Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43 Issue 51 (Monday, December 24, 2007)

[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 51 (Monday, December 24, 2007)]
[Pages 1600-1612]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on the National Economy and a Question-and-Answer Session in
Fredericksburg, Virginia

December 17, 2007

The President. Thank you, all. Please be seated. Ralph, thanks for
the invitation. Thanks for the gift; it was planted by the first George
W. [Laughter] I'm glad to be here at the Rotary Club. I have spent some
quality times at rotary clubs, whether it was asking for votes or
selling baseball tickets. [Laughter] I could never get admitted to any
of the clubs in Texas cause my voice wasn't good enough. [Laughter] But
I'm proud to be with you. Thanks for letting me come by and share some
thoughts with you about our economy, what's happening in Washington. And
if time permits, I'll be glad to answer some questions if you have any.
I also want to thank the chamber for having me as well. Appreciate
what you're doing. People say--they're probably wondering why would--old
George W. has got something important to say; why would he bother to
come to a place out in the country? And the answer is, because this is
where jobs are created; this is where dreams are lived; this is where
values are upheld. And so I'm proud to be with you. It kind of reminds
me of being in Texas, to come to a place where there's just down-to-
earth people that are trying to do what's best for their families and
their communities. And so I'm honored to be with you. I appreciate you
letting me come by.
Ralph, thanks for the invitation. I also want to thank Bob Hagin.
And I'm proud to be here with Congressman Eric Cantor from Richmond,
Virginia, as well as newly elected Congressman Rob Wittman. Appreciate
you being here. Good luck; I'm looking forward to working with you. I
want to thank the speaker of the House of Delegates--you call them
delegates, right? Yes. Bill Howell, a good man; good to see you, Mr.
Speaker. Appreciate you being here. Senator-elect Richard Stuart, is
that right? Yes, appreciate you, Richard. Thanks for coming as well.
John [James] * Lacy, past president of Rotary International has bothered
to come over. Mr. Lacy, thank you for serving.
* White House correction.
You know, I tell the people of our country every time I can that the
great strength of America is not our military--although I intend to keep
it strong--or the size of our wallets. But the great strength of America
are the hearts and souls of our fellow citizens who take time out of
their everyday lives to love a neighbor like they would like to be loved
themselves. That's what rotaries mean to me.
People are saying, ``Well, how can we best foster the well-being of
the community in which we live? What can we do as loving human beings to
work with our youth like you do at this--here at this rotary club?'' And
so I want to thank you for what you're doing. I thank you for adding to
the great compassion of our country. Societies change one heart and one
soul at a time. And I hope you have found what others have found--that
if you're part of that helping somebody's live improve, it improves your
own.

[[Page 1601]]

Laura sends her very best. She's doing just fine. She's a fabulous
wife, great mother, and a wonderful First Lady. And she is--she and I
are having the great joy of welcoming people to the White House during
the holiday season. It's a pretty spectacular place when you see the
trees and all the great garlands. And they do a fine job of decorating
the White House. I just put on the lights on the trees. [Laughter] But
we're having a joyous time.
I want to talk a little bit about our economy and some of the
challenges we face and then answer some questions. First of all, I put
forth what some would consider a controversial proposal--that's in
Washington, DC; at least those in Washington consider it controversial--
and that is, cutting taxes on people helps the economy. There's quite an
appetite for your money in Washington. People can figure out all kinds
of ways to spend the taxpayers' money. My attitude was, particularly in
the face of recession and after a terrorist attack, that the best way to
help this economy recover was to let people keep more of their own
money.
And so I worked with the Congress to cut taxes on everybody who pays
taxes. Now, sometimes in the Nation's Capital, they'll say, ``Well, some
people get tax cuts and others don't.'' That's not my attitude. My
attitude was, if you're paying taxes, you ought to get tax relief; and
so we cut taxes. And I mean we cut them on everybody. And when you cut
them on individuals, it turns out you also are cutting taxes on small-
business owners. Most small businesses in America are subchapter S
corporations, or limited liability partnerships, which means that the
owners of the companies pay individual taxes. In other words, the
company is subject to the individual tax rates. And so cutting
individual taxes not only helps consumers and families, but it also
helps small businesses.
And the plan worked. If you think about where we were coming out of
2001 and where we are today, you can't help but say the plan worked.
Cutting taxes helped stimulate economic growth. Why? Because most new
jobs are created by small-business owners. And if you let a small-
business owner have more money to save or invest or spend, it means he
or she is more likely to hire somebody. And so we've had a pretty good
economic run here in the country, 6 years of growth. We've had 51
straight months of increased job employment. It's the largest--longest
period of uninterrupted job growth in the Nation's history. People are
working; productivity is high. In other words, our economy is becoming
more productive as a result of the advent of new technologies. And that
means people are more likely to get paid more.
And yet there are some challenges. There's a credit issue and a
housing issue. In other words, what I'm about to tell you is, is that
the Congress cannot take economic vitality for granted. There are some
positive things Congress can do to make sure that the economy continues
to grow and people are working and realizing dreams, and there's some
negative things they can do. And the most negative thing the Congress
can do in the face of some economic uncertainty is to raise taxes on the
American people. If you want to figure out a way to slow this economy
down, just start taking money out of people's pockets or making it
harder for small businesses to grow and invest.
So one thing I want to share with you today is, I'll veto any tax
increase. I don't think Congress needs more money. I think they need to
learn how to set better priorities.
And that's what you're watching play out here in Washington. The
President submits a budget, and then the Congress can either accept it,
run over it, ignore it. And then the Congress--or the Constitution
wisely gives a President veto power in order to make sure the President
stays involved in the process. And I'm pleased to report that we're
making some pretty good progress toward coming up with a fiscally sound
budget, one that meets priorities, helps on some emergencies, and
enables us to say that we've been fiscally sound with the people's
money.
The next couple of days will be interesting to watch. As I say, I'm
hopeful, and I appreciate those on Capitol Hill are working hard to come
up with a good appropriations package. And that appropriations package,
by the way, must also include funding for our troops in harm's way.
Now, I understand people in Washington and people around the country
may not have

[[Page 1602]]

agreed with my decisions on how to protect America. I know that, and
that's fair. That's what democracy should be all about. When people have
a difference of opinion with the President, they ought to feel
comfortable expressing that difference. And it turns out, quite a few
citizens are willing to do that. [Laughter]
But there should be no difference of opinion when it comes to making
sure our troops have the funding they need, and there should be no
difference of opinion about whether our commanders on the ground ought
to be those who decide or those who recommend to the President and the
Congress the best way to proceed. And so we'll be watching very
carefully as the Congress works through how to spend your money coming
down the stretch here before Christmas. They can't have any gimmicks--
accounting gimmicks in there. You know, sometimes they'll use the
appropriations process to pass law that otherwise didn't make it to the
floor of the House or the Senate. I'm sure that doesn't happen, Mr.
Speaker, in--[laughter]. Sometimes it happens in Washington, though.
[Laughter]
And so I'm looking forward to working with them to come up with a
good bill. But they need to fund these troops. And they don't need to be
putting artificial timetable for withdrawal on the money that we're
asking, to make sure the men and women who courageously serve the United
States of America have what it takes to do the job they've been asked to
do.
If the Congress can't get the job done--in other words, those jet
fumes will start to be moving out pretty soon here, later on this week--
if they can't get the job done, then I've got a suggestion for them: And
just pass a 1-year continuing resolution. That's all they got to do. If
they can't get the job done--like I'm hopeful they will--then all they
got to do is just take what's called a continuing resolution; get the
people's business done that way; and go on home. They got to make sure
they fund the troops, though, on the way out of town.
There's another issue that's coming down I want to bring your
attention to--and by the way, the House looks like they're coming up
with a reasonable plan, Eric and Rob. So we're watching very carefully.
I don't know if you ever heard of the Alternative Minimum Tax--
[laughter]--this was aimed at super-rich years ago, but the plan wasn't
indexed for inflation. And all of a sudden, middle class citizens are
fixing to be stuck with this bill. And Congress needs to fix the AMT,
and they need to do it quickly.
And the Senate, by the way, passed a good version of an AMT fix, so
you're not going to get stuck with a higher tax bill. And by the way,
it's just not individuals. Again, if you're incorporated through a
limited partnership or subchapter S, you'll end up paying higher taxes
as well. But they need to move quickly on this piece of legislation
because the longer they delay, the more likely it is that there's $75
billion of refund checks that will be late. People are going to be
wondering why they didn't get their refund check on time. And the answer
is, it's because there's been a delay in the AMT fix. Now, the positive
news is the Senate passed a good bill, and the House of Representatives
needs to get it done quickly.
People are concerned around this country about housing. Here's my
attitude on housing: One, the Government should never bail out lenders;
two, some people bought a house that they shouldn't have been in the
market; three, there are speculators who thought they could get--buy
nice, one of these reset mortgages, and flip it, make some money. I'm
sure none of them are in the Chamber, but nevertheless--[laughter]--
that's what happened. But there are some people that are creditworthy
that should be encouraged to stay in their homes.
And the issue--the housing issue has changed. I can remember the
first home I bought in Midland, Texas. I remember going down to the
savings and loan and sitting down with the savings and loan officer and
negotiating with the savings and loan officer. Well, this day and age,
you know, these mortgages have been bundled. So the savings and loan
doesn't own the mortgage anymore, or the bank doesn't loan the mortgage
anymore. The local lending institute doesn't loan the mortgage anymore;
it's owned by some international group, perhaps, or it's been bundled
into an asset. And so there's hardly anybody to negotiate with. And so
some lenders aren't

[[Page 1603]]

sure where to turn. They have creditworthiness; they may get pinched as
their interest rates reset.
But it seems like to me it's in our interests to help people stay in
their homes. And there's--we've got a couple of ways to do so. One is
through the FHASecure. It's a way for the--Alphonso Jackson and his
Department, which is HUD--to help creditworthy people renegotiate and
stay in their homes. Congress needs to get a bill to my desk that will
make it easier for FHA to continue to help people stay in their homes.
We're not bailing people out; we're helping them refinance their money.
We're helping them, you know, own--we're helping them stay in a part of
the American Dream is what we're doing, and it's worthwhile to do that.
And the other is what's called HOPE NOW, and this is the Treasury
Department bringing the private sector together--lenders, investors,
mortgage counselors--to help people renegotiate, to help people
understand what is possible when it comes to finance and recourse and
stay in your house.
So I am concerned; I know you're concerned about the housing
industry. We all should be. We've been building a lot of homes, and all
of a sudden, fewer buyers are showing up. And it's going to take a while
to work through the housing bubble. But we can mitigate some of the
issues, and I'm concerned about people who are creditworthy enough to
live in their homes not being able to deal with the resets. And so I
just want to let you know we got a strategy.
And Congress can help. They can pass the FHA modernization bill,
which will help us. And the other issue that they can pass that would
really help the homeowner is that when you renegotiate, if you happen to
have a mortgage that you're going to have trouble meeting, you can find
somebody to renegotiate with, and you do. And part of that loan may be
forgiven for tax purpose--you actually have to pay tax. It doesn't make
any sense if somebody is struggling to stay in their house and the Tax
Code says you get to pay more tax after you've renegotiated your loan.
So we need to fix the Tax Code, and the Senate bipartisan way is passing
a good piece of legislation. I hope the House takes it up.
Two other issues, and then I'll answer some questions. One, I know
if you're a small-business owner, you're concerned about health care,
and you should be. And the fundamental question facing the country is,
what can the Government do to make health care more affordable and more
available? And there's a classic philosophical divide in Washington. On
the one hand, there are those who believe that government is the fix,
that government can best decide the allocation of resources in health
care. And then there are those of us who believe that we ought to push
for more consumer--a consumer-driven health care system.
Part of the problem in health care is that there is no consumerism.
I shouldn't say ``no consumerism,'' obviously that's a--there is some
consumerism. But when a third party pays your bill, you tend not to
worry about price. If somebody else pays your bill, you're not really an
active consumer. And therefore, the question is--part of the issue with
price is, how do you encourage consumerism? And here's one way: change
the Tax Code. The Tax Code now says if you work for corporate America--
big company--you get a tax benefit. But if you're a small-business owner
or you're out on your own, you have to buy health care with after-tax
dollars.
And therefore, there's a disincentive for people to be purchasing
health care on the individual market, and therefore, the individual
market hasn't grown. So I propose to Congress that we allow families,
everybody, regardless of your employment status, to be able to deduct
$15,000 off your income taxes, or $7,500 as an individual, all aimed at
level the playing field so that an individual market begins to grow. So
step one to consumerism is for individuals to have more options in the
marketplace so they can become involved directly in buying better
insurance for their families.
Step two is for there to be transparency in pricing and quality, and
the Federal Government can help. We're a huge health care consumer. And
one of the things that Secretary Leavitt is doing is saying that if
you're interfacing with the Federal Government, then you got to post
your price. I don't know how many of you ever go to your doctor and

[[Page 1604]]

say, ``What are you charging, you know, compared to your neighbor?'' I
suspect you do that when it comes an automobile, but you don't when it
comes to buying--to purchasing health care. I never have, frankly. I
don't remember asking my buddies in Midland, who are my doctors, ``How
much are you charging relative to the person down the street?''
So--but the Government can help with pricing transparency. So we're
now getting people to--providers to not only post a price, but also
we're developing a qualitative index so that people are able to compare
price and quality. Now, that--this is a novel concept; I readily
concede. But if you're interested in more consumerism, then there has to
be transparency in the health care industry.
Third, there needs to be products like health savings accounts
expanded. If you're a small-business owner, I strongly urge you to look
at a health savings account for a way to help your employees or yourself
save for everyday expenses--medical expenses on a tax-free basis and
coupled with a catastrophic health plan. The whole purpose there is to
give you more decisionmaking in your health care--with your health care
and portability.
Because one of the issues facing America, particularly if you're a
youngster, is, can you take your health care plans with you? It turns
out most young Americans have changed jobs, like, seven or eight times
by the time they're 35 years old. And the inability to carry a good
health care plan with you, a plan that you own, a plan of which the
dollars inside your plan are earning tax-free, creates frustrations for
people. This economy is changing. And therefore, the health care
industry needs to change with it and provide flexibility for our
workers.
Fourth, small businesses ought to be allowed to pool risk across
jurisdictional boundaries. Well, that means if you're a restaurant owner
here, you ought to be able to pool your employees with a restaurant
owner in Texas so that you can go into the market and buy insurance at
the same discounts that larger companies get.
Fifth, health care needs to be better at incorporating information
technologies. I don't know, I mean--I suspect you'll find some of your
docs still writing files by hand. That's a little antiquated these days.
The trouble is, most doctors aren't very good writers to begin with.
[Laughter] And so we're using government leverage to help information
technology take hold so that there is higher productivity increases in
health care, less inefficiency and waste. My dream is for all of us to
have a medical electronics record within a decade. My only caveat is, I
want to make sure that your material is private and that nobody can
access it; it's your material alone. But nevertheless, it makes sense
for all your medical records to be on a single chip, which will help
take the inefficiencies out of health care and help keep the pressure
off cost.
Finally, if you're truly interested in making sure health care is
available and affordable, then you need to join the outcry on these
frivolous and junk lawsuits. There are too many lawsuits running too
many doctors out of practice. We have an ob-gyn crisis in America, in
some States, because junk lawsuits are making it impossible for people
to practice their skills. And they just--they get sick of it and say,
``I'm out of here. I don't want to practice anymore.'' And plus every
time there's a lawsuit, it drives up the cost of medicine. That means
you have to pay more. Because why? Because many doctors practice
defensive medicine. They say, ``Well, if I'm fixing to get sued, I want
to make sure I administer as many tests as possible, so that my practice
and my techniques can stand up in a court of law,'' which runs up the
cost of medicine.
Now, obviously there ought to be--needs to be recourse for
malpractice. Nobody wants to deny anybody their right to have a claim in
the court of law. That's one of the great things about America, is if
you've got a claim, you ought to be able to take it to the court of law.
But we can--and we can pass law that protects somebody's right to go to
the court of law and do something about these junk lawsuits. And, you
know, it's tough. Boy, the trial lawyers are tough in Washington. In all
due respect to the trial lawyers here, you're very powerful politically.
We kept--we got the bill out of the House of Representatives. Time and
time again it got blocked in the United States Senate.
So here's a commonsense way to move forward to help small businesses
and individuals

[[Page 1605]]

deal with health care costs. And that stands in contrast to those who
really believe the Federal Government can run it better than the
individual consumer. And I'm not saying those are bad people who
articulate that position; I'm just telling you I think it's wrong for
America.
Finally, energy. We're too dependent on oil from overseas. That
sounds strange for a Texas guy to say; I know. But dependency on oil
creates economic security issues and national security issues and
environmental issues. So I proposed a bill that would encourage--let me
just--most oil is consumed through automobile usage. So I want to talk
to you about automobile usage and electricity, and then I'll answer some
questions.
I have proposed a bill, and I'm hopeful it will get a pass by the
Congress, that increases CAFE standards, which is the fuel economy
standards, in a reasonable way without sacrificing automobile safety.
And I've also proposed that we reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent over
the next 10 years by using alternative fuels. Now, I wouldn't have done
that if I didn't think it was practical and possible.
If you're a hog grower--which I suspect there's not too many around
here--but you're a little concerned about the use of ethanol with corn
at its base because the price of corn is high; ethanol is beginning to
spread in the Midwest, and it's causing the price of corn to go up.
But that's going to be relieved as a result of research and
development. One of these days, the scientists tell me--and I believe--
that we'll be able to manufacture fuel for your automobiles from
switchgrass or biomass or wood chips. And then all of a sudden, if you
really think about it and are optimistic about America's capacity to use
technology to change our way of life, then all of a sudden, you begin to
see the rationale for saying that we can reduce gasoline usage by 20
percent over the next 10 years. I believe it's coming; I really do.
I also believe that a part of that mix is going to be new battery
technologies that will enable you to drive the first 40 miles on
electricity. And for those of you who are worried about the size of the
vehicle, it won't look like a golf cart. [Laughter] It will be a normal
size vehicle.
On electricity, there's a lot of talk about electricity; I
understand that, and there should be. If America wants to solve its
dependency on foreign sources or wants to solve its environmental--deal
with environmental concerns, we need to aggressively spread nuclear
power. If you're generally an environmentalist, if you're worried about
greenhouse gases, then you need to be in the forefront of supporting
nuclear powerplants. If you're worried about whether or not we can
continue to have the electricity necessary to foster economic growth and
vitality, you ought to be for nuclear power. I know that's not
necessarily politically correct in some circles, but I believe the
engineering is safe, and I know we can come up with ways to dispose of
the waste in a safe way.
And so those are some of my thoughts, other than I hope you all have
a great holiday season. I'd be glad to--I hope you can tell I'm an
optimistic fellow. We've been through a lot over the last 7 years; we
really have. But I'm absolutely convinced this country is strong and
vibrant. We're in the lead when it comes to the freedom agenda. I
believe the decisions that have been made over the last 7 years are
going to lead peace. Sometimes I know it's hard for you to tell it. But
I'm convinced that when people look back at this era, they're going to
say,``Thank goodness the United States of America never abandoned its
belief that freedom is universal.''
I happen to believe there is an Almighty, and a gift of that
Almighty to every man, woman, and child is freedom. And I believe it's
in our Nation's interest to act upon that belief. And so I come to you
today as a man honored to serve a great country, with some ideas on how
we can stay strong economically, and a great faith in the capacity of
freedom to bring the peace we want.
And with that, I'll be glad to answer any questions. From anybody
other than the press corps. [Laughter] If I wanted to have a press
conference, I'd call a press conference; right, Herman [Ken Herman, Cox
News]?
Mr. Herman. [Inaudible]--Mr. President.

[[Page 1606]]

The President. I can't hear you. He's from Texas; forgive him.
[Laughter]
Yes, ma'am.

Oil Industry

Q. I'm from that county outside Texas called Oklahoma.
The President. There you go. We love Oklahoma in Texas, except when
you come down and beat our football teams. [Laughter]
Q. That is a bad thing.
They seem to be closing a lot of the refineries and capping off
different oil wells, et cetera. Are they saving our oil? What are they
doing?
The President. What happens--you know, an oilfield plays out. And
many of the fields you're referring to in Oklahoma or parts of Texas are
just old, and there's little to recover.
One of the interesting things that is taking place around the
country, though, is that the higher price of oil has caused people to
invest in new technologies, and the new technologies are enabling some
to be able to get more of the reserves out of the reservoirs. But when a
person caps off an oil well, plugs an oil well, at this price it pretty
well means it's played out; there's not left.
Now, refineries is a different issue. We haven't built any new
refineries. Now, we've expanded some refineries. We're not building new
refineries, and it makes no sense not to increase the supply of
gasoline. If you're concerned about the price of gasoline, one way to
deal with it is to encourage the expansion of refineries.
And so one of the proposals I put forth to the Congress was, as we
shut down bases through the BRAC process, why don't we provide land on
those old bases for refineries and to encourage the expansion of
refineries here in the United States. And it's just--anyway, it's--there
are some who--I don't know why they wouldn't be for something as
commonsensical as that.
I'll tell you another thing we ought to be doing is, we ought to be
exploring for oil and gas in the Arctic--up in Alaska. You can't believe
the technologies that are now available. You can drill on a small pad,
without creating much of an impact on the environment, and explore
laterally, in order to develop a field. And they tend to drill in the
winter, on ice, and they move the rig off in the summer during the melt.
So we've got the technologies capable of finding oil and gas reserves
and hardly leaving a scratch on the environment up there. But it's
become a cause celebre with a lot of the special interests in
Washington, DC.
So I can't tell you why people aren't for refinery expansion. I'm
just telling you they ought to be. There are some examples where
refineries are expanding, like down there in Mississippi, for example,
in the--Pascagoula. A big refinery has gotten permits on its current
footprint to expand its capacity, and that's going to be good for the
country. It's going to take a while. We will be using oil and gas for a
while. And it's going to take a while to diversify. Therefore, for the
sake of our consumers and our economy, we need to make sure we got
reliable supplies as we develop new technologies. And new technologies
are coming. It's going to be an exciting era, in my judgment.
Thank you. Yes, sir.

President's Domestic Agenda

Q. [Inaudible]--a commercial lender here in Fredericksburg.
The President. How do you like the mortgage plan? [Laughter] Cause I
don't know----
Q. Well, the mortgage plan is a little bit tough. And I'm a
commercial lender as well, so it's great to hear from the President.
Just two issues that we're looking at against valuating financial
statements, daily on the income statements, health care expenses, fuel
expenses--what about my big customers that are driving diesel-powered
equipment? What if fuel goes to 3.25 a gallon to $5.00, while at the
same time that you're having an escalated health care expenses. So it's
great to see you here today and preaching that message because, again,
revenues aren't necessarily expanding in this soft economy we're in. So
what happens in '08 and '09 when the----
The President. No, I appreciate that. That's why I'm against raising
the gasoline tax. In other words, ``We need to raise the gasoline tax.''
It comes up about every year in Congress. I'm against it for precisely
that

[[Page 1607]]

reason, and--is somebody for it over there? [Laughter] I said, the
Federal gasoline tax. [Laughter] Mr. Speaker, I wasn't talking about the
State gasoline tax. [Laughter] But it's--yes, look, that's the concern,
and I fully understand the pinch some of your folks are going to feel.
Having said that, this economy is pretty good. There are some--
there's definitely some storm clouds and concerns, but the underpinning
is good, and we'll work our way through this period. But I couldn't
agree with you more that there's--your people have got some concerns.
There's just some fundamental questions that we're going to have to make
on issues like health care. The quick fix, at least what sounds like a
quick fix, is going to be, don't worry, we'll handle it for you at the
Federal Government.
And to me that would mean that the greatest health care system in
the world would head toward mediocrity quite rapidly. We don't want
rationing, people standing in lines. We want the great innovation and
the private medicine to flourish. So my only caution is, is that people
see the health care rising; I hope they don't leap to what sounds like a
simple solution that would lead to a long-term problem for the country.
Yes, sir.

Transportation Infrastructure/Fuel Efficiency Standards

Q. You may have noticed that transportation is an issue for us in
this area, and----
The President. Actually, the helicopter didn't get stuck in any
traffic. [Laughter]
Q. I was wondering----
The President. Yes. What traffic jam? [Laughter] Anyway, yes it is;
it's a huge issue.
Q. Yes, sir. And Homeland Security is moving more people in our area
here, especially up on 610, and moving a lot of their offices. I was
wondering if the Federal Government would be able to help us with our
transportation problem, so that we could better facilitate Homeland
facility--Homeland Security's problem.
The President. You're not looking for that special earmark, are you?
[Laughter]
Q. No, no, sir.
The President. Yes, you are--at least you're honest. [Laughter]
Here's the thing about highway funds, a couple of points. First of all,
I don't know if you know this or not, but the Public Works Committee I
guess is the largest in the House; is that right, Eric? Yes. And the way
they get the bills out of the House onto the floor is everybody gets a
special project. And so it's the largest committee, and then everybody
gets them a special project, and then the bill moves, and then the
funding formulas kick in. The way it ought to be done is they ought to
adjust the funding formulas based upon rational measures, and then pass
these bills without earmarks, without special projects. That's just the
way it works. A lot of the money is spent before it even--the highway
bill makes it to the floor, and it's just not a good system.
Secondly--and so therefore, they need to change the system. This
isn't going to answer your question specifically. And it's not an
intentional dodge, by the way, it's a slight dodge--[laughter]--because
you know, you don't want your President walking around promising this
project to this person or this project to that person. That's just not
a--that's not what the President's job is to do. The President's job is
to think strategically for the country and help get fiscal sanity into
the process.
Secondly, no question that we're going to have to rethink for the
longterm how to fund highways. Right now the highways are funded as a
result of gasoline taxes, as you know. Not all of the money from the
gasoline tax, by the way, goes to highway projects. There's a lot of
mass transit money spent; there's other things that the money is spent
on. I'm not making a qualitative judgment; I'm just telling you that not
every dime collected from the highway tax--for the highway tax goes to
highways.
Automobile--I just told you that we're going to become more
efficient with our automobile, we're raising our fuel efficiency
standards. In other words, cars and new technology and electricity are
going to change how often people go to the pump. And so the source of
revenues that had been kind of the staple of the interstate highway
system since the fifties is going to change a lot. And so how--what's a
rational way forward? I talked to Secretary Peters about this, and I
have instructed her to think about alternative

[[Page 1608]]

methods of financing highway growth, such as user fees in lieu of/or in
combination with current tax structure.
Now why would you do that? Well, if your automobiles are going to
get less miles per gallon, then you're going to have to figure out--and
you need additional highways, you're going to have to figure out a way
to raise the money. And the user fee is a good way to do it. And if you
happen to go to a user fee system, one of the interesting things that
are being used is differential pricing. In other words, you pay a
different price depending upon the day you drive; in other words, a
market-oriented system. If one of the things you're concerned about is
massive traffic jams on your highways, in and out of your community,
then it may make sense to say to somebody, if you're going to ride
between 9 and 4, you pay a higher fee than somebody riding before 9 or
after 4. It's congestion pricing. It's worked in some parts of the
world. I definitely think we ought to look at it.
In other words, what I'm telling you is, the funding system is
antiquated relative to the challenges we're going to be facing. And so
Secretary Peters is a good, smart soul who is looking through different
alternatives. It's going to be a tough issue, as you found out locally,
and it's going to be a tough issue, it's hard to get Washington to
change sometimes. But we will do our part.
She's, by the way, very much engaged in making sure that the air
transportation system is more modern. One thing we did over
Thanksgiving, and we'll again do for Christmas, is take away some of the
military flight lanes and provide them for commercial airlines. But the
truth of the matter is, we need a more rational way of allocating gates
amongst airlines, so that there is rational--a market-driven system in
place. Anyway, I'm not going to answer your question on the special
deal. [Laughter] Yes, sir. I'll leave that to your Congressman.
[Laughter]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Corporations

Q. [Inaudible]--Fredericksburg and Stafford area is a high cost-of-
living area, and all the proposals for FHA, VA, and conventional loans
are tied to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limit of 417,000.
The President. Yes.
Q. And in this area, that works for some folks, but the interest
rate on jumbo loans is now 1 percent higher than conforming loans. Has
there been some effort to try to increase Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?
The President. There has, in lieu--in conjunction with reforming of
the two institutions to make sure that they stay focused. The reform
would make sure they stay focused on their core missions. But there has
been--and Secretary Paulson has been working with Congressman Frank in
the House on this very issue, which is to raise the limit on jumbos in
conjunction with reforms. I don't know if it's going to pass this time
or not. I should have checked before I came. But it definitely is a part
of the reform agenda that we're working with the House on.
Yes, sir.

Iran

Q. Mr. President, my name is Mike West. I'm a Stafford resident
here. It's a pleasure to have----
The President. How long have you been living here, Mike?
Q. Seven years. We moved from Charleston, West Virginia.
My question is, I have three children in the school system here, and
I'm very concerned about their well-being, living in this country. And
you've done a wonderful job of protecting our Nation, but I'm concerned
about the nations like Iraq, who now have nuclear weapons----
The President. Iran.
Q. Iran and Iraq both.
The President. Not Iraq. [Laughter]
Q. But my question would be about Iran. How is the diplomatic
channels coming through there, as far as----
The President. No, I appreciate that, thanks. You all read a report
the other day that said that Iran had, but halted, a covert military
nuclear weapons program. I said in my press conference that that report
came out, that that report says to me, when you read it carefully, Iran
was a threat; Iran is a threat to peace; and Iran will be a threat to
peace if we don't stop their enrichment

[[Page 1609]]

facilities because--I said that because there are three components to a
nuclear weapons program. The first component is having the materials
necessary to make a bomb. And you can either purchase materials that
have already been processed, or you can learn how to process yourself.
That's the enrichment component.
That program is still active, in spite of the fact that most of the
world has said to the Iranians, stop your enrichment. And that's where
you're watching the diplomacy play out. The ability to weaponize that
material, in other words, to make it into something that explodes, that
part of the program is what the intelligence people thought was ongoing
at one time and suspended.
And finally, in order to be in a position to say you're a nuclear
weapon power, you've got to be able to deliver the weapon by missiles.
And they've spent a lot of time testing their missiles. So two of the
three components in order to become a power, nuclear power with a
weapons system, is--they're active. Now what I told the people--first of
all, I think Iran is a danger to peace. And I believe that for a variety
of reasons. I believe with a weapon they would be very destabilizing. I
believe with a weapon we need to take their threats seriously about what
they have said about one of our allies, Israel. And therefore, my
attitude hasn't changed toward Iran. If somebody had them a weapons
program, what's to say they couldn't start it up tomorrow? Since they
tried to hide their program before, how would we know?
So my point on the Iranian issue is this: They owe an explanation to
the world. They need to tell the world why they had a program that they
didn't report. They need to make it clear to the international
organization, the IAEA, what that program was all about, and why they
hid it from the world. So Iran is a danger, and we will continue to work
with friends and allies to convince them that it is in their interests
to suspend their enrichment programs. And if they do, there's a way
forward for them that is different from the way that--the path they're
headed down now. They're heading down a path of isolation right now, and
economic sanctions. We passed two resolutions out of the U.N., and Condi
Rice is working on a third.
My message to the Iranian people is, one, we respect your history
and traditions. It's your Government that is isolating you from the
world. It's the decisions that your Government has made that is making
it more difficult for you to put food on the table, making it more
difficult for your family to realize their dreams. And there's a better
way forward for the Iranian people than to have a Government that is
nontransparent, that's hidden a program, and that refuses to listen to
the demands of most of the civilized world, which is, give up your--
suspend your program.
Interestingly enough, today Russia sent some enriched--or is in the
process of sending enriched uranium to Iran to help on their civilian
nuclear reactor. If that's the case, if the Russians are willing to do
that, which I support, then the Iranians do not need to learn how to
enrich. If the Iranians accept that uranium for a civilian nuclear
powerplant, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich. And so
I appreciate your question.
Yes, sir.

Care for Wounded Military Personnel

Q. I'm Jeff Davis. I'm a retired marine Vietnam veteran, and I want
to be assured that our wounded warriors are getting the health care that
they deserve.
The President. Yes, I appreciate you saying that. I want to be
assured of that too, Mr. Davis. First of all, thank you for serving. I
feel a particular sense of obligation to make sure that the man or woman
I send into combat gets the very best care possible. I will tell you,
sir, that the doctors and nurses providing our military health care are
fabulous. And the health care these troops are getting is excellent--no
ands, ifs, or buts about it.
The bureaucracy, however, needed to be reviewed and fixed. You're
taking these kids, unlike Vietnam, that are getting wounded in Iraq,
they're coming straight off the battlefield, getting fine care there. If
need be, they're in Germany getting intensive care. And they're here in
the United States of America. Laura and I are going to Bethesda

[[Page 1610]]

and Walter Reed on Wednesday and Thursday. Two reasons: One, to tell
those troops we love them; and two, to tell those docs and nurses who
are working overtime to give them fabulous care, this country
appreciates what they're doing.
Now, as you read, the Walter Reed deal, that was a bureaucratic
foulup. Secretary Gates moved on it very quickly. It should show you our
intensity in making sure that our troops get the very best care. The
veterans system, in our judgment, can be fixed and improved. And that's
why I asked Bob Dole and Donna Shalala to come together to make sure
that veterans' benefits match the needs of these troops coming out of
combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We've got to make sure that--here's what happens. You get
transferred from the Department of Defense into the Veterans
Administration, and sometimes that transfer isn't too smooth. So we
believe there ought to be a seamless system. There needs to be health
information technology for our troops. Our families need to have a case
study--a case worker with them all the time.
So we're making good improvements, and we've addressed the
bureaucratic shortfalls. We'll probably find others. But you need to
know, sir, that I am absolutely convinced I can look the parents of--and
loved ones of the troops in our eyes and say, your kid is going to get
fabulous health care, and they deserve it.
Yes, sir.

Alternative Fuel Sources

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. With regards to research and
development into mileage in cars--and I'm a hybrid owner myself----
The President. There you go.
Q. ----is there anything that is being done to--I understand the
issue with the ethanol plants is there's no outlet for ethanol, other
than 10 percent over at Exxon. Is there anything being done with that
respect?
The President. Yes. Listen, a couple points there. First of all, the
first hurdle to the use of ethanol is to have automobiles that are
capable of using ethanol. And most automobiles are flex-fuel vehicles.
You've probably--you've got one, and you just don't know it. Meaning,
you use gasoline or ethanol and the engine works either way.
Secondly, the fuel blends probably in this area are 10 percent, but
out in the Midwest they're up to 90 percent. And the reason why is this
market is going to develop regionally. And by that I mean, obviously--
what's interesting is that the most significant penetration of high-
concentrated ethanol is in the Midwest, where there's corn. And if this
area doesn't have the fuel stocks necessary to make ethanol, there's not
a pipeline system that will enable a lot of ethanol to get here. And so
what you're going to have is local production or regional production to
fuel the capacity of you to be able to have more ethanol available at
the pump.
The issue is the manufacturing of the product in the region as
opposed to once the product is here in the region, that you're capable
of finding an outlet that will deliver it to you. That's why this
research into different raw materials for ethanol is going to be very
important. So you can envision, if you can start using wood chips--you
got you some wood around here--and all of a sudden it becomes a viable
source of input into an ethanol plant.
But out Midwest, I repeat to you--I think they call it E-90, or
something like that, which is 90 percent ethanol, is now available in a
lot of pumps. And one of the concerns about the folks who live out there
is, how do you get more of it available? And the marketplace tends to
work. People start showing up demanding ethanol, and all of a sudden
somebody figures out how to supply it.
But it's making pretty good market penetration in the Midwest. It's
an interesting map to look at, and I believe the reason why is because,
since corn is now the main source of ethanol, that's where you get to
get your corn. But hopefully this research and development in a
relatively quick period will come up with different alternative sources
for ethanol. And I think it will, I really do, otherwise I wouldn't have
put the 20-10 initiative.
Alrighty. Yes, sir.

Health Care Reform

Q. I'm a physician, and I happen to agree with your attitude about
health care. And I think that the consumerism aspect of it needs

[[Page 1611]]

to be emphasized. I think we're going to have too many options out there
to offer to the American public, and we won't be able to afford all of
them. We can't hardly afford it now. But do you have new legislation out
that you may propose for next year that would try to implement some of
the ideas that you have, other than the health savings account?
The President. AHPs, we'll run it again, associated health plans.
That's the plan that enables small businesses to pool across
jurisdictional boundaries. Again, that's economies of scale, economies
of spreading risk, which to me is a rational plan. It's opposed by
different groups, by the way. It sounds logical and sounds rational, but
evidently such a plan gets crossways with some of the interests in
Washington, otherwise it would have passed.
Secondly, we'll run the tax deductibility again, which would be a
significant change in enabling your patients to be treated just like the
patient that works for a large corporation. And that's going to be a
vital part, Doc, of making sure that people stay--making sure that we
have a consumer-driven system.
We may run tort reform again; I'll see what it looks like. As I say,
we passed it out of the House twice, if I'm not mistaken; went nowhere
in the Senate. So there's three alternatives for you right there.
How's your practice?
Q. Doing well, thank you.
The President. That's good. I'm going to tell you something, we have
fabulous health care in America, just so you know. I think it's very
important--before people start griping about the health care system
here--and of course there's always grounds for complaint--just to
compare it with other systems around the world. And one of the reasons
our system is expensive is because some of the new technologies that are
coming on line, they happen to be saving lives. And can we become more
efficient deliverers of health care? You bet. Are there things we can
do? Absolutely. But whatever we do, we don't want to undermine the fact
that we got great health care. I'm very proud of our docs, nurses,
researchers. There's some just fabulous research going on in our
country. To me that's in our national interest that we spend money on
medical research, so that we can stay on the leading edge of change.
One more, and then I've got to get home. Yes, ma'am.

Stock Market

Q. Hi, Mr. President, I'm Kate Hopper, and I wanted to extend my
holiday wishes to you and your family from all of our family.
The President. Thank you, thank you. I'm fired up about the
holidays.
Q. I wanted to ask you--I'm a financial adviser here in
Fredericksburg, and I wanted to ask you what your thoughts are on the
market going forward for '08, and if any of your policies would make any
difference?
The President. No, I appreciate that. Was it Kate?
Q. Yes.
The President. No. [Laughter] I'm not going to answer your question.
If I were an investor, I would be looking at the basic fundamentals of
the economy. Early on in my Presidency, somebody asked me about the
stock market, and I thought I was a financial genius, and it was a
mistake. [Laughter] The fundamentals of our--of this Nation are strong.
One of the interesting developments has been the role of exports in
overall GDP growth. When you open up markets for goods and services, and
we're treated fairly, we can compete just about with anybody, anywhere.
And exports have been an integral part, at least of the 3d quarter
growth. But far be it for me--I apologize--for not being in the position
to answer your question. But I don't think you want your President
opining on whether the Dow Jones is going to--[laughter]--be going up or
down.
I appreciate you giving me a chance to come by. In the old days, the
entourage wasn't quite as big, but we're glad that you were--you
welcomed us all. I really do hope your families have a blessed Christmas
and a holiday season. May God bless you all, and may God continue to
bless our country. Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 11:25 a.m. in Yak-a-Doo's restaurant at the
Holiday Inn--North. In his remarks, he referred to Ralph Sutton,
president, Stafford Rotary Club; Robert Hagin, former executive
director, Morgan Stanley Investment

[[Page 1612]]

Mgmt.; and former Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and
Human Services Donna E. Shalala, Cochairs, President's Commission on
Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors.