For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 28, 2005
Press Conference of the President
The East Room
8:01 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight I will discuss two vital
priorities for the American people, and then I'd be glad to answer some
of your questions.
Millions of American families and small businesses are hurting
because of higher gasoline prices. My administration is doing
everything we can to make gasoline more affordable. In the near-term,
we will continue to encourage oil producing nations to maximize their
production. Here at home, we'll protect consumers. There will be no
price gouging at gas pumps in America.
We must address the root causes that are driving up gas prices.
Over the past decade, America's energy consumption has been growing
about 40 times faster than our energy production. That means we're
relying more on energy produced abroad. To reduce our dependence on
foreign sources of energy, we must take four key steps. First, we must
better use technology to become better conservers of energy. Secondly,
we must find innovative and environmentally sensitive ways to make the
most of our existing energy resources, including oil, natural gas, coal
and safe, clean nuclear power.
Third, we must develop promising new sources of energy, such as
hydrogen, ethanol or biodiesel. Fourth, we must help growing energy
consumers overseas, like China and India, apply new technologies to use
energy more efficiently, and reduce global demand of fossil fuels. I
applaud the House for passing a good energy bill. Now the Senate needs
to act on this urgent priority. American consumers have waited long
enough. To help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy,
Congress needs to get an energy bill to my desk by this summer so I can
sign it into law.
Congress also needs to address the challenges facing Social
Security. I've traveled the country to talk with the American people.
They understand that Social Security is headed for serious financial
trouble, and they expect their leaders in Washington to address the
problem.
Social Security worked fine during the last century, but the math
has changed. A generation of baby boomers is getting ready to retire.
I happen to be one of them. Today there are about 40 million retirees
receiving benefits; by the time all the baby boomers have retired,
there will be more than 72 million retirees drawing Social Security
benefits. Baby boomers will be living longer and collecting benefits
over long retirements than previous generations. And Congress has
ensured that their benefits will rise faster than the rate of
inflation.
In other words, there's a lot of us getting ready to retire who
will be living longer and receiving greater benefits than the previous
generation. And to compound the problem, there are fewer people paying
into the system. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every beneficiary;
today there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary; soon there will be
two workers for every beneficiary.
These changes have put Social Security on the path to bankruptcy.
When the baby boomers start retiring in three years, Social Security
will start heading toward the red. In 2017, the system will start
paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Every
year after that the shortfall will get worse, and by 2041, Social
Security will be bankrupt.
Franklin Roosevelt did a wonderful thing when he created Social
Security. The system has meant a lot for a lot of people. Social
Security has provided a safety net that has provided dignity and peace
of mind for millions of Americans in their retirement. Yet there's a
hole in the safety net because Congresses have made promises it cannot
keep for a younger generation.
As we fix Social Security, some things won't change: Seniors and
people with disabilities will get their checks; all Americans born
before 1950 will receive the full benefits.
Our duty to save Social Security begins with making the system
permanently solvent, but our duty does not end there. We also have a
responsibility to improve Social Security, by directing extra help to
those most in need and by making it a better deal for younger workers.
Now, as Congress begins work on legislation, we must be guided by three
goals. First, millions of Americans depend on Social Security checks
as a primary source of retirement income, so we must keep this promise
to future retirees, as well. As a matter of fairness, I propose that
future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the
benefits today's seniors get.
Secondly, I believe a reform system should protect those who depend
on Social Security the most. So I propose a Social Security system in
the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than
benefits for people who are better off. By providing more generous
benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make this commitment: If you
work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not
retire into poverty. This reform would solve most of the funding
challenges facing Social Security. A variety of options are available
to solve the rest of the problem, and I will work with Congress on any
good-faith proposal that does not raise the payroll tax rate or harm
our economy. I know we can find a solution to the financial problems
of Social Security that is sensible, permanent, and fair.
Third, any reform of Social Security must replace the empty
promises being made to younger workers with real assets, real money. I
believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers
the option, the opportunity if they so choose, of putting a portion of
their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account.
Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers would have
the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than
the current Social Security system can provide.
The money from a voluntary personal retirement account would
supplement the check one receives from Social Security. In a reformed
Social Security system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would
offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy
to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing
in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist
entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and
credit of the United States government.
Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts
a safer investment that will allow an American to build a nest egg that
he or she can pass on to whomever he or she chooses. Americans who
would choose not to save in a personal account would still be able to
count on a Social Security check equal to or higher than the benefits
of today's seniors.
In the coming days and weeks, I will work with both the House and
the Senate as they take the next steps in the legislative process. I'm
willing to listen to any good idea from either party.
Too often, the temptation in Washington is to look at a major issue
only in terms of whether it gives one political party an advantage over
the other. Social Security is too important for "politics as usual."
We have a shared responsibility to fix Social Security and make the
system better; to keep seniors out of poverty and expand ownership for
people of every background. And when we do, Republicans and Democrats
will be able to stand together and take credit for doing what is right
for our children and our grandchildren.
And now I'll be glad to answer some questions, starting with Terry
Hunt.
Q Mr. President, a majority of Americans disapprove of your
handling of Social Security, rising gas prices and the economy. Are
you frustrated by that and by the fact that you're having trouble
gaining traction on your agenda in a Republican-controlled Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: Look, we're asking people to do things that haven't
been done for 20 years. We haven't addressed the Social Security
problem since 1983. We haven't had an energy strategy in our country
for decades. And so I'm not surprised that some are balking at doing
hard work. But I have a duty as the President to define problems
facing our nation and to call upon people to act. And we're just
really getting started in the process.
You asked about Social Security. For the past 60 days, I've
traveled our country making it clear to people we have a problem.
That's the first step of any legislative process; is to explain to
people the nature of the problem, and the American people understand we
have a problem.
I've also spent time assuring seniors they'll get their check.
That's a very important part of making sure we end up with a Social
Security reform. I think if seniors feel like they're not going to get
their check, obviously nothing is going to happen.
And we're making progress there, too, Terry, as well. See, once
the American people realize there's a problem, then they're going to
start asking members of Congress from both parties, why aren't you
doing something to fix it? And I am more than willing to sit down with
people of both parties to listen to their ideas. Today, I advanced
some ideas of moving the process along. And the legislative process is
just getting started, and I'm optimistic we'll get something done.
Q Is the poll troubling?
THE PRESIDENT: Polls? You know, if a President tries to govern
based upon polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail. I don't
think you can make good, sound decisions based upon polls. And I don't
think the American people want a President who relies upon polls and
focus groups to make decisions for the American people.
Social Security is a big issue, and it's an issue that we must
address now. You see, the longer we wait, the more expensive the
solution is going to be for a younger generation of Americans. The
Social Security trustees have estimated that every year we wait to
solve the problem, to fix the hole in the safety net for younger
Americans costs about $600 billion. And so my message to Congress is
-- to Congress is, let's do our duty. Let's come together to get this
issue solved.
Steve.
Q Your top military officer, General Richard Myers, says the
Iraqi insurgency is as strong now as it was a year ago. Why is that
the case? And why haven't we been more successful in limiting the
violence?
THE PRESIDENT: I think he went on to say we're winning, if I
recall. But nevertheless, there are still some in Iraq who aren't
happy with democracy. They want to go back to the old days of tyranny
and darkness, torture chambers and mass graves. I believe we're making
really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to
see the benefits of a free society. They're beginning -- they saw a
government formed today.
The Iraqi military is being trained by our military, and they're
performing much better than the past. The more secure Iraq becomes, as
a result of the hard work of Iraqi security forces, the more confident
the people will have in the process, and the more isolated the
terrorists will become.
But Iraq has -- have got people there that are willing to kill, and
they're hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure
their future. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an
important part of spreading peace. It's a region of the world where a
lot of folks in the past never thought democracy could take hold.
Democracy is taking hold. And as democracy takes hold, peace will more
likely be the norm.
In order to defeat the terrorists, in order to defeat their
ideology of hate, in the long run, we must spread freedom and hope.
Today I talked to the Prime Minister of Iraq. I had a great
conversation with him. I told him I was proud of the fact that he was
willing to stand up and lead. I told him I appreciated his courage and
the courage of those who are willing to serve the Iraqi people in
government. I told him, I said, when America makes a commitment, we'll
stand by you. I said, I hope you get your constitution written on
time, and he agreed. He recognizes it's very important for the
Transitional National Assembly to get the constitution written so it
can be submitted to the people on time. He understands the need for a
timely write of the constitution.
And I also encouraged him to continue to reaching out to
disaffected groups in Iraq, and he agreed. I'm really happy to talk to
him; I invited him to come to America, I hope he comes soon. There are
a lot of courageous people in Iraq, Steve, that are making a big
difference in the lives of that country.
I also want to caution you all that it's not easy to go from a
tyranny to a democracy. We didn't pass sovereignty but about 10 months
ago, and since that time a lot of progress has been made and we'll
continue to make progress for the good of the region and for the good
of our country.
Gregory. David Gregory.
Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently the head of the
Family Research Council said that judicial filibusters are an attack
against people of faith. And I wonder whether you believe that, in
fact, that is what is nominating [sic] Democrats who oppose your
judicial choices? And I wonder what you think generally about the role
that faith is playing, how it's being used in our political debates
right now?
THE PRESIDENT: I think people are opposing my nominees because
they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated.
Some would like to see judges legislate from the bench. That's not my
view of the proper role of a judge.
Speaking about judges, I certainly hope my nominees get an up or
down vote on the floor of the Senate. They deserve an up or down
vote. I think for the sake of fairness, these good people I've
nominated should get a vote. And I'm hoping that will be the case as
time goes on.
The role of religion in our society? I view religion as a personal
matter. I think a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his
life, or lives her life. And that's how I've tried to live my life,
through example. Faith-based is an important part of my life,
individually, but I don't -- I don't ascribe a person's opposing my
nominations to an issue of faith.
Q Do you think that's an inappropriate statement? And what I
asked is --
THE PRESIDENT: No, I just don't agree with it.
Q You don't agree with it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think people oppose my nominees because --
because of judicial philosophy.
Q Sorry, I asked you what you think of the ways faith is being
used in our political debates, not just in society --
THE PRESIDENT: No, I know you asked me that. Well, I can only
speak to myself, and I am mindful that people in political office
should not say to somebody, you're not equally American if you don't
happen to agree with my view of religion. As I said, I think faith is
a personal issue, and I get great strength from my faith. But I don't
condemn somebody in the political process because they may not agree
with me on religion.
The great thing about America, David, is that you should be allowed
to worship any way you want, and if you choose not to worship, you're
equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose
to worship, you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a
Muslim. That's the wonderful thing about our country, and that's the
way it should be.
John.
Q Good evening, Mr. President. Several times we've asked you or
your aides what you could do about the high price of gasoline, and very
often the answer has come back, Congress needs to pass the energy
bill. Can you explain for us how, if it were passed, soon after it
were introduced, the energy bill would have an effect on the current
record price of oil that we're seeing out there?
THE PRESIDENT: John, actually I said in my opening statement that
the best way to affect the current price of gasoline is to encourage
producing nations to put more crude oil on the market. That's the most
effective way, because the price of crude oil determines, in large
measure, the price of gasoline. The feed stock for gasoline is crude
oil, and when crude oil goes up the price of gasoline goes up. There
are other factors, by the way, that cause the price of gasoline to go
up, but the main factor is the price of crude oil. And if we can get
nations that have got some excess capacity to put crude on the market,
the increased supply, hopefully, will meet increased demand, and
therefore, take the pressure off price.
Listen, the energy bill is certainly no quick fix. You can't wave
a magic wand. I wish I could. It's like that soldier at Fort Hood
that said, how come you're not lowering the price of gasoline? I was
having lunch with the fellow, and he said, go lower the price of
gasoline, President. I said, I wish I could. It just doesn't work
that way.
This is a problem that's been a long time in coming. We haven't
had an energy policy in this country. And it's going to take us a
while to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. What I've
laid out for the Congress to consider is a comprehensive energy
strategy that recognizes we need to be better conservers of energy,
that recognizes that we can find more energy at home in environmentally
friendly ways.
And obviously a contentious issue in front of the Congress is the
issue over the ANWR, which is a part of Alaska. ANWR is 19 million
acres of land. Technology now enables us to use just 2,000 of that 19
million to be able to explore for oil and gas so we can have oil and
gas produced here domestically.
One of the great sources of energy for the future is liquefied
natural gas. There's a lot of gas reserves around the world. Gas is
-- can only be transported by ship, though, when you liquefy it, when
you put it in solid form. We've only got five terminals that are able
to receive liquefied natural gas so it can get into our markets. We
need more terminals to receive liquefied natural gas from around the
world.
We should have a active energy -- nuclear energy policy in
America. We've got abundant resources of coal, and we're spending
money for clean-coal technology. So these are longer term projects all
aimed at making us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
Terry.
Q So am I reading correctly that the energy bill would not have
had an effect on today's high gasoline --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it would have 10 years ago. That's exactly
what I've been saying to the American people -- 10 years ago if we'd
had an energy strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign
dependence. And -- but we haven't done that. And now we find
ourselves in the fix we're in. It's taken us a while to get there, and
it's going to take us a while to get out. Hopefully, additional crude
oil on the market from countries with some spare capacity will help
relieve the price for the American consumers.
Terry.
Q Mr. President, your State Department has reported that
terrorist attacks around the world are at an all-time high. If we're
winning the war on terrorism, as you say, how do you explain that more
people are dying in terrorist attacks on your watch than ever before?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we've made the decision to defeat the
terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home. And when
you engage the terrorists abroad, it causes activity and action. And
we're relentless. We, the -- America and our coalition partners. We
understand the stakes, and they're very high because there are people
still out there that would like to do harm to the American people.
But our strategy is to stay on the offense, is to keep the pressure
on these people, is to cut off their money and to share intelligence
and to find them where they hide. And we are making good progress.
The al Qaeda network that attacked the United States has been severely
diminished. We are slowly but surely dismantling that organization.
In the long run, Terry -- like I said earlier -- the way to defeat
terror, though, is to spread freedom and democracy. It's really the
only way in the long-term. In the short-term, we'll use our troops and
assets and agents to find these people and to protect America. But in
the long-term, we must defeat the hopelessness that allows them to
recruit by spreading freedom and democracy. But we're making
progress.
Q So in the near-term you think there will be more attacks and
more people dying?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to predict that. In the near-term I
can only tell you one thing: we will stay on the offense; we'll be
relentless; we'll be smart about how we go after the terrorists; we'll
use our friends and allies to go after the terrorists; we will find
them where they hide and bring them to justice.
Let me finish with the TV people first. Suzanne. You're not a TV
person, Ed -- I know you'd like to be, but -- (laughter.)
Q You'd be surprised. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: It's a tough industry to get into.
Q Mr. President, it was four years ago when you fist met with
Russian President Vladimir Putin. You said you looked into his eyes
and you saw his soul. You'll also be meeting with the Russian leader
in about a week or so. What do you think of Putin now that he has
expressed a willingness to supply weapons to outlaw regimes,
specifically his recent comments that he said he would provide
short-range missiles to Syria and nuclear components to Iran?
THE PRESIDENT: We have -- first, just on a broader -- kind of in a
broader sense, I had a long talk with Vladimir there in Slovakia about
democracy and about the importance of democracy. And as you remember,
at the press conference -- or if you weren't there, somebody will
remember -- he stood up and said he strongly supports democracy. I
take him for his word.
I -- and we'll continue to work. Condi just -- Condi Rice, our
Secretary of State, just came back and she briefed me that she had a
very good discussion with Vladimir about the merits of democracy, about
the need to listen to the people and have a government that's
responsive.
We're working closely with the Russians on -- on the issue of
vehicle-mounted weaponry to Syria. We didn't appreciate that, but we
made ourselves clear. As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to
send highly enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant, and
then collect that uranium after it's used for electricity -- power
purposes. That's what they've decided to do.
And I appreciate that gesture. See, what they recognize is that --
what America recognizes, and what Great Britain, France, and Germany
recognize, is that we can't trust the Iranians when it comes to
enriching uranium; that they should not be allowed to enrich uranium.
And what the Iranians have said was, don't we deserve to have a
nuclear power industry just like you do? I've kind of wondered why
they need one since they've got all the oil, but nevertheless, others
in the world say, well, maybe that's their right to have their own
civilian nuclear power industry. And what Russia has said: Fine,
we'll provide you the uranium, we'll enrich it for you and provide it
to you, and then we'll collect it. And I appreciate that gesture. I
think it's -- so I think Vladimir was trying to help there. I know
Vladimir Putin understands the dangers of a Iran with a nuclear
weapon. And most of the world understands that, as well.
Wendell.
Q Mr. President, have you asked your ambassador to the U.N.,
Ambassador John Bolton, about allegations that he acted improperly to
subordinates? Do you feel that these allegations warrant your personal
intervention? And if they're true, do you feel that they should
disqualify him from holding the post, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, John Bolton has been asked the questions
about -- about how he handles his business by members of the United
States Senate. He's been asked a lot of questions and he's given very
good answers. John Bolton is a seasoned diplomat. He's been serving
our country for, I think, 20 years. He has been confirmed by the
United States Senate four times. In other words, he's been up before
the Senate before and they've analyzed his talents and his capabilities
and they've confirmed him.
John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm a little too
blunt. John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations. It
seemed like to me it makes sense to put somebody who's capable, smart,
served our country for 20 years, been confirmed by the United States
Senate four times, and who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post
of the ambassador to the U.N.
See, the U.N. needs reform. If you're interested in reforming the
U.N., like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put
somebody who's skilled and who is not afraid to speak his mind at the
United Nations.
Now, I asked John during the interview process in the Oval Office,
I said, before I send you up there to the Senate, let me ask you
something: do you think the United Nations is important? See, I
didn't want to send somebody up there who said, it's not -- it's not
worth a darn; I don't think I need to go. He said, no, it's
important. But it needs to be reformed.
And I think the United Nations is important. As a matter of fact,
I'll give you an example. Today I met with the United Nations
representative to Syria, Mr. Larsen. He's an impressive fellow. Now,
he's delivered -- to Lebanon, excuse me -- he's delivered a very strong
message to the Syrian leader, though, that the world expects President
Assad to withdraw not only his military forces, but his intelligence
services, completely from Lebanon.
And now he is in charge of following up to make sure it happens. I
think that's a very important and useful role for the United Nations to
play. We have played a role. France has played a role. A lot of
nations have played roles. But the United Nations has done a very good
job in Syria -- with Syria in Lebanon of making sure that the world
expects the Lebanese elections to be free in May, without Syrian
influence. He's an impressive fellow. I applaud him for his hard
work.
But there's an example of why I think the United Nations is an
important body. On the other hand, the United Nations has had some
problems that we've all seen. And if we expect the United Nations to
be effective, it needs to clean up its problems. And I think it makes
sense to have somebody representing the United Nations who will -- who
will be straightforward about the issues.
Stretch. You mind if I call you Stretch in front of --
Q I've been called worse.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q Getting back to Social Security for a moment, sir, would you
consider it a success if Congress were to pass a piece of legislation
that dealt with the long-term solvency problem, but did not include
personal accounts?
THE PRESIDENT: I feel strongly that there needs to be voluntary
personal savings accounts as a part of the Social Security system. I
mean, it's got to be a part of a comprehensive package. The reason I
feel strongly about that is that we've got a lot of debt out there, a
lot of unfunded liabilities, and our workers need to be able to earn a
better rate of return on our money to help deal with that debt.
Secondly, I like the idea of giving someone ownership. I mean, why
should ownership be confined only to rich people? Why should people
not be allowed to own and manage their own assets who aren't the, you
know, the so-called investor class? I think everybody ought to be
given that right. As a matter of fact, Congress felt so strongly that
people ought to be able to own and manage their own accounts, they set
one up for themselves. You've heard me say, I like to say this, if
it's good enough for the Congress, it is -- it ought to be good enough
for the workers, to give them that option. The government is never
saying, you have to set up a personal savings account. We're saying,
you ought to have the right to set up a personal saving account so you
can earn a better rate of return on your own money than the government
can.
And it's that difference between the rate of return, between what
the government gets on your money and what a conservative mix of bonds
and stocks can get on your money that will make an enormous difference,
and a person being able to build his or her own nest egg that the
government cannot spend.
Now, it's very important for our fellow citizens to understand
there is not a bank account here in Washington, D.C., where we take
your payroll taxes and hold it for you and then give it back to you
when you retire. Our system here is called pay-as-you-go. You pay
into the system through your payroll taxes, and the government spends
it. It spends the money on the current retirees, and with the money
left over, it funds other government programs. And all that's left
behind is file cabinets full of IOUs.
The reason I believe that this ought to work is not only should a
worker get a better rate of return, not only should we encourage
ownership, but I want people to have real assets in the system. I want
people to be able to say, here's my mix of bonds and stocks that I own,
and I can leave it to whomever I want. And I hear complaints saying,
well, you know, there's going to be high -- Wall Street fees are going
to fleece the people. There's ways to have fee structures that are
fair. As a matter of fact, all you got to do is go to some of these
states where they've got personal accounts available for their workers,
and you'll find that the fees will be fair.
People say, well, I don't want to have -- take risks. Well, as I
had a line in my opening statement, there are ways where you don't have
to take risk. People say, I'm worried about the stock market going
down right before I retire. You can manage your assets. You can go
from bonds and stocks to only bonds as you get older. In other words,
we're giving people flexibility to own their own asset. And I think
that's a vital part of making sure America is a hopeful place in the
future. So not only will these accounts make the system work better,
but the accounts are a better deal. The accounts will mean something
for a lot of workers that might not have assets they call their own.
David.
Q Mr. President, in your question -- your answer before about
Iraq, you set no benchmarks for us to understand when it is the troops
may be able to --
THE PRESIDENT: In Iraq?
Q In Iraq, yes -- about when troops may be able to come back.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q Based on what you've learned now in two years of fighting the
insurgency and trying to train the Iraqi security forces, can you say
that within the next year you think you could have very substantial
American withdrawal of troops?
THE PRESIDENT: David, I know there's a temptation to try to get me
to lay out a timetable, and as you know, during the campaign and --
I'll reiterate it -- I don't think it's wise for me to set out a
timetable. All that will do is cause an enemy to adjust. So my answer
is, as soon as possible. And "as soon as possible" depends upon the
Iraqis being able to fight and do the job.
I had a good video conference recently with General Casey and
General Petreaus -- General Casey is in charge of the theater; General
Petreaus, as you know, is in charge of training -- and they we're
upbeat about what they're seeing with the Iraqi troops. One of the
questions I like to ask is, are they able to recruit. In other words,
you hear -- you see these killers will target recruiting stations, and
I've always wondered whether or not that has had an effect on the
ability for the Iraqis to draw their fellow citizens into the armed
forces. Recruitment is high. It's amazing, isn't it, that people want
to serve, they want their country to be free?
The other question that -- one of the other issues that is
important is the equipping issue, and the equipment is now moving quite
well. In other words, troops are becoming equipped.
Thirdly, a fundamental problem has been whether or not there's an
established chain of command, whether or not a civilian government can
say to the military, here's what you need to do -- and whether the
command goes from top to bottom and the plans get executed. And
General Petreaus was telling me he's pleased with the progress being
made with setting up a command structure, but there's still more work
to be done.
One of the real dangers, David, is that as politics takes hold in
Iraq, whether or not the civilian government will keep intact the
military structure that we're now helping them develop. And my message
to the Prime Minister and our message throughout government to the
Iraqis is, keep stability; don't disrupt the training that has gone on
-- don't politicize your military -- in other words, have them there to
help secure the people.
So we're making good progress. We've reduced our troops from
160,000 more or less to 139,000. As you know, I announced to the
country that we would step up our deployments -- step up deployments
and retain some troops for the elections. And then I said we'd get
them out, and we've done that. In other words, the withdrawals that I
said would happen, have happened.
Go ahead; I can see you've got a follow-up right there on the tip
of your tongue.
Q Do you feel that the number of troops that you've kept there
is limiting your options elsewhere in the world? Just today you had
the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency say that he was now
concerned that the North Koreans, for example, could put a weapon, a
nuclear weapon on a missile that could reach Japan or beyond. Do you
feel, as you are confronting these problems, the number of troops
you've left tied up in Iraq is limiting your options to go beyond the
diplomatic solutions that you described for North Korea and Iran?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that question. The person to ask
that to, the person I ask that to, at least, is to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, my top military advisor. I say, do you feel that we've
limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop
levels in Iraq? And the answer is, no, he doesn't feel we're limited.
He feels like we've got plenty of capacity.
You mentioned the Korean Peninsula. We've got good capacity in
Korea. We traded troops for new equipment, as you know; we brought
some troop -- our troop levels down in South Korea, but replaced those
troops with more capacity. Let me talk about North Korea, if you don't
mind. Is that your question?
Q Go right ahead. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised you didn't ask it. (Laughter.)
Look, Kim Jong-il is a dangerous person. He's as man who starves
his people. He's got huge concentration camps. And, as David
accurately noted, there is concern about his capacity to deliver a
nuclear weapon. We don't know if he can or not, but I think it's best
when you're dealing with a tyrant like Kim Jong-il to assume he can.
That's why I've decided that the best way to deal with this
diplomatically is to bring more leverage to the situation by including
other countries. It used to be that it was just America dealing with
North Korea. And when Kim Jong-il would make a move that would scare
people, everybody would say, America, go fix it. I felt it -- it
didn't work. In other words, the bilateral approach didn't work. The
man said he was going to do something and he didn't do it, for
starters.
So I felt a better approach would be to include people in the
neighborhood, into a consortium to deal with him. And it's
particularly important to have China involved. China has got a lot of
influence in North Korea. We went down to Crawford with Jiang Zemin,
and it was there that Jiang Zemin and I issued a statement saying that
we would work for a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula.
And so when Kim Jong-il announced the other day about his nuclear
intentions and weapons, it certainly caught the attention of the
Chinese because they had laid out a policy that was contradicted by Kim
Jong-il, and it's helpful to have the Chinese leadership now involved
with him. It's more -- it's better to have more than one voice sending
the same message to Kim Jong-il. The best way to deal with this issue
diplomatically is to have five other -- four other nations beside
ourselves dealing with him. And we'll continue to do so.
Finally, as you know, I have instructed Secretary Rumsfeld -- and
I work with Congress -- Secretary Rumsfeld has worked with Congress to
set up a missile defense system. And we're in the process of getting
that missile defense system up and running. One of the reasons why I
thought it was important to have a missile defense system is for
precisely the reason that you brought up, that perhaps Kim Jong-il has
got the capacity to launch a weapon, and wouldn't it be nice to be able
to shoot it down. And so we've got a comprehensive strategy in dealing
with him.
Ed, yes.
Q Mr. President, good evening.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Sir, you've talked all around the country about the poisonous
partisan atmosphere here in Washington. I wonder why do you think that
is? And do you personally bear any responsibility in having
contributed to this atmosphere?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm sure there are some people that don't like me.
You know, Ed, I don't know. I've thought long and hard about it. I
was -- I've been disappointed. I felt that people could work -- work
together in good faith. It's just a lot of politics in the town. It's
kind of a zero-sum attitude. We can't -- we can't cooperate with
so-and-so because it may make their party look good, and vice-versa.
Although having said that, we did have some success in the
education bill. We certainly came together as a country after
September the 11th. I appreciate the strong bipartisan support for
supporting our troops in harm's way. There's been a lot of instances
of bipartisanship, but when you bring a tough issue up like Social
Security, it -- sometimes people divide into camps.
I'm proud of my party. Our party has been the party of ideas. We
said, here's a problem, and here's some ideas as to how to fix it. And
as I've explained to some people, I don't want to politicize this issue
-- people say, you didn't need to bring this up, Mr. President, it may
cost you politically. I don't think so. I think the American people
appreciate somebody bringing up tough issues, particularly when they
understand the stakes: the system goes broke in 2041.
In 2027, for those listening, we'll be obligated to pay $200
billion more dollars a year than we take in, in order to make sure the
baby boomers get the benefits they've been promised. In other words,
this is a serious problem, and the American people expect us to put our
politics aside and get it done.
You know, I can't answer your question as to why. I'll continue to
do my best. I've tried to make sure the dialogue is elevated. I don't
believe I've resorted to name-calling here in Washington, D.C. I find
that to not be productive. But I also understand the mind of the
American people. They're wondering what's going on. They're wondering
why we can't come together and get an energy bill, for example.
They're wondering why we can't get Social Security done. And my pledge
to the American people is, I'll continue to work hard to -- with people
of both parties and share credit, and give people the benefit of the
credit when we get something done.
Yes, sir.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Just to follow up on Ed's question,
we like to remind you that you came to Washington hoping to change the
tone, and yet, here we are, three months into your second term and you
seem deadlocked with Democrats on issues like Bolton, DeLay, judges.
Is there any danger that the atmosphere is becoming so poisoned, or
that you're spending so much political capital that it could imperil
your agenda items like Social Security, energy?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think so, Bill. I think when it's all said
and done, we're going to get a lot done. I mean, after all, one of the
issues that people have been working on for a long time is class-action
lawsuit reform, and I signed that bill. An issue that people have been
working on for a long time is bankruptcy law reform, and I signed that
bill. And the House got an energy bill out recently, and I talked to
Senator Domenici the other day and he's upbeat about getting a bill out
pretty quickly and get it to conference and get the issues resolved.
I'm pretty aware of what the issues might be that will hang up a
conference, and I think we can get those issues resolved. We're more
than willing to help out. So I do believe I'll get an energy bill by
August.
There's a budget agreement, and I'm grateful for that. In other
words, we are making progress. No question the Social Security issue
is a big issue, but it's -- as I said before, we hadn't talked about
this issue for 20 years. And they thought we had it fixed 20 years --
22 years ago, for 75 years, and here we are, 22 years later after the
fix, talking about it again. And it's serious business. If you're a
grandmother or a grandfather listening, you're going to get your
check. But your grandchildren are going to have a heck of a price to
bear if we don't get something done now.
You see, it's possible if nothing gets done that the payroll taxes
will go up to some 18 percent. Imagine that for your children and
grandchildren, living in a society where payroll taxes are up at 18
percent. Or there will be dramatic benefit cuts as time goes on. Now
is the time to get it done. And my pledge to the American people is
that I'm going to stay on this issue because I know it's important for
you.
Fletcher.
Q Yes, Mr. President. You had talked about North Korea and you
mentioned that the six-party talks allow you to bring extra leverage to
the table. But do you think they're working, given North Korea's
continued threats and the continuing growth of their nuclear
stockpile?
Q And how long do you let it go before you go to the U.N.?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that question. I do think it's
making a difference to have China and Japan and South Korea and Russia
and the United States working together with North Korea. In my
judgment, that's the only way to get this issue solved diplomatically,
is to bring more than one party to the table to convince Kim Jong-il to
give up his nuclear ambitions. And how far we let it go on is
dependent upon our consensus amongst ourselves. Condi, the other day,
laid out a potential option of going to the United Nations Security
Council. Obviously, that's going to require the parties agreeing.
After all, some of the parties in the process have got the capacity to
veto a U.N. Security Council resolution.
So this is an issue we need to continue to work with our friends
and allies. And the more Kim Jong-il threatens and brags, the more
isolated he becomes. And we'll continue to work with China on this
issue. I spend a lot of time dealing with Chinese leaders on North
Korea, as do people in my administration. And I'll continue to work
with our friends in Japan and South Korea. And Vladimir Putin
understands the stakes, as well.
Mark.
Q Mr. President, under the law, how would you justify the
practice of renditioning, where U.S. agents who brought terror suspects
abroad, taking them to a third country for interrogation? And would
you stand for it if foreign agents did that to an American here?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a hypothetical, Mark. We operate within the
law and we send people to countries where they say they're not going to
torture the people.
But let me say something: the United States government has an
obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's
interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of
harm's way. And we will do so within the law, and we will do so in
honoring our commitment not to torture people. And we expect the
countries where we send somebody to, not to torture, as well. But you
bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we
will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain
them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that. We
-- we still at war.
One of my -- I've said this before to you, I'm going to say it
again, one of my concerns after September the 11th is the farther away
we got from September the 11th, the more relaxed we would all become
and assume that there wasn't an enemy out there ready to hit us. And I
just can't let the American people -- I'm not going to let them down by
assuming that the enemy is not going to hit us again. We're going to
do everything we can to protect us. And we've got guidelines. We've
got law. But you bet, Mark, we're going to find people before they
harm us.
John McKinnon.
Q Yes, sir. I'd just like to ask, simply, what's your view of
the economy right now? First-quarter growth came in weaker than
expected, there have been worries about inflation and lower spending by
consumers. Are these basically just bumps in the road, in your
opinion, or are they reasons for some real concern and could they
affect your agenda on Social Security?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that, John. I am concerned about the
economy because our small business owners and families are paying
higher prices at the gas pump. And that affects the lives of a lot of
people. If you're a small business owner and you have to pay higher
gas prices and you're -- likely you may not hire a new worker. In
other words, higher gas prices, as I have said, is like a tax on the --
on the small business job creators. And it's a tax on families. And I
do think this has affected consumer sentiment; I do think it's affected
the economy.
On the other hand, the experts tell me that the forecast of
economic growth in the coming months looks good. There's more to do to
make sure that we don't slip back into slow growth or negative growth.
One is to make sure taxes stay low; secondly, is to continue to pursue
legal reform. I hope we can get an asbestos reform bill out of both
the House and the Senate. There's some positive noises on Capitol Hill
as to whether or not we can get an asbestos reform bill. That will be
an important reform in order to make sure that our economy continues to
grow.
We need to continue to open up markets for U.S. products. As you
know, there will be a vote for the Central American Free Trade
Agreement here, hopefully soon. I'm a strong believer that that's in
the interest of American job creators and workers, that we open up
those markets. I know it's important geopolitically to say to those
Central American countries, you've got a friend in America. We said
we'd have an agreement with you, and it's important to ratify it.
It'll help strengthen the neighborhood.
We've also got to make sure that we continue to reduce regulation.
I think an important -- I know an important initiative that we're going
to be coming forth with here probably in the fall is tax reform. I was
amazed by the report the other day that there is some $330 billion a
year that goes unpaid by American taxpayers. It's a phenomenal amount
of money. To me, it screams for making the tax system easier to
understand, more fair and to make sure that people pay their taxes --
"more fair" means pay what you owe.
And so there are a lot of things we can do, John, to make sure
economic growth continues. But I'm an optimistic fellow -- based not
upon my own economic forecast -- I'm not an economist -- but based
upon the experts that I listen to.
Let's see here. Richard. (Laughter.) There is somebody with a
bad throat back there. (Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, you've made No Child Left Behind a big part of
your education agenda. The nation's largest teachers union has filed
suit against it, saying it's woefully inadequately funded. What's your
response to that? And do you think that No Child Left Behind is
working?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think it's working. And the reason why I
think it's working is because we're measuring, and the measurement is
showing progress toward teaching people how to read and write and add
and subtract. Listen, the whole theory behind No Child Left Behind is
this: if we're going to spend federal money, we expect the states to
show us whether or not we're achieving simple objectives -- like
literacy, literacy in math, the ability to read and write. And, yes,
we're making progress. And I can say that with certainty because we're
measuring, Richard.
Look, I'm a former governor, I believe states ought to control
their own destiny when it comes to schools. They are by far the
biggest funder of education, and it should remain that way. But we
spend a lot of money here at the federal level and have increased the
money we spend here quite dramatically at the federal level. And we
changed the policy: instead of just spending money and hope for the
best, we're now spending money and saying, measure.
And some people don't like to measure. But if you don't measure,
how do you know whether or not you've got a problem in a classroom? I
believe it's best to measure early and correct problems early, before
it's too late. That's why as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act we
had money available for remedial education. In other words, we said
we're going to measure, and when we detect someone who needs extra
help, that person will get extra help.
But, absolutely, it's a good piece of legislation. I will do
everything I can to prevent people from unwinding it, by the way.
Q What about the lawsuit? Which --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know about the lawsuit; I'm not a
lawyer. But, you know, I'll ask my lawyers about the lawsuit. But I
know some people are trying to unwind No Child Left Behind. I've heard
some states say, well, we don't like it. Well, you know, my attitude
about not liking it is this: If you teach a child to read and write,
it shouldn't bother you whether you measure. That's all we're asking.
The system for too long had just shuffled children through and just
hoped for the best. And guess what happened? We had people graduating
from high school who were illiterate -- and that's just not right in
America. It wasn't working. And so I came to Washington and worked
with both Republicans and Democrats -- this is a case where
bipartisanship was really working well. And we said, look, we're going
to spend more money at the federal level. But the federal government,
what, spends about 7 percent of the total education budgets around the
country.
But we said, let's change the attitude. We ought to start with the
presumption every child can learn, not just some; and, therefore, if
you believe every child can learn, then you ought to expect every
classroom to teach. I hear feedback from No Child Left Behind, by the
way -- and, admittedly, I get the cook's tour, sometimes -- but I hear
teachers talk to me about how thrilled they are with No Child Left
Behind; they appreciate the fact that the system now shows deficiencies
early so they can correct those problems. And it is working.
Okay. Mr. Knox.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to make sure I understand
your answer to Mike about North Korea. He asked you how long you were
prepared to let the multiparty talks proceed, in the face of what might
be a gathering threat from North Korea, and you said, how long -- I'm
paraphrasing -- how long we let it go on is dependent on our consensus
among ourselves --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Did you mean to say that you will neither refer North Korea to
the U.N. for sanctions, nor take military action unless you have the
agreement of all the other partners abroad?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I didn't speak about military -- I'm speaking
about diplomatically. And secondly, yes, we've got partners. This is
a six-party talk; five of us on the side of convincing Kim Jong-il to
get rid of his nuclear weapons, and obviously, Kim Jong-il believes he
ought to have some. And my point was that it is best -- if you have a
group of people trying to achieve the same objective, it's best to work
with those people, it's best to consult.
His question was, are you going to -- when are you going to -- when
will there be consequences. And what we want to do is to work with our
allies on this issue and develop a consensus, a common approach to the
consequences of Kim Jong-il. I mean, it seems counterproductive to
have five of us working together, and all of a sudden, one of us say,
well, we're not going to work together.
Again, I repeat to you, our aim is to solve this problem
diplomatically. And like I've said before, all options, of course, are
on the table, but the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is
to work with four other nations who have all agreed in achieving the
same goal, and that is a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
Final question. Hutch. I don't want to cut into some of these TV
shows that are getting ready to air. (Laughter.) For the sake of the
economy. (Laughter.)
Q I wanted to ask you about your ideas --
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all right? Go ahead, Hutch. Sorry.
Q I wanted to ask you about your ideas on dealing with Social
Security solvency problems. As I understand it -- I know you'll tell
me if I'm wrong -- the benefits would be equal to what -- at least
equal to what they are today, and then any increase in benefits would
be indexed according to income, with lower-income people getting bigger
increases. Two things on that: Today's benefits probably won't mean
much somewhere down the road; and how far are you going to go with this
means-based program? Are you talking about --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that.
Q -- where a rich person, say, Dick Cheney, wouldn't get much
out of it?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, wait a minute, don't get personal here,
Hutch. You're on national TV; that's a cheap shot. First of all, in
terms of the definition of who would get -- whose benefits would rise
faster and whose wouldn't, that's going to be a part of the negotiation
process with the United States Congress. There's a -- a Democrat
economist had a very -- he put forth this idea and he had a level of --
I think 30 percent of the people would be considered to be in a
lower-income scale.
But this is to be negotiated. This is a part of the negotiation
process. My job is to lay out an idea that I think will make the
system more fair.
And the second question -- or the first question --
Q It's a means-based program where the real wealthy people might
not get very much out of it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is -- that's right. I mean, obviously, it is
means base when you're talking about lower-income versus wealthier
income. The lower-income people's benefits would rise faster. And the
whole goal would be to see to it that nobody retired in poverty.
Somebody who has worked all their life and paid in the Social Security
system would not retire into poverty.
One other point on Social Security that people have got to
understand is that it's -- the system of today is not fair for a person
whose spouse has died early. In other words, if you're a two-working
family like families are here in America, and -- two people working in
your family, and the spouse dies early -- before 62, for example -- all
of the money that the spouse has put into the system is held there, and
then when the other spouse retires, he or she gets to choose the
benefits from his or her own work, or the other spouse's benefits,
which is ever higher but not both. See what I'm saying? Somebody has
worked all their life, the money they put into the system just goes
away. It seems unfair to me. I've talked to too many people whose
lives were turned upside down when the spouse died early and all they
got was a burial benefit.
If you have a personal savings account, a voluntary personal
savings account, and your -- and you die early, that's an asset you can
leave to your spouse or to your children. That's an important thing
for our fellow citizens to understand. The system today is not fair,
particularly if the spouse has died early, and this will help remedy
that.
Listen, thank you all for your interest. God bless our country.
END 9:01 P.M. EDT
|