--when it comes to healthy 
choices with their life so they don't suffer from heart ailment. She 
cares a lot about women in Afghanistan. She cares a lot because she's 
got a big heart. And I'm sure proud to call her wife, and I think the 
country is lucky to have her as the First Lady.
    I appreciate--I want to thank Tom Baldrige, the president of the 
chamber, and the officers of the chamber and the president-elect of the 
chamber and all the folks who make the chamber work.
    I do want to contradict Marion, which is a little--shouldn't be 
doing in the first thing I say, but she said that because of me, you're 
growing. No, it's because of you you're growing. See, it's because of 
the entrepreneurship and small-business owners and hard-working people 
in Lancaster County that you're growing.
    I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking about what is the 
proper relationship between the Federal Government and the risk-takers 
in society. But I just want to make sure you understand what I know, and 
that is, prosperity occurs because people work hard and dream dreams and 
work to fulfill those dreams. And so I congratulate you on the economic 
vitality of this region, Marion. Thank you for trying to give me credit 
where it's not due.
    I also want to thank the Chryst family for welcoming us to this 
facility. This is--Jay is the dad. He's expanded his business, and he 
wisely turned it over to his daughter--[laughter]--Dana.
    So I asked the Chrysts--I said, ``How are you organized, from a tax 
perspective?'' Dana said, ``We're a subchapter S.'' And the reason I 
bring that up to you is, I'm going to talk a little bit about tax policy 
here in a minute, and when you cut individual income taxes, you cut 
taxes on a small business that's organized as a subchapter S 
corporation. And so I talk about tax cuts; I want you to be thinking 
about tax cuts not only for yourself but tax cuts for small-business 
owners.
    Expansion of this business has provided people new opportunity 
employments--new employment opportunities here in Lancaster County. You 
know, when you give a man more money in his pocket--in this case, a 
woman more money in her pocket to expand a business, it means they build 
new buildings. And when somebody builds a new building, somebody has got 
to come and build the building. And when the building expanded, it 
prevented additional opportunities for people to work. Tax cuts matter. 
I'm going to spend some time talking about it. I want to thank you for 
giving us a chance to come and use you all as an example--and also, the 
hall works.
    I do want to thank Senator Arlen Specter for being here today. Mr. 
Senator, you didn't

[[Page 1283]]

need to come. I'm honored you're here, and I'm sure the people of this 
county are honored you're here too. Thanks for coming.
    Finally, I appreciate the Congressman from this district, 
Congressman Joe Pitts. I appreciate you being here, Congressman; thank 
you. [Applause] Sounds like you packed the audience with some of your 
family. [Laughter]
    Right before I walked in here, I had a chance to talk to some State 
troopers and thank them for their service to the community. These folks 
were first on the scene at the West Nickel Mines Amish School tragedy. I 
am constantly amazed that our country produces people--decent, honorable 
people who are willing to serve. These folks had the ultimate challenge, 
which is to bring comfort to a hurting community. I thank you for what 
you've done; I thank you for what you're doing; and I thank you for what 
you will do. I am honored to be in the presence of the troopers who were 
there first on the scene. Thanks for coming.
    I appreciate so very much Krist Blank joining us today. Mr. Blank, 
I'm honored you are here. I will tell you that, like a lot of Americans, 
I was deeply troubled when, you know, I found out that mothers and dads 
were grieving for the loss of their daughter. And I also was--my soul 
and spirits were lifted when I read the stories about the forgiveness 
and compassion that the Amish community showed toward the shooter's 
family. It was a remarkable statement of love and strength and 
commitment for people who had suffered so mightily to say to, you know, 
a widow and her children that we're able to overcome our grief and 
express our deep love for you. And so I want to thank you, sir, and your 
community for being such great examples of the compassion of the Lord. 
And I'm honored you're here.
    Knowing him, he's sorry I even talked that way, see? He's a 
remarkable guy who told me something interesting. He said, ``I'm praying 
for you, Mr. President.'' This is not going to be a church service, I 
promise you. [Laughter] But I will tell you that the prayers of the 
people matter a lot; they really do. And it's one of the most 
inspiring--[applause].
    I want to talk a little bit about the environment necessary to 
continue economic growth. The job of this Government is not to try to 
create wealth. The job of the government is to create fiscal policy such 
that people feel inspired or confident in risking capital. In other 
words, the job of government is to create an environment that encourages 
entrepreneurship. One of the issues that we're going to be facing in 
Washington, DC, is how to spend your money. In other words, what do we 
do with the good money that we've--the good money we've collected? How 
do we spend it?
    And there's a difference of opinion in Washington, DC, right now. 
I've submitted my budget, the core principle of which is that we will do 
what it takes to defend our homeland and make sure our troops have what 
it takes to do their jobs and keep your taxes low by not raising them. 
And we showed the way forward on how to get the balance in the year 
2012. In other words, you got to be fiscally responsible, set priorities 
with your money, and keep your taxes low.
    The principle is, is that tax cuts inspire investment, encourage 
consumption and savings. In other words, the more money you have, as 
opposed to the government having, the more likely it is the local 
economies will grow. That's why I brought up the example of the SCHIP 
corporation. When we cut taxes on everybody who pays taxes, we cut taxes 
on small businesses too. And one of the principles on which I'm making 
decisions is, I'd rather the Chrysts spending their money than the 
government spending their money. See, I think they know how to spend 
their money in such a way that their business will grow.
    Now, there's a different approach in Washington. And folks have 
suggested that we increase spending. As a matter of fact, a 5-year 
budget that's submitted by the current leadership of the Congress 
increases spending by $205 billion over 5 years, which would--and so you 
say, ``That's fine; sounds good; all these programs sound wonderful.'' 
Except how you going to pay for it? That's the question I ask. How are 
you going to pay for the promises? And the answer is raising taxes. And 
I think they're wrong to raise taxes on

[[Page 1284]]

the American people. I know we don't need to raise taxes on the American 
people.
    This economy has got in some difficulties when it comes to the 
housing markets, and the last thing we now need to do is raise taxes. 
See, taking money out of the economy at a time when the housing market 
is adjusting could exacerbate economic difficulties. And the role of 
government is to try to create an environment so that small businesses 
flourish and families can realize opportunities and dreams and 
consumerism remains strong.
    And so what you're going to see me making decisions this year is 
when they spend--they try to increase taxes on you, I'll use the 
prerogative given to me under the Constitution, and I'm going to veto 
the tax bills. I'm going to--[applause].
    I just vetoed a bill today, and I want to explain to you why. It's 
called SCHIP--Children's Health Insurance policy. First of all, the 
intent of the SCHIP legislation passed previous to my administration is 
to help poor children's families buy the children health care, or get 
them on health care. That's what it is intended to do. Poor children in 
America are covered by what's called Medicaid. We spend about--this 
year--about $35.5 billion on poor children's health insurance. So the 
first point I want to make to you is, a lot of your money is being spent 
to make sure poor children get help, medical help.
    In other words, when they say, ``Well, poor children aren't being 
covered in America,'' if that's what you're hearing on your TV screens, 
I'm telling you there's $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe 
that. And by the way, that Medicaid expenditures only accounts for 
children of the poor; it doesn't account for the mothers and fathers. So 
a lot of your money does go to help poor families with health insurance.
    The SCHIP program was supposed to help those poor families, the 
children of poor families have the ability to get health insurance for 
their children. I strongly support the program. I like the idea of 
helping those who are poor be able to get health coverage for their 
children. I supported it as Governor, and I support it as President of 
the United States.
    As a matter of fact, my budget--the budget request I put in said, 
let's increase the spending to make sure that the program does what it's 
supposed to do: sign up poor children for SCHIP. The problem is, is that 
the current program--and by the way, there's about half a million 
children who are eligible who aren't signed up. So I said, why don't we 
focus on the poor children rather than expand the program beyond its 
initial intent.
    I want to tell you a startling statistic, that based on their own 
States' projections--in other words, this isn't a Federal projection; 
it's the States saying this is what's happening--States like New Jersey, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois, and New Mexico spend more 
money on adults in the SCHIP program than they do on children. In other 
words, the initial intent of the program is not being recognized, is not 
being met.
    It is estimated by--here's the thing, just so you know: This program 
expands coverage, Federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a 
year. That doesn't sound poor to me. The intent of the program was to 
focus on poor children, not adults or families earning up to $83,000 a 
year. It is estimated that if this program were to become law, one out 
of every three person that would subscribe to the new expanded SCHIP 
would leave private insurance.
    The policies of the Government ought to be, help poor children and 
to focus on poor children. And the policies of the Government ought to 
be, help people find private insurance, not Federal coverage. And that's 
where the philosophical divide comes in. I happen to believe that what 
you're seeing when you expand eligibility for Federal programs is the 
desire by some in Washington, DC, to federalize health care. I don't 
think that's good for the country. I believe in private medicine. I 
believe in helping poor people--which was the intent of SCHIP, now being 
expanded beyond its initial intent. I also believe that the Federal 
Government should make it easier for people to afford private insurance. 
I don't want the Federal Government making decisions for doctors and 
customers.
    That's why I believe strongly in health savings accounts or 
association health plans to

[[Page 1285]]

help small-business owners better afford insurance for their workers. 
That's why I believe we ought to change the Federal Tax Code. You're 
disadvantaged if you work for a small business and/or an individual 
trying to buy insurance in the marketplace--disadvantaged relative to 
somebody working for a large company. If you work for a large company, 
you get your health insurance after tax. If you buy insurance, you have 
to pay--no, you buy your insurance after taxes as an individual; you get 
your insurance pre-tax when you're working for a large corporation. 
You're at a disadvantage if you're an individual in the marketplace.
    So I think we ought to change the Tax Code. My view is, is that 
every family ought to get a $15,000 deduction off their income taxes, 
regardless of where they work, in order to help people better afford 
insurance in the marketplace.
    So I want to share with you why I vetoed the bill this morning. Poor 
kids, first--secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the Federal 
Government running the health care system. I do want Republicans and 
Democrats to come together to support a bill that focuses on the poor 
children. I'm more than willing to work with Members of both parties 
from both Houses, and if they need a little more money in the bill to 
help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children, I'm more 
than willing to sit down with the leaders and find a way to do so.
    So thanks for giving me a chance to discuss one of the many 
decisions I make as your President. Decisionmaking requires a couple of 
things--and then I'll answer some questions--one, having a vision, 
having a set of beliefs, set of principles by which one makes decisions. 
You know, if you're constantly trying to make decisions based upon the 
latest poll or focus group, your decisionmaking will be erratic. You got 
to have a core set of beliefs. I believe you spend your money better 
than the government spends. I believe that the system works better when 
there's more money in your hands.
    And foreign policy--I believe in the universality of freedom. I 
believe that a gift--I believe there's an Almighty, and I believe a gift 
of the Almighty to each man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth 
is freedom. That's what I believe. And I believe it's in the interest of 
the United States of America to help people become free. That's how you 
yield the peace we all want. We want people to live in free societies.
    And if you believe in the universality of freedom, it's in the 
interest of this country to act. That doesn't mean military operations. 
But it does mean, for example, relieving suffering. I also believe in 
the admonition, ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' A lot has 
been given to the United States. I believe it's in our interests to help 
relieve needless deaths when it comes to mosquito bites around the 
world. I believe it's in our interests to help relieve the suffering of 
HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa. It's in our interests to do so. 
It's part of the belief system that says, you know, that we have 
obligations and duties to ourself.
    No, by relieving suffering overseas, not only do you lift the moral 
sights of our country, but it recognizes the reality of the world in 
which we live. When there's despondency, despair, and hopelessness 
overseas, it can affect the security of the United States of America. 
And so I--what I'm telling you is that I made a lot of decisions when it 
comes to your security and the peace of the world. And I did so based 
upon certain fundamental principles.
    Secondly, it's important to delegate. There's a lot of action in 
Washington, DC, believe me, and I've got a lot of decisions to make. And 
so I delegate to good people. I always tell Condi Rice, ``I want to 
remind you, Madam Secretary, who has the Ph.D., and who was the C 
student.'' [Laughter] ``And I want to remind you who the adviser is and 
who the President is.'' [Laughter] I got a lot of Ph.D. types and smart 
people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, ``Mr. President, 
here's what's on my mind.'' And I listen carefully to their advice. But 
having gathered the device, I decide, you know, I say, ``This is what 
we're going to do.'' And it's ``Yes, sir, Mr. President.'' And then we 
get after it, implement policy.
    It's a joy to be your President. It's not only an honor, it's a joy, 
because I truly believe the decisions I am making will yield the peace 
we want and the prosperity that we all desire. So now I'll be glad to 
answer some

[[Page 1286]]

questions from you if you got any. If not, I can keep on blowing hot air 
until the time--[laughter]--until the time runs out.
    Yes, sir.

President's Decisionmaking/Progress in Iraq

    Q. [Inaudible]--follow opinion polls. You don't govern by opinion 
polls. And I really respect that--[inaudible].
    The President. Okay, thank you, sir. Yes, those same polls will tell 
you that they're worried about catastrophe in the Middle East affecting 
the security of the United States. In other words, you pretty well--
look, I'm not going to argue polls with you, but I will tell you this, 
sir--first of all, if we have a troop in harm's way, they're going to 
have the best--they're going to have what's necessary to--so they can do 
their job.
    And secondly, we are bringing troops home. General David Petraeus 
announced that he wasn't going to replace 2,200 marines that were in 
Anbar Province, and the reason why he didn't feel like he needed to 
replace them is because they were successful. They had done their job. 
Reconciliation is taking place. Normal people are beginning to step 
forward and say, ``We want to live in peace.'' Al Qaida, that thought 
they were going to have Anbar as a safe haven, has been rejected by the 
local populace. And he believes, as do the Iraqis, that we can maintain 
security without 2,200 troops.
    We're going to bring another brigade home by Christmas. So that's 
5,700 troop reduction. General Petraeus, in his testimony, recommended 
to me--a recommendation I accepted--that we can get down to 15 brigades 
by July. That's 20 from 15.
    And the reason I tell you this, sir, is, I want to make a couple of 
points. One, if I didn't think the mission was necessary for our 
security, I wouldn't have our troops there. Secondly, if I didn't think 
we could succeed, I wouldn't have our troops there. I cannot look in the 
eye of a mother or father whose son or daughter is in combat and not 
believe that we can succeed, and it's necessary.
    Secondly, I believe that it is very important for the Commander in 
Chief to take the advice of his military commanders very seriously. In 
my position, sir, I don't want our troops feeling like I'm making 
decisions based upon politics when their lives are at risk. I want our 
troops knowing that I'm making decisions on the considered judgment of 
our military, all aimed at accomplishing an objective, which is for a 
country in the heart of the Middle East to be able to govern, sustain 
itself, and serve as an ally against these extremists and radicals.
    Let me give you my worldview on this. Like you, I'd like them home. 
I really do. But my decisions have been based on my--or at least my 
belief that what we're seeing is one of the--a great ideological 
struggle between forces of ration--rational behavior, decent people, 
lovers of liberty, versus radicals who have a belief system, and they're 
willing to murder the innocent to achieve--to advance their objectives. 
That's how I view it. I don't think you're a religious person if you 
murder the innocent to achieve political objectives. I think you're a 
person who is manipulative and cynical and willing to kill in the name 
of religion; I don't think you're religious.
    Secondly, a lot of my decisionmaking has been influenced by what 
happened on September the 11th, 2001. I vowed that day that I would do 
everything in my ability to protect you, and that I would--I wouldn't 
tire--I can't remember my exact words, but I would stay on the job. And 
that's exactly what I have been doing.
    On the one hand, we're pursuing radicals and extremists through 
sharing of intelligence and through special operations and through 
working alliances to bring them to justice before they come and kill 
again. And I would remind you that the people that have swore allegiance 
to Usama bin Laden in Iraq wanted Anbar Province as a safe haven from 
which to launch further attacks on the United States. And one of the 
great successes of this conflict has not only been to liberate 25 
million people from the clutches of a brutal tyrant but to make sure 
that Anbar Province wasn't a safe haven for those who swore allegiance 
to Usama bin Laden.
    But in the long run, the way to defeat ideological people is with a 
better ideology. And there's no better ideology than one based upon 
liberty. If you believe in the universality of liberty, then it 
shouldn't surprise you when

[[Page 1287]]

12 million people in Iraq went to the polls. They said, we've been given 
a chance to express our individual desires. And they went to the polls 
to vote.
    We have been through these kind of conflicts in our history. We went 
through the conflict against communism and fascism. These wars play out 
differently. This war is really hard for the American people to 
understand because the enemy uses asymmetrical warfare. They use 
hundred-dollar weapons to destroy half-a-million-dollar vehicles--which 
has got to, as a taxpayer, concern you. I understand that. I understand 
it.
    But the struggle is just as intense today as it was in the forties 
and the fifties. I must have told this story hundreds of times, that one 
of the most amazing aspects of my Presidency was my relationship with 
the Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Koizumi. What's amazing 
about it is that when my dad was 18, he signed up to fight the Japanese; 
they were the sworn enemy of the United States of America. Thousands of 
people died in that conflict. They attacked America--the last time we 
were attacked, by the way, prior to September the 11th was Pearl Harbor. 
And 60 years later, I'm sitting at the table with the Prime Minister of 
Japan talking about peace, talking about how to help young democracies 
thrive in this ideological struggle, both of us knowing full well that 
the ultimate defeat of extremism in the name of an ideology that is dark 
is freedom--is the light of freedom. And the amazing thing is, is that 
what happened was that Japan's form of government changed.
    Liberty is transformative. Our one-time enemy is at the table 
talking about peace. And the same thing is going to happen in the Middle 
East. And it's going to be tough to get there, and it's hard work. But 
you--I've got faith in the transformative power of liberty. I believe 
that people want to be free. I believe a gift of the Almighty to each 
man, woman, and child is freedom. And I believe, when given the chance, 
people want to be free. And I firmly believe freedom yields the peace we 
want.
    And so, sir, to answer your question, it's important we succeed, and 
it's important we support our troops. Thank you.
    Yes, sir. I appreciate the question. Yes, they'll get it for you. 
I'm not going to read it right now. Go ahead.

Agriculture/Alternative Fuel Sources/Energy

    Q. Thank you. Hello. First, I appreciate you being here and being in 
this kind of forum to answer questions.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. It helps me to have a better understanding of you as a person----
    The President. I hope so.
    Q. ----so thank you very much. Thanks. I have two questions, if I 
could. One is, can you talk about the farm bill and how it's going to 
help local farmers in this area? And then would you also talk about 
global warming and how the U.S. is being a leader in a worldwide effort 
to combat global warming? Thank you.
    The President. Thank you. Thanks, great question. First, on the farm 
bill--I believe it's in the interest of local farmers to have markets 
available to them. In other words, a core principle of any good farm 
policy is for the administration to work to open up markets. If you're 
good at something--and we're really good at farming--we want to be in a 
position to sell that which you grow, overseas.
    Secondly, I believe very strongly that programs that encourage 
overproduction are programs that need to be seriously evaluated. In 
other words, I'd rather you selling into existing markets than producing 
where there be no market. In other words, it's a combination--look, I'm 
a safety-net person for farmers. I just want to make sure the safety net 
is a actual safety net, not a incentive for overproduction.
    Thirdly, I strongly believe in the conservation title inherent in 
the farm bill, the last farm bill. This is a CRP program which says to 
farmers, look, we want to help you set aside part of your land that may 
not be good for farming, but would be good for habitat, soil 
conversation. It's really one of the--I think one of the great 
accomplishments of this administration is to work with the farm 
community to have an advanced CRP program.
    And that's kind of the inherent principles. The marketplace has 
worked for farmers. I

[[Page 1288]]

also believe--this is going to answer your global warming question as 
well--it's in the Nation's interest to diversify away from hydrocarbons. 
Probably comes as a shock to you from a guy from Texas saying that. But 
it's--dependence on oil creates national security issues. There's too 
many people who have got oil that may not like us.
    Secondly, we import about 60 percent of our oil from overseas--
fortunately, most of it from--a lot of it from Canada and Mexico. But it 
doesn't take much to disrupt an oil market, and therefore, we got an 
economic issue when it comes to dependency on oil. One terrorist attack 
on a major oil facility could cause the world price of oil to go up. 
There are new big consumers of hydrocarbons in the marketplace. China 
and India, as they're growing their economies, are creating additional 
demand relative to supply. And therefore, the price of gasoline goes up 
here in Lancaster County as these economies grow. And finally, 
dependency upon oil creates an environmental issue.
    And so therefore, one of the strategies that we're putting in place 
is--and this happens to be beneficial for farmers--is, why don't we grow 
our way out of dependency on oil? Why don't we use, initially, corn as 
the feedstock for an ethanol industry that has gone from about a billion 
gallons a year when I first became President to over 6 billion gallons a 
year?
    In other words--and so what I'm beginning to tell you is--what I 
am--not beginning, what I am telling you is that we have a comprehensive 
strategy to deal with energy security and environmental quality at the 
same time. And the interesting dynamic that has taken place in the 
environmental debate is the two issues have now come--come front and 
center at the same time. In other words, you can solve one, you can 
solve the other.
    Now, in terms of the environment, my--I gave a speech the other day 
in front of the major economies of the world. And the reason I asked the 
major economies of the world to come to the table is because there is no 
solution for global warming unless all the major economies, or the 
growing economies of the world come to the table. You can't have a--one 
of the reasons I was against Kyoto was not because I'm not--don't 
support, you know, good quality environmental policy. I didn't think it 
made sense to have policy that didn't include all the major economies, 
like China.
    And so why don't we try this approach--why don't we make sure that 
China comes to the table on this issue? And step one is, we'll sit 
around the table and agree on a common goal about what the reductions of 
greenhouse gases ought to be over the first half of the next century. 
Because if you can get somebody to sign on to a goal, you then get 
somebody to recognize there's a problem and then obligate them to come 
up with a solution. So that's part of the strategy.
    Here at home there are three aspects of our economy that affect 
greenhouse gases. First, automobiles--and I just described to you the 
policy that I think is good to address our reliance upon oil, which also 
affects that aspect of our economy that--where there's a lot of 
emissions, and that's the automobiles. We can't rely upon corn forever 
for ethanol. There are a lot of hog growers and cattle growers around 
that get a little nervous when the price of corn is going up the way it 
is. And so your Government is spending a fair amount of money, of your 
money, to research cellulosic ethanol. And that's a fancy word for using 
corn chips or switch grass to be able to be the feedstock for new 
ethanol production.
    And smart people tell me we're pretty close. So some day it's very 
conceivable that the farmers around here are going to be growing switch 
grass. And then you become energy producers. Or you can imagine if we 
can use wood chips as a source to be able to produce ethanol; then all 
of a sudden you got a lot of the places that grow pine trees become a 
part of the energy mix. It's very conceivable that we can reduce our 
energy, our gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years. As a 
matter of fact, I've asked Congress to put that into law, not as a 
voluntary standard, but a mandatory standard.
    Secondly, electricity--and so--you know, the real question on this 
environmental issue is, can we have policies in place that enable us to 
grow our economies and, at the same time, protect the environment? And 
technology will enable us to do that. That was

[[Page 1289]]

the other message I talked about at this conference. You don't have to 
shut down your economy in order to protect the environment.
    Technology will enable us, for example, to generate electricity from 
coal, but have zero emissions. That's where we're headed. So we're 
spending a couple of billion dollars of your money on clean coal 
technology. The dream is to have a coal-fired plant that produces zero 
emissions. And the smart people tell me that's coming.
    And by the way, on automobiles, just--you got me stuck on something 
I'm interested in--automobiles, you're going to be driving your car with 
a battery, and so the first 40 miles--this is going to be helpful for 
urban dwellers--the first 40 miles will be driven on a battery charge. I 
feel like it's coming pretty quick, and your deal doesn't have to look 
like a golf cart, you know; it's going to look like a car--[laughter]--
or a pickup truck, you can drive a pickup truck. [Laughter] Well, they 
drive them in Texas. [Laughter] You get your first 40 miles--I'm not 
quite through. And it's a long answer, I'm sorry. It's called 
filibustering. [Laughter]
    The other thing is, is that we got to promote nuclear power. I am 
convinced that the plant designs today are safe. I know we have got to 
do research on how to burn down the spent fuel in order to make people 
comfortable that we can deal with the waste in a smart way. If you're an 
environmentalist and concerned about greenhouse gases, you got to be for 
nuclear power. Nuclear power enables the developed world and the 
developing world to generate, get a--get cheap electricity without one 
iota of greenhouse gases.
    And so we're talking to countries like China and India about a 
help--how to help them develop a civilian nuclear power industry. And so 
the question that's got to be on your mind--I'm certain it is--``How 
they going to get the fuel? Do you really want a lot of people 
enriching?'' Well, there's a Nuclear Suppliers Group that does produce 
fuel--we're one of them. And so my vision is, if you want to have your 
nuclear powerplant, fine. The Nuclear Suppliers Group will provide you 
the fuel and will collect the spent fuel. And hopefully, as this new 
technology comes, we'll reprocess the spent fuel in a way that reduces 
the amount of spent fuel and the toxicity of the fuel.
    And finally, there's--the third aspect of greenhouse gases here at 
home is how do you--you've got to build your buildings better, and 
building codes matter when it comes to the construction of buildings. 
And so there's the three-part strategy. Then the question is, who 
develops the strategy for each country? Well, my attitude is, we can 
develop our own strategy. See, we'll set the goal, work with other 
nations to set the goal, and we'll develop a strategy. We'll develop a 
strategy that meets the needs of the American economy. We'll develop a 
strategy that the American people are comfortable with, all aiming to 
achieve the international goal.
    And anyway, it's a great question. I appreciate you asking it.
    Yes, little guy, you got one?

Border Security/Immigration Reform

    Q. Do you have any further plans on preventing illegal immigration?
    The President. Illegal immigration? Yes, I do. He said, do I have 
any plans to prevent illegal--further plans. One is to double the Border 
Patrol. Two is to modernize the border. You know--I know you've haven't 
ever been down there--or maybe you have. I used to live close to the 
border, and it is an expansive territory, and it's hard to enforce. And 
you can't have a Border Patrol agent every quarter-mile. You've got to 
have infrastructure, as well, to leverage the presence of Border Patrol.
    And so we're modernizing it. We're getting some fencing and some 
automobile routes--you get on the Arizona border; you can't tell what's 
border and what's not border. I mean, it's just desert. But we're 
beginning to clearly define the border, and we're beginning to have much 
more effective enforcement on the border.
    The second aspect of the immigration policy that discouraged a lot 
of our Border Patrol and, frankly, discouraged a lot of Americans and 
made them believe that the Government wasn't serious about enforcing the 
border is, oftentimes, we would find somebody trying to sneak into our 
country illegally and then release them. And the old policy was,

[[Page 1290]]

check back in with your immigration court. The problem is, they weren't 
interested in checking back in with the immigration court; they were 
interested in working. And so it was called catch-and-release. We've 
ended that.
    One of the things we did with the Congress over the last couple of 
years is increase the number of detention facilities and beds. So 
somebody gets caught sneaking into our country illegally will be held in 
detention, particularly if they're from a Central American country, for 
example. And they're being shipped home now, which sends a message back 
to Central America that it's not a free ride anymore. In other words, 
there is a cost of trying to come into the country.
    Thirdly--so it's modernization, increased manpower, and better 
policy in terms of enforcing law.
    Now, I'm going to tell you my position on this, just so you know 
loud and clear. I don't think you can fully enforce the border like 
Americans expect unless you recognize that people are willing to do 
whatever it takes to sneak in here to do jobs Americans aren't willing 
to do. And therefore, I believe, as an integral part of border security, 
that we say to somebody, ``You can come here on a temporary basis to 
pick peaches or to work in a chicken factory.'' In other words, there's 
a lot of jobs Americans aren't willing to do, but somebody else is 
willing to do it because they want to put food on the table for their 
families. And until we have a rational, temporary guest-worker program, 
people are going to sneak in.
    I used to remind people, family values don't stop at the Rio Grande 
River. You got people who are worried about putting food on the table 
and are willing to get in the bottom of an 18-wheeler in 100-degree 
temperature because they're going to come and do a job many Americans 
don't want to do. And so I fully believe that if you want to enforce the 
border and be humane, have a temporary-worker program. Give people a 
chance to come with a tamper-proof ID card that says, you going to come 
for a limited period of time to do a job that somebody else isn't doing.
    That, by the way, relieves the pressure off the employers. If you're 
a small-business owner--[applause]--well, there's somebody who's worried 
about it. If you're running a nursery here in Lancaster County and 
somebody shows up to work, you're not in much of a position to determine 
whether or not that Social Security card somebody gives you is forged or 
not. And believe me, there is a whole forgery network around this 
immigration issue, just like there's a whole smuggling network around 
this immigration issue.
    And so it's--anyway, I put up an idea, and we tried to get it 
through Congress; it didn't work. And so in the meantime, however, this 
border security initiative is still going on down there on the border. 
I'm constantly in touch with the person in charge. I said, ``Here's what 
you said you're going to do; are you're doing it?'' That's one of the 
jobs of the President, is to hold people to account. I'm interested in 
results. I said, ``You're going to come in and check in with me on a 
regular basis to show me what's happening.'' And it's amazing what 
happens--I'm sure you do this in your businesses--you say, ``You show up 
and give me an accounting of what's taken place.'' Well, the same thing 
works in government. And so I'm watching carefully, and we're 
implementing the will of the United States Congress on the border 
security.
    Yes, sir.

Federal Utilities

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. Recently, the Federal Government implemented the National 
Electric Transmission Corridors Project, whereby the Federal Government 
can step in and not only identify corridors where we need to increase 
transmission capabilities along the east coast or the west coast, for 
example, but oversee, if you will, what the State says. In other words, 
if a State is holding up the project, the Federal Government can come in 
and say, ``No, this is where it's going to go, and this is how we're 
going to do that.'' Recently, when the Federal Government has identified 
some of these corridors, the States' Governors have come out against 
some of these corridors because they don't want to lose control. I'm 
just wondering what your opinion is on that.

[[Page 1291]]

    The President. It's a--the issue, as well as whether or not the 
Federal Government has the right of eminent domain to put certain 
Federal systems in place over the objections of State and landowners--
and I support it on a limited basis, so long as it achieves a national 
objective. And I think having modern communications and electricity 
wires is in the national interest.
    Yes, ma'am.

Federal and Private Programs

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Well, you raised your hand. [Laughter] You didn't 
mean it? You want a little chance to collect the thoughts, you know? I 
mean, we're talking national TV here, you know? [Laughter]
    Q. I actually wrote it down so I wouldn't get flustered.
    The President. Yes--it didn't work. [Laughter] It's just the 
President.
    Q. Exactly. Thank you for picking me. I work for the Central 
Pennsylvania Food Bank. And in the last two of your budgets, you have 
attempted to eliminate the commodity supplemetal food programs. It's 
okay. We can talk about that.
    The President. Yes. [Laughter]
    Q. Now, with----
    The President. I did? Anyway--[laughter].
    Q. Yes, sir, you did.
    The President. I'm going to call the man responsible right when I 
get home. Anyway, go ahead.
    Q. Your Secretary of Agriculture came to visit us, and we asked him 
about it too.
    The President. And what did he say?
    Q. Not a lot. [Laughter]
    The President. Why did you ask that question? [Laughter] Anyway.
    Q. With a half a million seniors who rely on this food--and the food 
stamp benefit for seniors who live in poverty isn't--it comes nowhere 
near this benefit that they receive--how do we make sure that our 
seniors have the food that they need?
    The President. Yes.
    Q. And what I would say is, you know, I mean, I just want to make 
this program for my food bank.
    The President. Well, where do you get most of your food from in the 
food bank? Private donations, right?
    Q. Well, we're fortunate, yes.
    The President. Yes. That's the way it ought to be. Food banks ought 
to be supported through the generosity of individuals. And--anyway, keep 
going. So the program that we're----
    Q. But I mean, for the supplemental--commodity supplemental food 
program, there's nothing to replace it with. Food stamps aren't going to 
work, and we're talking about folks who live in poverty--elderly folks 
who live in poverty.
    The President. Right.
    Q. They already made all the mistakes which they can't fix----
    The President. Yes, look, if somebody is poor, we want to help them.
    Q. Exactly.
    The President. And the fundamental question is, what's the proper 
balance between Federal help and private help? And when it comes to food 
banks, look, I don't know the program. Maybe I shouldn't make this 
admission; maybe I should try to bull my way through. I don't know the 
program; I'm sorry. I'll be glad to look into it. But just from a 
philosophical perspective, one of the wonderful things about the country 
is, when there's a need, the average citizen steps up and helps fills 
the need through private charity. And your program, I suspect, really 
functions well because the food bank is a dear cause for people. People 
say, ``How can I love my neighbor?'' Well, one way to love your neighbor 
is the food bank.
    And the truth of the matter is, I suspect that if seniors are 
suffering here in Lancaster County and you put out the call, people are 
going to help. And so I would--I will get your budget--yes, leave your 
name. I'll get your budget question answered, because you'll be maybe 
surprised, not surprised--I don't know all the budget lines. [Laughter] 
I tend to try to have the big picture. But it's big picture for you, and 
I understand it. Thank you for your question. I will seriously find out 
for you.
    Yes, ma'am.

[[Page 1292]]

Middle East/War on Terror/Spread of Democracy

    Q. Thank you very much. It's truly an honor to have a President come 
to our county.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. I just wanted to ask you specifically, relating to Israel and 
Palestine, what, in your opinion, will it really take to ever have 
peace? And is it that really possible?
    The President. That's a great question. What will it take to have 
peace in the Middle East? And first, it'll take a firm rejection of 
extremism and a rejection of people who use terror as a weapon to 
achieve their political objectives. This ideological struggle that I 
just described to you is taking place throughout the entire Middle East.
    Secondly, I believe that in order for there to be peace, there needs 
to be a Palestinian democracy committed to living side by side with an 
Israeli democracy in peace. And so I've advanced this vision. First of 
all, I believe it can happen. There's nothing worse than a leader 
saying, ``I don't think it's going to happen, but we'll try.'' I do 
believe it can happen. I do believe there can be peace. I understand how 
difficult it is because there are people who can't stand the thought of 
a democracy in their midst, because they have a different vision of 
government. This is what you're seeing playing out in Iraq. This is what 
is playing out in Afghanistan. Isn't it amazing that two of the youngest 
democracies on the face of the Earth are being challenged by murderers 
and terrorists? They have a different vision of government.
    Thirdly, this is being played out in Lebanon. A struggling democracy 
is having to deal with extremist groups funded by parties in the region 
that worry about the advent of democracy. And so my strategy has always 
been to lay out a vision that I believe can work, and work toward that 
vision. And so we're doing that in the Middle East.
    Now, first, in order for there to be peace in the Middle East, there 
has to be a commitment by the leaders of the parties to work toward two 
democracies living side by side in peace. The United States can't impose 
a solution. We can't make the leader of a democracy--force the leader of 
a democracy to make a decision that is not in the interest of the people 
of that democracy. So one of the interesting breakthroughs has been that 
the Israelis have come to believe, and rightly so, that it's in their 
long-term interest that we work toward a Palestinian democracy. 
Otherwise, the demographics will overwhelm the Israeli democracy.
    And so the leadership--this isn't--they didn't say, ``Hey, good 
idea; let's have Palestinian democracy,'' because I said it. They have 
said this because it's in their interest. And so does President Abbas 
believe it's important and necessary. But the problem is, is that we 
have got to do two things. One, we've got to make this hope real for the 
Palestinians. In other words, they've heard a lot of rhetoric, but they 
really haven't seen a state begun to emerge from the rhetoric. So 
there's got to be hope.
    And so one of the things Condi and I are working on is to see if we 
can't get the two parties to agree on what a state would look like so 
that the average Palestinian says, ``Wait a minute. I'm sick and tired 
of this violence; I'm not going to support those who espouse radicalism 
and violence in order to achieve an objective, because here's a 
different vision.'' And in the meantime, we're trying to help this 
Palestinian democracy have the institutions in place--a security 
institution, an economic institution, an actual functioning government--
that will inspire not only their own people but inspire the Israelis to 
eventually trust their judgment that a Palestinian state on her border 
will yield the peace. And it's hard--it can happen.
    But we have to be firm in our rejection of extremists and radicals. 
And what happens in Iraq, for example, matters in the Palestinian 
Territory. What happens in Lebanon matters around the Middle East. And 
the truth of the matter is, Iran is using Hizballah in Lebanon and is 
worried about democracy in the Middle East--can't stand the thought of a 
democratic government on our border-- is creating issues of peace.
    And one of the reasons I answered the man's question that I did 
about the need to succeed is because there would be nothing worse for 
world peace if the Iranians believed that the United States didn't have 
the will and commitment to help young democracies survive; that if we 
left before the job was

[[Page 1293]]

done, there would be chaos. Chaos would embolden not only the extremists 
and radicals who would like to do us harm, but it would also embolden 
Iran. And what you don't want is somebody--is to have a nuclear arms 
race taking place in the Middle East.
    And so our objective with Iran is to peacefully deal with the issue 
and convince the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions for 
the sake of peace. And that requires more than one voice speaking to 
them. It requires the international community understanding the stakes 
of what a nuclear-armed Iran could mean. I'm kind of getting out of the 
lane here on the question but--anyway, I wanted to share this with you.
    All of these democracy movements and freedom movements are related 
to the larger issues that you're reading about in your newspapers. The 
Iranian issue, the Iraqi issue, they're all interrelated. And that's why 
it's really important for the United States to stay engaged and to 
promote democracy for the sake of peace.
    See, 50 years--the time between when my dad fought and Koizumi came 
into the office, 50 years is really--or 60 years is not all that long--
unless, of course, you're 59. [Laughter] But anyway, it's just not all 
that long. And I've told people, this is the first chapter of freedom's 
march in the 21st century, against these radical ideologues. It's the 
first chapter. We're in for an ideological struggle that's going to take 
awhile.
    And my commitment is, let's make sure that first chapter that's 
written is one that'll yield the peace we want. Let's make certain when 
we look back at this generation that they say, ``They didn't shirk their 
duty; they did the hard work so future children can live in peace.'' And 
it's difficult. It's a difficult work. It's hard to do the hard things 
now. And so--and the American people are--you know, they don't like war. 
He's got to know, I don't like it either. But I also understand the 
challenges.
    And anyway, there's a part of an answer for a strategy that I 
believe is going to work. I really do.
    Yes.

Education

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. A college education--if you're a poor student, you 
just got to--you got help because I signed a bill that increased the 
amount and size of Pell grants. I believe strongly that Pell grants is 
one good way of helping families afford higher education. I believe in 
tax incentives to help families save for higher education. I believe in 
student loans to help families afford higher education.
    My view is this, that if you work hard and you want to go to 
college, you can find all the help you want. Now, some people don't like 
repaying loans, but that's part of life. If we can borrow some of your 
money--if somebody's going to borrow some of your money, they ought to 
repay your money. No, I think if you really look hard, you'll find 
there's a lot of help.
    The best thing we can do, by the way, to make sure that higher 
education is relevant--this isn't exactly your question--but to make 
sure it works in America is to make sure our children can read and write 
and add and subtract. And I want to spend a little time talking to you 
about a subject that may be controversial for some. It's called the No 
Child Left Behind law. See, it's an old trick--you talk about education; 
I segue into something I want to talk about. [Laughter]
    Here's the law. As Governor of Texas, I was deeply concerned about 
schools in my State that were simply moving children through the system 
without being able to tell parents or officials or taxpayers whether or 
not that child could meet standards. And so what ended up happening is, 
is that I would go to a school, and they'd say, ``Well, we've inherited 
kids who can't read''--from the elementary school, for example. So I 
decided to try to do something about it. And step one was to say, if 
you're going to take our money, taxpayers' money, you need to measure. 
There needs to be a standard. You need to show us whether or not, for 
example, children are reading at grade level by the third grade.
    And I took this--and the standards started improving education 
results. I mean, we actually--using the word ``result'' wasn't something 
that we could use before we measured. We were guessing. Now we're 
measuring in our State.

[[Page 1294]]

    And so I took this attitude to Washington, DC. We're spending a lot 
of your money on poor kids in Federal education, which I support. But I 
don't support the notion of not knowing whether or not that child can 
read. And so therefore, we said, ``You design the tests.'' In other 
words, I said, ``You design the tests, not the Federal Government.'' I 
believe in local control of schools, but I just believe in strong 
accountability. I believe in saying to a school district, ``You better 
get it right, and you're going to measure to show us whether or not 
you're getting it right.'' And I also believe that in early grades, when 
we find somebody who can't read up to grade level, we ought to spend 
additional money to help that child get up to speed now, before it's too 
late.
    And so the No Child Left Behind Act says, we trust you to run your 
schools the way you want to run them, but you show us whether or not a 
child can read, write, and add and subtract. Guess what happens 
generally in some of the schools--in my State, at least, they used to--
guess who was penalized by a system that didn't measure? African 
American inner-city kids, you know--they're hard to educate; let's just 
move them through. That's unacceptable to America. And it was certainly 
unacceptable to me as Governor and me as President. I believe every 
child can learn, and I expect schools to teach every child how to learn.
    And so to answer your question on college, you can find help to go 
to college; you sure can. But my advice is doing what I'm sure you're 
doing, which is studying hard now so that college is relevant to you 
later. And so I thank you for your question.
    Yes, sir.

Presidential Election/President's Family

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Yes, I will.
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. I'll veto it. Yes.
    Q. Mr. President, I have a lot of respect for the job you do----
    The President. Why don't you just leave her right there, then? 
[Laughter]
    Q. After saying you're still having fun, I have even more respect 
for you.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. But my question is a little bit lighter, I guess. Two things: 
One, are you able at this point to support any of the Presidential 
candidates coming up?
    The President. No.
    Q. All right. [Laughter] Then my next question--I have recently 
watched the interviews with your daughters, and you have to be very 
proud of them.
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. I'm proud of my daughter. My question is, would you rather see 
your daughters go into business or politics?
    The President. I'd rather them do whatever they want to do. And I--
what I want them to do is, I want them to understand that when they 
can--when they love a neighbor or when they help somebody in need, that 
they're really helping themselves. I want them to understand there is a 
certain responsibility in our society to reach out. So when Jenna told 
me she's a school teacher, I was very proud of that. Or when Barbara 
went down and worked in a AIDS--pediatric AIDS clinic in South Africa, I 
was very proud of that. And yes, I love my daughters. And one of the 
hardest things I've done is, I've put them in the spotlight. And that 
was--I really wrestled with the decision to run for President because, 
of all the candidates, I understand what it means to be a son or a 
daughter of a President.
    And so it's been a blessing to see them grow up. And I'm real proud 
of them.
    Yes. No, you're second.

Immigration Reform

    Q. Mr. President, it's a pleasure to have you here. My question, it 
brings the immigration issue a little closer to home. Recently, the 
mayor of Hazleton came to Lancaster City and spoke about his views 
regarding penalties for landlords and others who support illegal 
immigrants. The city of Lancaster passed an ordinance that rejected that 
sort of thinking. I'd like your thoughts about that position, please.
    The President. I think that--one of the reasons I was strongly in 
favor of comprehensive immigration reform is so that would preempt local 
governments from taking a variety of actions which creates a confusing 
mosaic around the country. Obviously, you know,

[[Page 1295]]

State--local governments can do what they want to do. But I believe the 
reason they feel like they need to do that is because the Federal 
Government hasn't acted with a comprehensive immigration reform bill. 
And one of the consequences of the Federal Government not being able to 
act in a focused, concerted way is that people felt obligated to respond 
locally.
    And so Congress needs to--you know, I don't know whether they're 
going to bring the issue up again. I was deeply disappointed that we 
couldn't get the bill going. I really felt like a comprehensive bill 
would, as I say, prevent this notion of city governments responding to 
immigration in a variety of different ways. Same thing is happening in 
Texas, in some places. And so it's a--anyway, we'll keep trying to get 
it done. I'm going to tell you something: The country needs to address 
this thing in a comprehensive fashion.
    Yes, sir. Oh, I'm sorry, ma'am. When you're getting over 60, 
sometimes your mind slips. [Laughter]

War on Terror/Progress in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, my question is, are you disappointed in Americans 
condemning the Iraqi war now, since----
    The President. Do what now?
    Q. I said, are you disappointed in the Americans that condemn the 
Iraqi war now, since after--right after 9/11 it seemed like we were all 
ready to go to war over it?
    The President. I'm not--listen, people don't like war. I'm not 
disappointed in America at all. I love America. And I fully understand, 
you know, that people just are anxious about seeing death on their TV 
screens. I also understand that, you know, the enemy understands that. 
And so these spectacular bombings of innocent people are meant to 
achieve a couple of objectives: one, shake the will of those inside Iraq 
or wherever they kill--Afghanistan, Indonesia, the Philippines--all 
aiming to disquiet societies that live under the democracy. But they're 
also smart people. They know that these spectaculars will get on our TV 
screens.
    And they understand the goodness of America. They may not view this 
as a strong characteristic of our society, which is that we respect 
human rights and human dignity and human life--that may be viewed as a 
weakness in their perspective. But for me, it's a strength. And they 
know that we'll recoil from these kinds of deaths. And so it's a--I'm 
not surprised, ma'am, that this war has created anxiety in our society. 
You know, like everybody else, I wish it would, you know, be over. But I 
want it over having accomplished our objectives, which is, as I told 
you, to write a solid chapter in this long ideological struggle so that 
50 years from now, when people look at the decisionmaking, they say, ``I 
understand where he's coming from, and it was worth the sacrifice--which 
is peace.''
    We live in a society, in a way, where things--people have 
expectations that things ought to happen quite quickly. To come from a 
tyrannical society that really didn't know the habits of democracy and 
be given the challenge and the responsibility of governing a democracy 
is hard work. And I'm not making any excuses, but I'm telling you it's 
hard. There's no basis for which these folks inside Iraq have governed, 
except for somebody else's experience, not their own experiences. And I 
talk to these leaders a lot. And the first thing I'm looking for in them 
is courage--do they have the courage necessary to stand up in the face 
of these attacks by extremists; do they have the capacity to reach out 
to each other?
    And what's happening in Iraq is that as security has improved at the 
local level, local folks just--average citizens stand up and say, ``We 
want more.'' It is wrong to assume that the average mom in Iraq is 
willing to accept violence. The average mom in Iraq wants what you want, 
which is your child growing up in peace. The average mom in Iraq wants 
something better for her child than what was under the tyranny of Saddam 
Hussein.
    And so it's a--what's happening there is, is as I said in my speech 
the other night, local politics will affect national politics; 
reconciliation is taking place at the local level, and people who are 
learning how to run a democracy are beginning to respond. And anyway, 
I'm not disappointed in America at all. I love America, and I really 
love the people.
    Yes. I think that was your question, wasn't it? Okay. The answer was 
so long, I lost track.

[[Page 1296]]

    What you got, buddy?

Iran/North Korea

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Okay, I'll ask you a question. What grade are you in?
    Q. I'm in 10th grade.
    The President. Tenth, fabulous.
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Atta boy. [Laughter]
    Q. I would like you to help me understand why you consider that--
[inaudible]--refuse to negotiate directly with--[inaudible].
    The President. Appreciate that.
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Great question. He says, why won't I sit down with 
the Iranian leaders; why won't there be direct negotiations with Iran? 
In order for diplomacy to work, the other side needs as much or more 
from you as you need from them. We have started negotiations with a 
leader and a form of government we don't agree with, called North Korea.
    And let me give you this case study. I was concerned about the North 
Korean weapons programs. I was concerned that they didn't honor 
agreements from the past, and so therefore, I said, we're not going to 
continue the bilateral negotiations that I inherited--because I felt 
very strongly that those negotiations were non-consequential. In other 
words, there was no consequence if somebody decided to just go ahead and 
ignore what we'd agreed to. Negotiations just for the sake of 
negotiations oftentimes send wrong signals. Negotiations to achieve 
consequences are worth doing.
    And so my first objective was to put the discussion, potential 
discussions in the position that if Kim Jong Il decided to say one thing 
and do another, there would be some consequences. And the most 
consequential move would be that countries in the neighborhood, such as 
China, would become--would try to affect North Korean policy. In other 
words, to get China at the table was an objective, so that when we spoke 
to North Korea, they would hear more than one voice--the United States. 
They had heard the voice of the United States for the previous 6 years 
and didn't honor their obligations, we felt. But maybe they would change 
their behavior if they heard the voice of other countries. In other 
words, five of us got together and said, ``Here's what we expect you to 
do, and in return for you doing this in a verifiable way, you will end 
up getting this. But if you decide to make a promise and not honor that 
promise, then there will be consequences.'' We had already sanctioned 
North Korea, so we were pretty much non-consequential on the diplomatic 
front. But China hadn't, for example.
    And so step one was to try to make sure that any discussions we had 
were able to achieve objectives, and in this case--this example was one 
where we were willing to discuss it, but we want to make sure that we 
set it up in such a way that when it came time for North Korea to 
dismantle its programs, we would, one, be able to verify it, and two, we 
would be able to keep them at the table and keep them progressing. And 
that's where we are today. In other words we've--and it takes awhile to 
get all this in place.
    You know, in Iran, we're dealing with a country where the leader has 
said that he wants to destroy Israel. My belief is that the United 
States will defend our ally, Israel. This is a leader who has made very 
provocative statements, and we have made it clear, however, in spite of 
that, that we're willing to sit down with him, so long as he suspends 
his program--his nuclear weapons program. In other words, it's his 
choice, not mine anymore.
    So I believe that's the best way to achieve an objective without 
undermining our credibility, without sending the wrong signal to people. 
And so it's--each case matter is different. And so if your question is, 
will you ever sit down with them? We've proven we would with North 
Korea. And the answer is, yes, just so long as we can achieve something; 
so long as we are able to get our objective. And I guess what I'm 
telling you is, it takes time to get things in place so that there will 
be results.
    And, actually, that's a great question for a guy your age. I never 
would have thought of it. [Laughter]
    Yes.

[[Page 1297]]

Cooperation With Congress/President's Decisionmaking

    Q. [Inaudible]--thank you, Mr. President--[inaudible]--Lancaster.
    The President. Okay.
    Q. What do you see as your goal as leader of the country in 
depolarizing Congress and getting more win-wins out of Congress and less 
vetoes from you?
    The President. Yes. You know, probably the most disappointing thing 
about my experience in Washington is the harshness of the discourse, is 
the zero-sum attitude. And I've tried to do my part by holding people 
with respect and to--you know, talking about people in such a way that 
it doesn't degrade the process. I want this little guy to look at 
Washington and say, ``Wow, this is something I may aspire to.''
    First of all, I'm not so sure there's much that we can do at this 
point in time. The war has been divisive; I understand that. The 
politics is coming around the corner here in 2008, and people are going 
to be posturing a lot. Maybe it's--part of it's, I guess, my 
stubbornness over taxes. I'm just not going to raise your taxes, I just 
want to make that clear. And so therefore, if the definition of ``common 
ground'' is, raise taxes, there are just some redlines for me--no, I'm 
not suggesting you suggested that.
    I'll still try to do my best to treat people with respect. It's the 
best thing a President can do, it seems like to me. And the other 
leaders ought to be doing the same thing. If you disagree with a person, 
don't make it personal. Don't feel like you have to tear the other 
person down in order to make a political point.
    And I got to go, I hate to tell you. You're paying me too much money 
to be sitting here talking. [Laughter]
    I want to conclude by, one, thanking you for coming. I hope you get 
a better sense of why I made the decisions I make and who I am as a 
person. You know, it's a--oh, I don't know what people think when 
they're looking on the TV screen. The only thing I can do is just to 
tell you what's in my heart and to let you know the principles by which 
I decide things, my great optimism about the future. I'm an optimistic 
guy. And the reason I'm optimistic is because I believe in the greatness 
of the country, and I believe the values of America are so real.
    I told somebody behind stage, this has been a joyous experience, 
being the President. My buddies in Texas just simply don't think I'm 
telling them the truth. [Laughter] But it is. It is a joyous experience 
to try to solve problems. It's a joyous experience to represent a 
country full of decent and honorable and caring people.
    And I thank you for giving me a chance to come. And I ask for God's 
blessings on you and our country. Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 11:37 a.m. at Jay Group, Inc. headquarters. 
In his remarks, he referred to Marion McGowan, chairman, Tom Baldrige, 
president, and Jim Smucker, chairman-elect, Lancaster County Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry; Jay Chryst, founder, and Dana Chryst, chief 
executive officer, Jay Group, Inc.; Krist Blank, Amish church leader; 
Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--
Iraq; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; 
President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) of the Palestinian Authority; 
Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea; and President Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad 
of Iran. The President also referred to H.R. 976, the ``Children's 
Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' An audience 
member referred to Mayor Louis J. Barletta of Hazelton, PA.