Text 4966, 883 rader
Skriven 2007-07-10 23:30:54 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0707106) for Tue, 2007 Jul 10
====================================================

===========================================================================
President Bush Visits Cleveland, Ohio
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary July 10, 2007

President Bush Visits Cleveland, Ohio Intercontinental Hotel Cleveland
Cleveland, Ohio

˙ /news/releases/2007/07/20070710-6.wm.v.html ˙˙Presidential Remarks
˙˙Audio

˙˙˙˙˙ Fact Sheet: A Day in Cleveland: President Bush Calls on Congress to
Act to Fund Vital Priorities

1:42 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Fred. Thanks for coming. Thanks for having me.
It's a smart marketing tool -- you know, all the cameras. (Laughter.) I
thought for sure the largest Chamber of Commerce was in Texas, but I guess
not. (Laughter.)

I'm thrilled to be back in Cleveland. I've had a fascinating day. I went to
a small business that is on the cutting edge of changing the way we're
going to consume energy. I just came from the Cleveland Clinic, which is
one of the most fabulous hospitals in America.

I do want to spend a little time talking about our economy, talking about
health care and energy policy that will be an integral part of making sure
the economy continues to grow. I'd like to spend a little time talking
about the war against extremists and radicals. And I'd like to answer some
of your questions, if you have any.

Before I do I want to tell you Laura sends her best. She's arguably the
most patient woman in America. (Laughter.) She's a fabulous First Lady and
a great mom. I love her dearly, and she told me to say hi to you all -- so,
hi. (Applause.)

I appreciate Joe Roman, who works with Fred. Thanks for setting this deal
up. Appreciate the chance to come and visit with fellow citizens here in
Cleveland. I'm the Commander-in-Chief; I'm also the educator-in-chief. Part
of my job is to explain the philosophy behind the decisions that I have
made. I'm honored you'd give me a chance to do so.

I'm traveling with a good man, the Congressman from this area -- one of the
Congressmen from this area, Steve LaTourette. Proud to be with you,
Congressman. Thank you for your time. (Applause.) State Auditor Mary Taylor
is here -- thanks for being here, Mary. (Applause.) I met the Mayor of
Cleveland across the street at the hospital. I was proud to be with him. I
tha nk him for his time, for taking time out of his day. I thank Toby
Cosgrove of -- Doc, thank you for being here -- from the hospital there
across the street. I thank the docs, by the way, for taking time to show me
some amazing technology.

Let me first talk about our economy. It's -- our economy is changing and
it's strong. I remember back to -- early on in my administration, when we
were confronted with some very difficult times. There was a recession, the
economy had gotten overheated and it was correcting. Then we got hit by an
enemy that killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens, which such an attack
obviously would have an effect on the economy. Then there were some
corporate scandals that had a psychological effect on our economy. People
were beginning to worry about the system where people were not upholding
the law, taking advantage of the situation, taking advantage of
shareholders.

And yet, we acted and cut taxes -- and cut them hard -- (applause) --
because one of the philosophical drivers of this administration is, is that
if you have more money in your pocket to spend, save, or invest, the
economy is more likely to grow. In other words, there's always a conflict
in Washington about how -- what's the proper amount of money in Washington
and what is the proper amount of money in your pocket. I'm one of these
fellows that err on the side of trusting people to spend their money, more
than trusting government. (Applause.)

I'm not trying to elicit applause -- thank you, but -- (laughter) -- and
our plan has worked. I don't know if you noticed last month that we added
another 132,000 new jobs. We've added over 8 million new jobs since August
of 2003. Entrepreneurship flourishes when people have got more capital in
their pocket.

One of the interesting things about the tax cuts that we proposed is that a
lot of the tax cuts were aimed at small businesses. One of the statistics
that makes our economy interesting and, I believe, robust is that 70
percent of new jobs are created by small business owners. And that's an
important thing for our fellow citizens to remember, particularly those in
Congress who are thinking about something to do with the tax code.

Most small businesses are Subchapter S corporations or limited
partnerships. In other words, they pay tax at the individual income tax
rate. So, therefore, when you cut income taxes on everybody who pays taxes
-- in other words, when you lower the rates, it affects the ability of
small businesses to keep capital; in other words, keep more of what they
earn. And when a small business keeps more of what they earn, it is more
likely that business will expand. And, therefore, when you hear me say that
8 million new jobs have been created since August of 2003, I might as well
have said, as well, the small business sector of America is strong, and the
best way to keep it that way is to keep taxes low.

And now we're going to have a debate on that in Washington. And that's
going to be the interesting, philosophical argument. You'll hear people say
in Washington, well, we need to raise taxes in order to either pay for new
programs or balance the budget. I happen to believe we can balance the
budget without raising taxes if we're wise about how we spend your money.
And we're proving it possible.

Tomorrow I'm going to talk about the size of the deficit. I'm not going to
guess what that will be, but I can predict it's going to be substantially
lower than it was three years ago. And we didn't raise your taxes. We kept
your taxes low, which caused the economy to grow, which yielded more tax
revenues. And because we set priorities, the deficit is shrinking.

And the big fight in Washington is going to be whether or not the budgets
that the Congress is trying to now pass is going to go through. It's not --
I'll veto them if they're excessive in spending. I'm not going to let them
raise your taxes. I think it would be bad for the economy. I think it would
be bad for entrepreneurship. (Applause.)

Let me talk about health care, since it's fresh on my mind. The objective
has got to be to make sure America is the best place in the world to get
health care, that we're the most innovative country, that we encourage
doctors to stay in practice, that we are robust in the funding of research,
and that patients get good, quality care at a reasonable cost.

The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private
insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America.
After all, you just go to an emergency room. The question is, will we be
wise about how we pay for health care. I believe the best way to do so is
to enable more people to have private insurance. And the reason I emphasize
private insurance, the best health care plan -- the best health care policy
is one that emphasizes private health. In other words, the opposite of that
would be government control of health care.

And there's a debate in Washington, D.C. over this. It's going to be
manifested here shortly by whether or not we ought to expand what's called
S-CHIP. S-CHIP is a program designed to help poor children get insurance.
I'm for it. It came in when I was the governor of Texas; I supported that.
But now there are plans to expand S-CHIP to include families -- some
proposals are families making up to $80,000 a year. In other words, the
program is going beyond the initial intent of helping poor children. It's
now aiming at encouraging more people to get on government health care.
That's what that is. It's a way to encourage people to transfer from the
private sector to government health care plans.

My position is, we ought to help the poor -- and we do, through Medicaid.
My position is, we ought to have a modern medical system for the seniors --
and we do, through Medicare. But I strongly object to the government
providing incentives for people to leave private medicine, private health
care to the public sector. And I think it's wrong and I think it's a
mistake. And therefore, I will resist Congress's attempt -- (applause) --
I'll resist Congress's attempt to federalize medicine.

I mean, think of it this way: They're going to increase the number of folks
eligible through S-CHIP; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then
all of a sudden, you begin to see a -- I wouldn't call it a plot, just a
strategy -- (laughter) -- to get more people to be a part of a
federalization of health care. In my judgment, that would be -- it would
lead to not better medicine, but worse medicine. It would lead to not more
innovation, but less innovation.

And so -- but you got to be for something in Washington. You can't be
against federalization, you've got to be for a plan that enhances the
relationship between doctor and patient, and that's what I'm for. Here's
what I believe in: One, I believe in health savings accounts as an
alternative to the federalization of medicine. It gives people the
opportunity to save, tax-free, for routine medical costs and, at the same
time, have a catastrophic health care plan to back them up.

I like the idea of people making decisions that are -- that will, one,
enhance their health, and two, save money. The doc told me that -- we were
looking at one of these brilliant heart guys working for him. You're not
going to believe the technology in this hospital, by the way. If you're a
Cleveland resident, you ought to be proud of this hospital. It's
unbelievable. (Applause.)

He said something pretty wise, though. He said, you can have all the
technology that man can conceivably create, but if you continue to smoke,
we're going backwards. If you're not exercising, if you're not taking care
of the body yourself, all the technology isn't going to save your life. In
other words, there is a certain responsibility that we have as citizens to
take care of ourselves. And a health savings account actually provides a
financial incentive for you to do that.

I believe in plans that enable small businesses to congregate across
jurisdictional lines so they can afford insurance, afford spreading risk
just the way big corporations can do. In other words, one way to control
costs is to enable small businesses, many of which are having trouble
affording insurance, to pool -- pool risk.

I'm a strong believer in medical liability reform. We've got a legal system
which is driving up the costs of medicine, because docs are practicing
defensive medicine and driving good doctors out of practice. And it makes
no sense to have a legal system that punishes good medicine. And therefore,
I strongly believe that the Congress ought to pass federal medical
liability insurance for our doctors and our providers.

I believe in information technology. The first time I came to Cleveland
Clinic, we were talking about how to modernize our hospital systems and our
doctors' offices into the 21st century. Perhaps the best way to describe
the problem is we've got too many doctors still writing out prescriptions
by hand. Most of them can't write to begin with. (Laughter.) And then they
pass the file from one person to the next. That's inefficient in this new
era. I mean, technology is changing the way we live; it ought to be
changing the way medicine operates. And it is, at Cleveland Clinic. I
envision the day, one day, when all of us will have our own medical
electronic record that will be safe from snoopers, in other words, will be
private, but will make health care more efficient.

Cleveland Clinic did something interesting. I went to four different
stations, and after every station they gave me an outcomes book. In other
words, we're willing to be measured, says the good doc. There ought to be
transparency in medicine. How many of you have ever actually tried to price
a medical service? Probably not many. How many of you have ever said, gosh,
I wonder whether this health care quality is better than the neighbors? I
doubt any of you -- many of you have done that. Why? Because the system is
not geared toward that. Somebody else pays your bills. If you really think
about it, and you're working, say, for a company in America, and they
provide a health care plan for you, there's a third-party payer. Well, if
somebody else pays the bills, why do you care what the cost is at the time
of purchase?

In other words, the whole plan has got to be to bring more accountability
into health care, to make the consumer more responsible for making proper
and rational decisions. That's what accountability does. And I applaud you
for that, Doc. That's what transparency in pricing means, that you should
be able to shop for price.

But the system, by the way, the tax system does not enable the individual
to be incented to buy insurance in the private sector. If you work for a
company and you get insurance, you get a good -- you get a good tax
benefit. If you're an individual and buy insurance, you don't get the same
tax benefit. That doesn't make any sense. The tax code needs to be
reformed. The tax code ought to treat everybody equally when it comes to
health care. And therefore, one proposal, one way to deal with that is
something I talked to the Congress about, and said, if you're a married
person and you're working, you ought to get a $15,000 deduction, just like
a mortgage deduction, from your income, whether you're working for
corporate America, or you're working on your own; whether you're working
for a small-business owner, or you're looking for a job.

And that way, you begin to make sure the tax code is a level playing field.
And that way, an individual market begins to grow, because you have got an
incentive at that point in time to go out and purchase health care. As a
matter of fact, you won't get your deduction unless you purchase health
care if you're in the individual market.

The whole point I'm trying to make is there's an alternative to
federalization of health care. It doesn't make a nice, neat sound bite.
It's not something that's easy to sell -- what do you care about making
sure you expand S-CHIP? That sounds nice and cozy, but nevertheless, it is
an alternative that will work, and it is working, right here in America
today.

The technological changes in the hospital across the street have been
amazing. The quality of care has been fantastic. There's just more we can
do to make sure we continue to be the leader, without wrecking the health
care system.

Energy: In order to keep this economy strong -- and we do have a strong
economy -- not only have we added 8.2 million new jobs since August of
2003, interest is low, inflation is down. I mean, this thing is buzzing.
There are some parts of the country that are hurting. The manufacturing
sector up here isn't doing as well as other parts of the country. However,
I would remind you that the unemployment rate in Ohio is 5.8 percent. Is
that perfect? No. Is it better than it has been? You bet it is.

But the -- one of the issues to make sure that we continue to grow strong
in the years to come is energy. We're just too dependent on oil. I know
that sounds hard for a Texas guy to say. You're probably wondering whether
I mean it. (Laughter.) I do. It's a national security issue to be dependent
on oil from parts of the world where some of the folks don't like us. It's
an issue that's got to be dealt with -- now.

There's an economic security issue when it comes to being dependent on oil.
When the demand for crude oil goes up in a place like China because of
economic growth, it causes the international price of oil to go up, which
affects the gasoline price here in Cleveland, Ohio. That's the way it
works. High crude oil prices yield higher gasoline prices. And therefore,
there's an economic issue for being dependent on oil. And there's an
environmental cost for being dependent on oil. When we're burning carbon,
it creates greenhouse gasses, which is an issue that we need to deal with.
So we have a fantastic opportunity to do something different, for the sake
of our economy, for the sake of our national security, and for the sake of
the environment.

Today I went to a fascinating little company here that is building hydrogen
fuel cells. Hydrogen is the input, water is the output, and in the
meantime, your car is going. Hydrogen fuel cells are coming. And there's a
role for the federal government to -- spending your money to promote new
technologies to enable us to become less dependent on oil and better
stewards of the environment.

Imagine one day being able to drive your car with hydrogen as its power
source, and water driblets as the output of your engine. And that day is
coming. Now, it's down the road a little bit, but, nevertheless, it is a
part of a comprehensive plan to make sure we become less dependent on oil.
In the meantime, when it comes to powering your cars, I want to tell you,
I'm a big believer in having our farmers grow a product that will enable us
to drive our cars. I think it makes sense to spend your money to invest in
new technologies, or to research new technologies, so that when a fellow
grows switchgrass, for example, that grass can be processed into ethanol,
which can power your automobile.

Now, I don't know if you know this or not -- we're up to about 7 billion
gallons of ethanol being produced and used in America. That's up from 2
billion three or four years ago. That's a good deal, if you're interested
about energy independence, because that energy is coming from corn growers
here in America. The problem is, we're growing a lot of corn for ethanol,
which means the price of corn is going up for the pig farmer. So we've got
to relieve the pressure on the pig farmer -- (laughter) -- well, not
everybody -- pig farmer is paying -- using a lot of corn. And therefore,
we're spending money on technologies. And I believe more and more people
are going to be using ethanol to power their automobiles.

It's happening in the Midwest a lot now. Cellulosic ethanol breakthroughs
will mean that we're going to be having ethanol produced from wood chips,
or switchgrasses, which means the market will spread across the United
States, which will make us less dependent on oil. And by the way, the
exhausts from ethanol are a lot cleaner than the exhaust from
hydrocarbon-based fuels.

We need to be promoting nuclear power. If you're really interested in the
environment, like a lot of people are, then we ought to be promoting a
renewable source of energy that emits no greenhouse gases. And one of the
places where your government is spending money and is part of this
comprehensive plan to change our energy mix is to figure out a better way
to deal with the waste, nuclear waste. And I'm a big believer in
reprocessing and fast-burner reactors, which is fancy words for we can burn
down the fuel -- reuse it, burn it down to less volume and less toxicity.

We've got 250 years of coal, at least, in America. If we're interested in
becoming less dependent on foreign sources of energy, we ought to be using
energy here at home in a wise way. But coal can be dirty and, therefore,
we're spending a lot of your money on developing clean coal technologies.

And my only point to you is that one of the reasons I've come to Cleveland
is to herald some of the new technologies. As a matter of fact, a fellow
came up to me at this place and he said, now, you're a wind person. I said,
well, you know, I -- a lot of hot air here. (Laughter.) And he said, we got
a new industry evolving here: windmills. That's fine. I support that. I
think it makes a lot of sense. It makes us less dependent on foreign
sources of oil. And that's important for making sure this economy continues
to grow.

So my stop here has been really aimed at heralding technology. You got to
be optimistic about America's future, because of some of the great
technologies that are taking place. And two of the areas where technology
is really going to change America for a long time coming is in the energy
field and in the medical field.

I want to talk about this war we're in. First of all, I regret I have to
tell you we're in war. I never wanted to be a war president. I -- now that
I am one, I'm going to do the best I can to protect America.

My mind changed on September the 11th, 2001. It changed because I realized
the biggest responsibility government has is to protect the American people
from further attack, and that we must confront dangers before they come to
hurt us again. That's one of the really valuable lessons of September the
11th -- is to recognize that oceans can't protect us from an enemy that is
ideologically driven and who will use murder as a tool to achieve their
political objectives.

Some in America don't believe we're at war, and that's their right. I know
we are, and therefore, will spend my time as the President doing the best I
can to educate people about the perils of the world in which we live, and
that we have an active strategy in dealing with it.

First, the enemy. These folks aren't isolated folks, you know, they just
kind of randomly show up. They have an objective. They believe as strongly
in their ideology as I believe in ours. They believe that they have a
obligation to spread a point of view that says, for example, if you don't
worship the way we tell you to worship, there will be a consequence; just
like I believe we have an obligation to defend a point of view that says,
what matters is the right for you to choose your religion, and you're free
to do so in the United States of America.

They believe that they can use -- they have no value for human life, see.
That's what distinguishes them from us in another way. They will kill a
Muslim, a child, or a woman in a moment's notice to achieve a political
objective. They are dangerous people that need to be confronted.

And that's why, since September the 11th, our policy has been to find them
and defeat them overseas so we don't have to face them here at home again.
Now, that is a strong -- a short-term strategy, because the long-term
strategy has got to be one that marginalizes these extremists and radicals
by promoting an alternative ideology -- I like to say, an ideology based on
light; an ideology that promotes hope; an ideology when, given a chance,
has worked every time to lift people's spirits. And that's the ideology
based upon liberty, the chance for people to live in a free and open
society.

And it's hard work. And this war is on a multiple of fronts. One front is
Afghanistan. And the front that is consuming the American people right now
is Iraq. And I fully understand how tough it is on our psyche. I fully
understand that when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are
saying, is it worth it? Can we accomplish an objective? Well, first, I want
to tell you, yes, we can accomplish and win this fight in Iraq. And
secondly, I want to tell you, we must, for the sake of our children and our
grandchildren.

You know, I was very optimistic at the end of '05 when 12 million Iraqis
went to the polls. I know it seems like a decade ago. It wasn't all that
long ago that, when given a chance, 12 million people voted. I wasn't
surprised, but I was pleased -- let me put it to you that way. I wasn't
surprised because one of the principles on which I make decisions is that I
believe in the universality of freedom. I believe that freedom belongs to
every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth. As a matter of fact,
to take it a step further, I believe it is a gift from an Almighty to every
man, woman and child on the face of the Earth. And therefore, I wasn't
surprised when people, when given the chance, said, I want to be free. I
was pleased that 12 million defied the car bombers and killers to vote.

Our policy at that point in time was to get our force posture in such a
position, is that we would train the Iraqis so they would take the fight to
those who would stop the advance of democracy, and that we'd be in a
position to keep the territorial integrity in place, and chase down the
extremists. That was our policy. We didn't get there in 2006 because a
thinking enemy -- in this case, we believe al Qaeda, the same people that
attacked us in America -- incited serious sectarian violence by blowing up
a holy religious site of the Shia. And then there was this wave of
reprisal.

And I had a decision to make. Some of Steve's colleagues -- good, decent,
patriotic people -- believed the best thing for the United States to do at
that point was to step back and to kind of let the violence burn out in the
capital of Iraq. I thought long and hard about that. I was deeply concerned
that violence in the capital would spill out into the countryside. I was
deeply concerned that one of the objectives of al Qaeda -- and by the way,
al Qaeda is doing most of the spectacular bombings, trying to incite
sectarian violence. The same people that attacked us on September the 11th
is the crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and
children, many of whom are Muslims, trying to stop the advance of a system
based upon liberty.

And I was concerned that the chaos would more enable them to -- more likely
enable them to achieve their stated objective, which is to drive us out of
Iraq so they could have a safe haven from which to launch their ideological
campaign and launch attacks against America. That's what they have said.
The killers who came to America have said, with clarity, we want you out of
Iraq so we can have a safe haven from which to attack again.

I think it's important for the Commander-in-Chief to listen carefully to
what the enemy says. They thrive on chaos. They like the turmoil. It
enables them to more likely achieve their objectives. What they can't stand
is the advance of an alternative ideology that will end up marginalizing
them.

So I looked at consequences of stepping back -- the consequences not only
for Iraq, but the consequences for an important neighborhood for the
security of the United States of America. What would the Iranians think
about America if we stepped back in the face of this extremist challenge?
What would other extremists think? What would al Qaeda be able to do?
They'd be able to recruit better and raise more money from which to launch
their objectives. Failure in Iraq would have serious consequences for the
security of your children and your grandchildren.

And so I made the decision, rather than pulling out of the capital, to send
more troops in the capital, all aimed at providing security, so that an
alternative system could grow. I listened to the commanders that would be
running the operation -- in this case, the main man is a man named General
David Petraeus -- a smart, capable man, who gives me his candid advice. His
advice, Mr. President, is we must change the mission to provide security
for the people in the capital city of Iraq, as well as in Anbar Province,
in order for the progress that the 12 million people who voted can be made.
That's why we've done what we've done.

And we just started. He got all the troops there a couple of weeks ago. He
asked for 20,000-some troops, and I said, if that's what you need,
Commander, that's what you got. And they just showed up. And they're now
beginning operations in full.

And in Washington, you got people saying, stop. And here's my attitude
about this -- and I understand there's a debate, and there ought to be a
debate in our democracy, and I welcome it. I welcome a good, honest debate
about the consequences of failure, the consequences of success in this war.
But I believe that it's in this nation's interest to give the commander a
chance to fully implement his operations. And I believe Congress ought to
wait for General Petraeus to come back and give his assessment of the
strategy that he's putting in place before they make any decisions. That's
what the American people expect. They expect for military people to come
back and tell us how the military operations are going.

And that's the way I'm going to play it, as the Commander-in-Chief. I'll be
glad to discuss different options -- the truth of the matter is, I felt
like we could be in a different position at the end of 2005. I believe we
can be in a different position in a while, and that would be to have enough
troops there to guard the territorial integrity of that country, enough
troops there to make sure that al Qaeda doesn't gain safe haven from which
to be able to launch further attacks against the United States of America,
enough troops to be embedded and to help train the Iraqis to do their job.

But we couldn't get there without additional troops. And now I call upon
the United States Congress to give General David Petraeus a chance to come
back and tell us whether his strategy is working. And then we can work
together on a way forward.

In the meantime, the Iraqis have got to do more work. This coming week I'll
be presenting to the Congress a list of some of the accomplishments and
some of the shortfalls of their political process. They've asked us to
report on 18 different benchmarks. That's what the Congress said in this
last supplemental spending bill; they said, come back here in mid-July and
give us an interim report as to whether or not any progress is being made
in Iraq. And that's what we'll be doing. So at the end of this week you'll
see a progress report on what's been happening in Iraq -- and then in
September, a final report on the benchmarks that I accepted and that
Congress passed.

And so that's the challenge facing the country. And it's a necessary -- in
my judgment, it's necessary work. I wouldn't ask a mother or a dad -- I
wouldn't put their son in harm's way if I didn't believe this was necessary
for the security of the United States and peace of the world. And I
strongly believe it. And I strongly believe we will prevail. And I strongly
believe that democracy will trump totalitarianism every time. That's what I
believe. And those are the belief systems on which I'm making decisions
that I believe will yield the peace.

You know, it's really interesting in my position -- I obviously have a
unique view of things at times. And one of the most interesting views that
I've been able to -- of history that I've been able to really focus on is
our relationship with Japan. I've told this story a lot because I find it
to be very ironic.

When my dad was a young guy, right out of high school, he joined the United
States Navy, became a Navy torpedo bomber pilot and fought the Japanese.
They were the sworn enemy of the United States of America. And he, like a
lot of other young people, gave it their all. And a lot of people died on
both sides of the war. As a matter of fact, it was -- the Japanese, as you
rightly know, was the last major attack on the United States, prior to
September the 11th, 2001. Some 60 years later, I'm at the table, talking
about the peace with the Japanese Prime Minister, Prime Minister Koizumi.

I find that to be an inspiring story and a hopeful story. It's a story
about the ability of liberty to transform enemies into allies. It's a story
about the ability for those who fought to become partners in peace. Prime
Minister Koizumi, and now Prime Minister Abe, are close friends of mine in
the international arena. We talk about the spread of democracy in the
troubled part of the world because we both have seen the effects of
democracy in our own relationship.

I've got great faith in the power of liberty to transform the world for the
sake of peace. And the fundamental question facing our country is, will we
keep that faith?

Thanks for letting me come and visit with you. And now, I'll be glad to
answer some questions. (Applause.)

Main guy, first question. Sure, okay. (Laughter.)

Q Well, this may seem like it was rigged, Mr. President, but there are --

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. There have been a few rigged questions in my day.
(Laughter.) I'm not telling you which way they were rigged, though.
(Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, like this world-class health care institution, NASA Glenn
is one of the crown jewels, along with the talented people there, in our
new economy crown. As you know, we recently won the crew exploration
vehicle contract. We're very happy about that. Given all the competing
demands for resources in Washington, what kind of funding do you see for
NASA and its mission going forward?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That's an awkward question to ask a Texan. (Laughter.)
I think that NASA needed to become relevant in order to be -- to justify
the spending of your money, and therefore, I helped changed the mission
from one of orbiting in a space shuttle -- in a space station to one of
becoming a different kind of group of explorers. And therefore, we set a
new mission, which is to go to the moon and set up a launching there from
which to further explore space.

And the reason I did that is, I do want to make sure the American people
stay involved with -- or understand the relevance of this exploration. I'm
a big -- I support exploration, whether it be the exploration of new
medicine -- that would be like NIH grants -- the exploration of space
through NASA. I can't give you the exact level of funding.

I would argue with you that we got a lot of money in Washington -- not
argue, I'll just tell you, we got a lot of money in Washington. (Laughter.)
And we need to make sure we set priorities with that money. One of the
problems we have in Washington is that unlike the books I saw at the
hospital -- of which, you're on the board -- that said "results", we're not
very good about measuring results when we spend your money. A lot of time
the program sound nice; a lot of time the results don't match the
intentions.

So one of the things I've tried to do through the OMB is to be
results-oriented, and when programs don't meet results, we try to eliminate
them. And that's hard to do. Isn't it, Steve? Yes. But, no -- I believe in
exploration, space exploration. And we changed the mission to make it
relevant. Thanks.

Yes, sir.

Q Mr. President, I'm originally from Pakistan.

THE PRESIDENT: Pakistan, good.

Q When I travel there, my friends over here say that I'm crazy to go back
--

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q And when I'm there, the people over there say I'm crazy to go back.
(Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: You're like in between a rock and a hard place, brother --

Q That's right, that's right. My question for you is, what are we doing
with public diplomacy to change the minds and the hearts of a billion and a
half Muslims around the world?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I appreciate that, great question. First let me say
that I'm confident your answer is, I love living in America, the land of
the free and the home of the brave; the country where you can come and ask
the President a question and a country where -- are you Muslim? --

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: -- where you can worship your religion freely. It's a great
country where you're able to do that. (Applause.) Have you made a living?

Q Yes, I do --

THE PRESIDENT: A country where can come and make a living regardless of
your background. (Laughter.) Seriously. It's a great thing about America.
If you dream and work, you can achieve. And we need to keep it that way.

His question is a good question. A lot of people in the Muslim world
believe that the United States is at war with Islam; that the response to
the attack on our country was one where we attacked somebody based upon
their religion. And I, for one, obviously need to battle that image,
because we're not facing religious people, we're facing people whose hearts
are filled with hate, who have subverted a great religion.

Most Muslims reject the kind of violence perpetuated on innocent people by
al Qaeda. I happen to believe -- I just don't believe they're religious
people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives.

So step one is to make it clear that we reject radical and extremism and
murderers, not reject a great religion. Step two is to encourage people
like you to go to Pakistan. You're more credible than I am amongst your
pals there. You can say, "You're not going to believe America. You're not
going to believe the country, where people from all different backgrounds,
all walks of life, can live in freedom."

And I don't exaggerate to you, because the best diplomacy we have is when
citizens travel overseas and/or people come here to America. One of the
problems we faced when it came to diplomacy, public diplomacy, right after
9/11 is we shut her down. You couldn't get in this country, particularly,
perhaps if you were from Pakistan. I mean, this country said, whoa, we got
a new world, and, therefore, it was, stop a lot of student visas. You might
remember some of the kids that flew those airplanes were on -- here as
students. And we did what most Americans expected us to do -- made sure we
inventoried where we were so we could best protect the American people.

And we've learned a lot since then. So I'm pleased to report to you that,
working with Condi -- and it's her main responsibility -- is that we've got
now more students coming to America from other countries, but through a
much better screening process. I can't think of a better way to help change
people's attitudes about America than having them come here and see for
themselves.

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

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

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

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

Most Muslim mothers want their children to grow up in peace; they're just
like mothers in the United States. There's some universal characteristics
of people. And the fundamental question facing us as a country is, will we
have wise policies that confront these extremists? And the first step
toward wise policy is recognizing they exist and we're at war with them.

Look, I spend a lot of time thinking about this issue. That's what you pay
me to do. And I'm briefed every day about threats on the homeland. And you
should be grateful to -- for the fact that there are a lot of good, good,
honorable people, either at home or overseas, doing everything in their
power to protect you.

I wish I could report that this thing, this threat, this struggle, is going
to end shortly -- it's not. That doesn't mean we have to have kinetic
action all the time. But it does mean America must not lose faith in our
values and lose sight of our purpose. And that's going to be the challenge
facing this country.

I'm worried about isolationism. I'm worried about people saying, it's not
worth it anymore, it's too hard; let it happen over there, it's not going
to affect us. It will affect us. And, frankly, I'm worried about
protectionism, where people say, it's too hard to trade, let's just wall
ourselves off from the rest of the world.

Anyway, it's a long answer to a good question.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Mr. President, I know immigration has been a big problem in the U.S., and
what is your next step with the immigration bill?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. (Laughter.) I view it as -- no, it's a great
question. No, I appreciate that. Actually, I view it as a great
opportunity. And thank you very much for that question. As you know, I've
had a difference of opinion with people in both political parties on this
issue. I felt like now is the time to address the immigration issue and not
just pass it on and hope it gets better.

I believe in rule of law, and therefore, I know that the federal government
needs to enforce law. One law is -- one part of the law is, don't sneak
into our country. And therefore, we have been aggressive at border
security, which is making sure we modernize our border. You've probably
never been down there; I grew up down there. It's a big border. And it's
really long, and in parts of it, between Arizona and Mexico, you don't know
where the border is. There's no -- it's like desert.

Secondly, there is a powerful force in the world, and it's called
parenthood. And when you're poor, and you got mouths to feed, and you got
an opportunity to put some money on the table, food on the table, you're
going to come, if you can see that opportunity. And you'll do everything
you can to get here to put food on the table. I used to say, family values
don't stop at the Rio Grande River.

And so you shouldn't be surprised that a whole industry has sprung up where
people get stuck in the back of an 18-wheeler, or -- and come to work. That
troubles a lot of Americans; I understand. What I'm telling you is, it's
hard to enforce this border, but we're doing a better job of doing it.

I happen to believe the best way to really enforce the border, however, is
to recognize that people are coming to do work Americans aren't doing, and
therefore, there ought to be a way for people to do so in a rational way.
That's why I supported what's called a temporary worker plan that said, you
can come and do a job an American is not doing, on a temporary basis, so
you don't have to sneak across the border. In other words, one way to take
pressure off the border is to have a way for people to come here on a
temporary basis legally.

Now, Steve was telling me -- I was telling Steve -- we're doing a good job,
by the way. If you notice in the papers today, the arrests are down. In
other words, fewer people are coming. Last year, by the way, we arrested
and sent back across over a million people. In other words, there's a lot
of action down there. It may not look like it or sound like it on your
radios or TVs, but there's a lot of work going on.

There's a lot of nursery people up here in this part of the world, I
understand. But one of these days, these nursery people are going to say,
we can't continue to grow our business because we can't find the workers.
Americans are -- I don't know what the proper terminology is for nursery
worker -- pruning, we'll try pruning. (Laughter.) Planting, planting.
Starts with a P. (Laughter.) The question is, can they find enough workers?
I was talking to a fellow today at lunch -- he said, we need more
high-skilled workers here in Cleveland, H1B visas.

The system isn't working, is what I'm telling you -- it's a great question,
by the way -- the system -- and I'm glad you asked it -- the system isn't
working. And I felt it needed to be fixed, and went to Congress -- and, by
the way, the other question is, what do you do with the 12 million people
already here? There's 12 million people, they estimate, here illegally.
Some of them have been here a long time. Some of them been good citizens;
you may even know some of them. They've raised kids. Some of the kids were
born here, went to college -- good, productive citizens in America. What do
you do with them? Kick them out? I didn't think that was practical. Matter
of fact, I know it's not practical. Or you make them a citizen off the bat?
No, you don't do that. That's called amnesty. That says, okay, fine, you
broke the law, you get rewarded. You can't have that kind of system.

And so I supported a system that said, you pay a fine if you've been here
that long, you show you're not a criminal, you show you paid your taxes,
you go back home to touch base, to apply for the right to get in line --
not ahead of somebody who has been trying to get here legally, but in line.

Anyway, it didn't work. And we'll have to see whether or not the forces
that recognize we've got to do something for the sake of the economy and
sake of the border continue to mount, because there wasn't the political
will in Washington to get anything done on a comprehensive basis. And
that's what happens sometimes in politics.

One of the things I try to remind people in Congress is this -- I've told
this story a lot, as well. You get stuck on a story when you're President,
you generally stay on it. Anyway, I was at the Coast Guard Academy, giving
a graduation speech there. And the number one guy in the class, his
grandfather was a migrant worker from Mexico. And he talked with such
unbelievable pride about a country where a fellow can come to do jobs
Americans weren't doing, to work, and here his grandson is, speaking in
front of the President, talking about a bright future.

We should never lose confidence in the ability for this great country to
assimilate people into our culture. I think it's healthy that people come
to America with a dream. I think it's healthy that people say, just give me
a chance, and I'll work my heart out so a next generation can succeed.

And so, in my line of work, ma'am, you just lay out what you think is
right. I'm not the kind of fellow to tell you -- I don't run focus groups
and polls to tell me what I think is right. I try to lead -- (applause) --
I felt it was the right thing to do. It didn't work, but I'm glad I tried,
because when it's all said and done, I'll be able to look in the mirror and
say, you came and you did what you thought was the right thing for the
country. (Applause.)

Q Mr. President, I have an organization that has supported the captive
nations of the world for 48 years. And our members are sincerely interested
in this visa waiver program for friendly countries --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- so people could visit their relatives and friends on a shorter basis,
like 30 days, 60 days. Are you in favor of this?

THE PRESIDENT: Great question. Are you from the Baltics? You are?

Q Sort of. I'm of Polish decent.

THE PRESIDENT: Polish decent. Well, that's right. Here's the thing she's
talking about: In the Soviet era, we had a different visa policy with
Soviet countries than we did with, say, Western European countries. And the
danger -- not the danger -- the issue was -- I take it back, not danger --
the issue was that people would come and overstay their visas. In other
words, people would say, I'm coming to travel and visit, but, in fact, they
were coming to stay. And therefore, there was an accountability system in
place that's been in place for a long time.

Fast-forward to today. Polish troops helped us liberate Iraq, and yet the
citizens that supported a government that helped us liberate Iraq aren't
treated the same as citizens from other allies.

And so, to answer your question, yes, I am for changing the visa waiver
policy for Poland and countries like Poland. And every time I go -- as you
know, I was in Poland -- you may not know -- I was in Poland the last trip,
and the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria and Albania. And they wanted to know,
question one is, when are you going to treat us like everybody else in the
European Union? And my answer was, we're working on a comprehensive
immigration bill -- (laughter) -- to address a lot of issues. And that was
one of the issue we're trying to address.

In the name of fairness, Condi and I are working on -- with Congress on a
new visa waiver program. Great question. (Applause.)

Yes, sir. Go ahead and yell it out.

Q Mr. President, first of all, as a fairly conservative talk show host, I'd
like you to please tell Congress to leave the fairness doctrine in the
ground where it is.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you -- yes. (Applause.)

Q Second of all, going back to Iraq, sir, you mentioned Muslim mothers want
their children to grow up in peace. The children of extremists, however,
are being trained right now. We've seen the videos. We have seen the
indoctrination -- schoolchildren being indoctrinated to hate Americans and
to hate Jews.

THE PRESIDENT: Correct.

Q The next generations of terrorists are already being bred. Isn't is true
that regardless of how long it takes to win in Iraq or Afghanistan, the war
on terror will never, ever truly be ended?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the strategy -- first of all, I've read a lot of
history, and I'm certainly no history expert, but I wonder what the
rhetoric would have been like at the beginning of the Cold War. Is it
possible people might have speculated -- and again, I can't tell you if
this is -- I'm just kind of speculating now -- is it possible people
speculated that after the indoctrination of so many children about the