Transcript of Q and A with President Bush to the City Club of Cleveland

Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580

CLEVELAND, March 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a transcript of a question and answer session following President Bush's remarks to the City Club of Cleveland today:

THE PRESIDENT:

Thanks for listening. (Applause.) And I'll be glad to answer some questions, if you have any.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President, and to the City Club. My question is that author and former Nixon administration official Kevin Phillips, in his latest book, American Theocracy, discusses what has been called radical Christianity and its growing involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?

THE PRESIDENT: The answer is -- I haven't really thought of it that way. (Laughter.) Here's how I think of it. The first I've heard of that, by the way. I guess I'm more of a practical fellow. I vowed after September the 11th, that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks. I knew we were at war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be sophisticated and lethal to fly hijacked airplanes into facilities that would be killing thousands of people, innocent people, doing nothing, just sitting there going to work.

I also knew this about this war on terror, that the farther we got away from September the 11th, the more likely it is people would seek comfort and not think about this global war on terror as a global war on terror. And that's good, by the way. It's hard to take risk if you're a small business owner, for example, if you're worried that the next attack is going to come tomorrow. I understand that. But I also understand my most important job, the most important job of any President today, and I predict down the road, is to protect America.

And so I told the American people that we would find the terrorists and bring them to justice, and that we needed to defeat them overseas so we didn't have to face them here at home. I also understood that the war on terror requires some clear doctrine. And one of the doctrines that I laid out was, if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. And the first time that doctrine was really challenged was in Afghanistan. I guess the Taliban didn't believe us -- or me. And so we acted. Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists.

And the other doctrine that's really important, and it's a change of attitude -- it's going to require a change of attitude for a while -- is that, when you see a threat, you got to deal with it before it hurts you. Foreign policy used to be dictated by the fact we had two oceans protecting us. If we saw a threat, you could deal with it if you needed to, you think -- or not. But we'd be safe.

My most important job is to protect you, is to protect the American people. Therefore, when we see threats, given the lesson of September the 11th, we got to deal with them. That does not mean militarily, necessarily. Obviously, the first option for a President has got to be the full use of diplomacy. That's what you're watching in Iran right now. I see a threat in Iran. I see it there -- I'm kind of getting off subject here, not because I don't want to answer your question, but kind of -- I guess, that's what happens in Washington, we get a little long- winded. (Laughter.)

But now that I'm on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course -- (applause) -- the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and -- (applause.)

At any rate, our objective is to solve this issue diplomatically. And so our message must be a united message, a message from not only the United States, but also Great Britain and France and Germany, as well as Russia, hopefully, and China, in order to say, loud and clear to the Iranians, this is unacceptable behavior. Your desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.

And so, to answer your question, I take a practical view of doing the job you want me to do -- which is how do we defeat an enemy that still wants to hurt us; and how do we deal with threats before they fully materialize; what do we do to protect us from harm? That's my job. And that job came home on September the 11th, for me -- loud and clear. And I think about my job of protecting you every day -- every single day of the presidency, I'm concerned about the safety of the American people.

Yes, sir.

Q Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.

Like you, I asked that very same question, where did we go wrong on intelligence. The truth of the matter is the whole world thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't just my administration, it was the previous administration. It wasn't just the previous administration; you might remember, sir, there was a Security Council vote of 15 to nothing that said to Saddam Hussein, disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. The basic premise was, you've got weapons. That's what we thought.

When he didn't disclose, and when he didn't disarm, and when he deceived inspectors, it sent a very disconcerting message to me, whose job it is to protect the American people and to take threats before they fully materialize. My view is, he was given the choice of whether or not he would face reprisal. It was his decision to make. And so he chose to not disclose, not disarm, as far as everybody was concerned.

Your question, however, the part that's really important is, how do we regain credibility when it comes to intelligence? Obviously, the Iranian issue is a classic case, where we've got to make sure that when we speak there's credibility. And so, in other words, when the United States rallies a coalition, or any other country that had felt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction is trying to rally a coalition in dealing with one of these non-transparent societies, what do we need to do to regain the trust of not only the American people, but the world community?

And so what I did was I called together the Silberman-Robb Commission -- Laurence Silberman and former Senator Chuck Robb -- to take a full look at what went right and what went wrong on the intelligence, and how do we structure an intelligence network that makes sure there's full debate among the analysts? How do we make sure that there's a full compilation of data points that can help decision-makers like myself feel comfortable in the decision we make?

The war on terror requires the collection and analysis of good intelligence. This is a different kind of war; we're dealing with an enemy which hides in caves and plots and plans, an enemy which doesn't move in flotillas, or battalions. And so, therefore, the intelligence-gathering is not only important to make a diplomatic case, it's really important to be able to find an enemy before they hurt us.

And so there was a reform process they went through, a full analysis of what -- of how the operations worked, and out of that came the NDI, John Negroponte and Mike Hayden. And their job is to better collate and make sure that the intelligence-gathering is seamless across a variety of gatherers and people that analyze. But the credibility of our country is essential -- I agree with you.

Yes, sure.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome to Cleveland. It's an honor to have you here. I represent the Cleveland Hungarian Revolution 50th Anniversary --

THE PRESIDENT: That's good. I was there, by the way.

Q Thank you. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: At least for the celebration in Capitol -- with Tom Lantos. But go ahead.

Q Mr. President, in the interest of free speech if you'll indulge me, I have to give a little context of my question. On this third anniversary of your -- I consider -- courageous initiative to bring freedom and basic human dignity to the Iraqi people, the image of the statue of the tyrant Saddam falling in Baghdad was very reminiscent of another statue, another tyrant, Josef Stalin, who fell in Budapest 50 years ago at the hands of many young Hungarian freedom fighters who were seeking to overthrow the tyranny of Soviet communism. Mr. President, just like our brave fighting men and women today, and many Iraqi people, those young Hungarian patriots paid a very heavy price for a few days of freedom. But they lit the torch that eventually set the captive nations on the path to achieving liberty. And so, Mr. President, our Cleveland Hungarian community is planning a major event in Cleveland in October -- (laughter) --

THE PRESIDENT: The guy sees the moment, you know -- (laughter and applause.)

Q Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not sure what I'm doing in October. Put me down as a maybe. (Laughter and applause.) Sorry to interrupt.

Q Just like you came for the children's game in 2004, we hope to have you hear for that, as well. Mr. President, just want to let you know, to win the war on terror we feel that what was started in 1776, and continued in 1956, must be remembered in 2006.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.)

Q I'm at the question now. Thanks for your indulgence.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. (Laughter.)

Q My basic question is, how can we help you, from the grassroots level, how can we help you promote the cause of freedom and liberty for all peoples throughout the world?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. My main job is to make sure I make the case as plainly as I can why it's worth it. And I fully understand -- I understand people being disheartened when they turn on their TV screen and see the loss of innocent life. We're compassionate people. Nobody likes beheadings and it -- nobody -- when innocent children get car-bombed. So it's my job, sir, to make it clear about the connection between Iraq and the war on terror. It's my job to remind people that progress is being made, in spite of the violence they see. It's my job to make it clear to the people the stakes.

I've spent time talking about what happens if we were to lose our nerve, and Iraq would fall to al Qaeda. And the stakes are high. Look, I understand some don't view that we're in a war against the terrorists. I know that. And therefore, there's a sense that 9/11 might have been an isolated incident. I just don't agree. And here's what I -- here's the basis from which I made decisions. You heard one -- is that 9/11 affected the way I think. I know these are like totalitarian fascists; they have an ideology, they have a desire to spread that ideology, and they're willing to use tactics to achieve their strategy.

And one of the tactics I said early on in the speech -- the stated objectives of al Qaeda. This isn't my imagination of their strategy, this is what they have told us. And I presume you want the Commander-in-Chief to take the words of the enemy seriously. And they have told us they believe that we're soft and that with time we'll leave, and they'll fill the vacuum. And they want to plan and plot and hurt Americans. That's what they have said. And I think it's really important we take their words very seriously.

And so I will continue making the case, sir, but the best way you can help is to support our troops. You find a family who's got a child in the United States military, tell them you appreciate them. Ask them if you can help them. You see somebody wearing a uniform, you walk up and say, thanks for serving the country.

Ours is a remarkable country where -- (applause) -- where we've got thousands of people signing up, volunteering for the United States military, many of them after September the 11th, knowing full-well what they were signing up for. And what's amazing about our military is that retention rates are high, people are still signing up. They want to -- they want to defend the country. And for that, I am grateful.

But my job, sir, is to lay out the strategy -- and to connect the notion of liberty with peace. And that's hard for some. Sometimes there's a little bit of a -- kind of a point of view that says, well, maybe certain people can't be free, maybe certain people can't self-govern. I strongly believe that liberty is universal. I believe in the natural rights of men and women. That was part of our founding. And if you believe in that, if you believe in the universality of freedom, then I believe those of us who are free have an obligation to help others become free. (Applause.)

Yes, ma'am. I'm tied up in October, but you know -- (laughter.)

Q I'm a Marine mom --

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. Tell your -- (applause.)

Q My son signed up after 9/11, and I didn't raise a terrorist. And let's face it, there's a continuum and a lack of clarity about who's violent and who's a terrorist. And we really do want to use the word "enemy" in a meaningful way. I think your speech has been very brave and very important and very clarifying. And in the interest of clarifying the purpose of our country to fight preventive war, which we know does involve violence, it's very important for us to understand what you're saying about your model community in Iraq. And my question is that you are killing the bad guys, and that's very important that's the entire story of the battle. And we want to know who the bad guys are. Do you feel that Iraq is like a honeycomb, and that we can draw the al Qaeda there so we can stand and fight them there? I'm really asking for clarification.

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. I think in Iraq there are three types of folks that are trying to stop democracy. First of all, I think it's very important for people to understand one reason they're so violent and desperate is because they're trying to stop a society based upon liberty. And you got to ask why. And the reason why is because it's the exact opposite of what they believe.

There are three types. One is al Qaeda and al Qaeda is headed into there. Al Qaeda understands the danger of democracy spreading. And so Zarqawi, this fellow named Zarqawi is in charge of al Qaeda inside of Iraq which recruits foreign fighters. And they headed into Iraq because they wanted to fight us. They wanted to stop democracy.

Secondly, there are Saddamists -- these were the folks that really enjoyed a life of privilege. These are people that were top of the heap. They were -- they represented a minority in the country, but they got all the deal, they got all the goods. And they don't like it when Saddam was removed. And so they are trying to regroup.

And the third group are rejectionists. These are essentially Sunnis, as well, who really weren't sure as -- about whether or not it meant -- what it meant to have minority rights, whether or not they'd be protected. You can understand. They didn't -- during Saddam, there was no such thing as minority rights. And so as a new society emerged, they were doubtful.

And it is those folks that I believe will become marginalized as democracy advances. We're seeing the Sunnis change their mind about things. They barely voted in the first January 2005 elections; they participated overwhelmingly in the December 2005 elections. In just an 11-month period of time there was a change of attitude to participate in the democratic process.

And the fundamental question that I know people ask is whether or not democracy, one, can take hold in Iraq, and two, will it change people's attitude about the future? And I believe it will. History has proven that democracies can change societies. The classic case I like to cite is Japan. Prime Minister Koizumi is one of my best buddies in the international arena, and when we sit down, we talk the peace. I find it interesting that he is a peacemaker with me on a variety of issues, and yet my Dad fought the Japanese. And I'm sure many of your relatives did, as well.

Sixty years ago, Japan was the sworn enemy of the United States. Today, they're an ally in peace. And what took place? Well, what took place was a Japanese-style democracy. I can't say I promise you this, but I suspect that if somebody were standing up at the City Club of Cleveland talking about, don't worry some day Japan is going to be peaceful with the United States and the 43rd President is going to be designing how keep the peace -- they'd say, get him off the stage. (Laughter.) What's he thinking? They're the sworn enemy. And now they're our ally. So I have faith in the capacity of democracies to help change societies.

And again, I repeat to you, the debate -- one of the debates is whether or not certain folks can self-govern. There's kind of a -- maybe there are some in the world that aren't capable, say the skeptics. I strongly disagree with that. I believe there's -- hold on a second -- I believe there's a great desire for people to be free. I believe that. And history has proven that democracies don't war with each other. Again, I kind of glossed over this, but particularly for the students here, look at what happened in Europe over a hundred-year period, from the early 1900s to today. Europe was at war twice that cost Americans thousands of lives. Today, they don't war because the systems of government changed. Democracies are at peace. Europe is whole, free, and at peace. And that's an important history lesson for those of us.

What I'm saying to you, ma'am, is that there is a battle for Iraq now, but it's just a part of the war on terror. It's a theater in the war on terror. Afghanistan was a theater. And we're in a global battle which requires strong alliances, good cooperation, and a constant reminder of the nature of this war. So today I met with the Secretary General of NATO. And the first subject that came up was the war on terror, and how much I appreciated NATO's contribution to helping Afghanistan succeed. But it is -- the enemy in this case is disgruntled folks inside of Iraq, coupled with an al Qaeda presence there that wants to harm Americans again.

I don't know -- is your son still in the military?

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. You tell him the Commander-in-Chief is proud of him. You tell him to listen to his mother, too. (Applause.)

Yes. First, and then second, sir, you're next.

Q On behalf of the students here from various high school student leadership programs, we thank you for speaking with us here at the City Club of Cleveland.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks -- I hope it's a convenient excuse to skip school, but -- (laughter.)

Q Mr. President, with the war in Iraq costing $19,600 per U.S. household, how do you expect a generation of young people such as ourselves, to afford college a time like this, when we're paying for a war Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well -- hold on for a minute. Hold on. We can do more than one thing at one time. And when you grow your economy, like we're growing our economy, there is an opportunity to not only protect ourselves, but also to provide more Pell grants than any administration in our nation's history, and increase the student loan program. So if you take a look, I think you'll find that we're robust in helping -- at the federal level, helping people go to college. And it's essential you go to college. It's essential that there be a group of youngsters coming up that are well-educated so that we can maintain our economic leadership position in the world. We've got a robust program to do just that.

But it's also essential that we keep policies in place that keep the economy growing. This economy of ours is strong, and it's -- it is, in my judgment, growing stronger. But it is possible to put policy in place that would weaken it, such as raising taxes. I think we got to keep taxes low to keep the economy moving. It's possible to put policy -- (applause) -- it's possible to put policy in place that would hurt this economy, like protectionist policy. It's possible to -- if we keep suing our people trying to risk capital, it's conceivable, we won't be the leader. That's why we need good tort reform. We got to make sure that -- (applause.)

My point to you is economic growth enables us to do more than one thing. And that's what we'll continue to do.

Yes, sir. Right. No, no, hold on for a minute. Hold on for a minute.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.

Q Every chief needs Indian on their side. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: How long were you working on that for? (Laughter and applause.)

Q I applaud your vision and foresight to sign a long-term treaty with India. But, sir, I am confused that, on one side, you're helping democratic countries to flourish and establish democracy in the world market, whereas how do we deal with country who has known to harbor terrorism like Pakistan?

THE PRESIDENT: I thought you might be heading there. (Laughter.) I, obviously, had a trip recently to India and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and was able to say in India and in Pakistan both, it is a positive development for America to be a friend of Pakistan -- it's a positive development for India for America to be a friend of Pakistan, and it's a positive development for Pakistan for America to be a friend of India. It's an important accomplishment in order to help keep the peace.

I don't view our relationships with Pakistan and India as a zero-sum relationship. As a matter of fact, I view our relationships with both countries as different sets of issues and the need to nurture both relationships to achieve common objectives. And we're in a position to be able to do so now.

President Musharraf is a friend to the United States. President Musharraf understands that he must help rout out al Qaeda, which is hiding in parts of his country. President Musharraf was reminded of that the four times al Qaeda tried to kill him. He is a -- and so I was able to have a very good discussion with the President about our mutual concerns in the war on terror. And it's important that that dialogue go on. It's a very important part of our -- me doing my most important job, which is to protect you.

He also said in a press conference that he understands that democracy is important. So one of the conversations that I had with him in private -- I feel comfortable saying this in public because he himself brought it up -- was the need for democracy to advance in Pakistan. History has -- showed us that democracies don't war.

What's interesting about the relationship between Pakistan and India -- and I'll get to India in a minute, I want to say something on India, so thanks for bringing it up -- is that when we first -- when I first got into office, I remember asking Colin Powell to go get in between India and Pakistan. There was a lot of noise -- you might remember, I think it was '01 or '02, where there was deep concerns about -- I think '01 -- deep concerns about a potential nuclear conflict. And so there was shuttle diplomacy, back and forth between India and Pakistan, including not only our -- Colin, but also Jack Straw, the Foreign Minister of Great Britain. And you never know how dangerous one of these situations can become until it's too late, but, nevertheless, we took it very seriously.

And today you don't see the need for the United States shuffling, or Britain shuffling diplomats back and forth, to walk back -- walk the two countries back from a potential conflict which would be incredibly damaging for the world. That's positive. In other words, it's -- and I give Prime Minister -- President Musharraf credit, and I give the Indian Prime Ministers -- both Vajpayee and the current Prime Minister -- credit for -- Prime Minister Singh -- for envisioning what is possible, how is it possible to develop a relationship that's a peaceful relationship with our neighbor.

And, sir, I think it's very important for the United States to stay engaged with Pakistan and encourage them. We're trying to negotiate an investment treaty with them, with the hopes of being able to eventually develop more trade with Pakistan, in the belief that trade helps nations develop stability, and prosperity is achieved through trade.

India -- the visit there was a very important visit. And I want to describe to you right quick, so be careful on the questions. You're going to have to -- you'll leave your hand up for a while, I agreed with the Indian government that India ought to be encouraged to develop a nuclear power industry. And that's a controversial decision on my part, because it basically flies in the face of old Cold War attitudes, as well as arm control thinking.

Let me just share the logic with you. First of all, in that we live in a global economy, there is a demand for fossil fuels - - an increase in the demand for fossil fuels in one part of the world affects the price of gasoline in our world. We're connected. Whether people like it or not, there is an interconnectedness today that affects our economy. Somebody's decision overseas affects whether or not people are going to be able to work here in America. So I think it makes sense for the United States, as we ourselves become less addicted to oil and fossil fuels, which I'm serious about, encourage others to do so, as well. And one good way to do so, and to protect the environment at the same time, is to encourage the use of safe nuclear power. It's in our interests, our economic interests that we work an agreement with India to encourage their expansion of civilian nuclear power.

Secondly, unlike Iran, for example, India is willing to join the IAEA. They want to be a part of the global agreements around nuclear power. Thirdly, India has got a record a nonproliferation. They've had 30 years of not proliferating. Fourthly, India is a democracy and a transparent society. You find out a lot about India because there's a free press. There is openness. People run for office and are held to account. There's committee hearings. It's an open process.

I feel very comfortable recommending to the United States Congress that it's -- they ought to agree with the agreement that Prime Minister Singh and I have reached. It's important -- it's important -- it's also an important relationship. For too long, America and India were not partners in peace. We didn't deal with each other because of the Cold War. And now is the time to set the Cold War behind us. It's over, folks. It no longer is. And let's think about the next 30 years.

And so my hope is some day somebody will be asking a question, aren't you glad old George W. thought about entering into a strategic relationship with India? And I believe it's in our country's interest that we have such a relationship, and at the same time, maintain close relations with Pakistan. And it's possible to do so. And we are doing so.

Yes, sir.

How long do you usually ask questions here for? (Laughter and applause.)

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: The guy is supposed to smile over there. Yes.

Q Another theater in the war on terror is domestic. And there's a controversy around warrantless wiretaps domestically.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Could you explain why living within the legislation that allowed your administration to get a warrant from a secret court within 72 hours after putting in a wiretap wouldn't be just as effective?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate the question. He's talking about the terrorist surveillance program that was -- created quite a kerfuffle in the press, and I owe an explanation to. Because our people -- first of all, after September the 11th, I spoke to a variety of folks on the front line of protecting us, and I said, is there anything more we could be doing, given the current laws? And General Mike Hayden of the NSA said there is. The FISA law -- he's referring to the FISA law, I believe -- is -- was designed for a previous period, and is slow and cumbersome in being able to do what Mike Hayden thinks is necessarily -- called hot pursuit.

And so he designed a program that will enable us to listen from a known al Qaeda, or suspected al Qaeda person and/or affiliate, from making any phone call outside the United States in, or inside the United States out -- with the idea of being able to pick up quickly information for which to be able to respond in this environment that we're in. I was concerned about the legality of the program, and so I asked lawyers -- which you got plenty of them in Washington -- (laughter) -- to determine whether or not I could do this legally. And they came back and said, yes. That's part of the debate which you're beginning to see.

I fully understood that Congress needed to be briefed. And so I had Hayden and others brief members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, House members and senators, about the program. The program is under constant review. I sign a reauthorization every -- I'm not exactly sure -- 45 days, say. It's something like that. In other words, it's constantly being reviewed. There's an IG that is very active at the NSA to make sure that the program stays within the bounds that it was designed.

I fully understand people's concerns about it, but ours is a town, by the way, in Washington, where when you don't connect the dots, you're held up to Congress, and when you do connect the dots, you're held up to Congress. I believe what I'm doing is constitutional, and I know it's necessary. And so we're going to keep doing it. (Applause.)

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your comments today about Iraq have been, for me, very enlightening. And I greatly appreciate the level of clarity that you've provided. But my question is about domestic policy. Today, in our neighborhoods there are terrorists. Children cannot play in some of our neighborhoods. Today, we've got -- when you see post-Katrina, our country was startled at some of the images around poverty in some of our cities. Can you be as clear about your domestic policy to address those kinds of things?

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Thanks. Let me start with education, which I view as a vital part of providing hope and eradicating poverty. (Applause.) I was disturbed, when I was the governor of Texas, disturbed about a system that just moved kids through. There was kind of a process-oriented world, that said, okay, if you're 10, you're supposed to be here; you're 12, you're supposed to be here, and on through. It was like -- without any sense of accountability. If you believe education is one of the cornerstones to a hopeful world, then it seems like to me, it makes sense that we've got to have a system that measures so we know whether or not people are getting educated.

So when I got to Washington, I proposed what's called No Child Left Behind, which passed with both Republican and Democrat votes. And the whole spirit of No Child Left Behind is this: It says, in return for increased federal money for particularly Title I students, we expect you to measure grades three through eight. We want to see strong accountability because we believe every child can learn, and we expect every school to teach. That's the whole spirit of the No Child Left Behind Act.

If you -- it turns out that if you can solve problems early, if you can find out whether or not a curriculum is working or not early on in a child's career, we can correct the problems. And so part of the No Child Left Behind Act is when you measure and find somebody not up to measuring to par, not meeting standards, there's extra money called special service money available in the No Child Left Behind Act, to make sure that there's early tutoring, to make sure that children are not just simply shuffled through, to make sure an accountability system is used properly -- which is to diagnose and solve problems.

The No Child Left Behind Act is beginning to work. You know why? Because we measure. There was an achievement gap in America that's bad for the country. It's an achievement gap between the difference between some Anglo children and some African American children, particularly inner city. That's beginning to close.

We need to apply the same rigor of No Child Left Behind, particularly in middle age (sic) for math and science, to make sure that we're able to compete for the jobs of the 21st century.

And so step one, in my judgment, to address exactly what you described as true -- kind of this enlightenment that, uh-oh, there are parts of our society in which people are, in fact, being completely left behind -- is to make sure the education system is rigorously based upon accountability. And when we find the status quo is unacceptable, have the political courage to change -- demand high standards and change.

And the cornerstone of demanding change in a system that tends to protect itself is measurement. And I realize there are people in my party who want to undo No Child Left Behind. And I'm sure there are in the other party. But my judgment is you can't achieve educational excellence unless you measure and correct problems.

Now, there's another aspect to providing a hopeful society, and that is to encourage ownership. One of the interesting things about Katrina, as you well know, is many of the people displaced did not own their own homes, that they were renters. One of the goals that I set for my administration through a variety of pretty simple programs -- like helping with down payment and education programs, recognizing that interest rates drive most of the housing purchases -- was to encourage minority home ownership. It's now at an all-time high.

I believe that the idea of empowering our faith-based institutions -- government can help, but government sometimes can't find -- well, it just doesn't pass -- it's not a loving organization. And so I believe strongly -- I believe strongly in empowering faith-based and community-based programs all throughout America to help achieve certain objectives.

Mentoring, for example, mentoring of children in prisoners - - whose mother or dad may be in prison is an initiative I started. Drug rehabilitation, giving those who are eligible for drug money a voucher, money themselves, a scrip so they can redeem it at a program that they choose, not that the government assigns them to. In other words, there's a variety of social service programs aimed at lifting people up.

And so I -- look, many Americans kind of were -- didn't really realize what's taking place in parts of the country that you've described. And Katrina was a wake-up call for many Americans. And now there's an opportunity, in my judgment, to take -- well, for people to take notice and put in policy -- put policies in place that help those who need help, like community health centers, or -- for health care -- or expand educational opportunities through rigorous accountability systems, and, I repeat, demanding change where change is due -- needed, and promoting ownership.

Thanks. Good question.

Q -- is no shrinking violet. First of all, I want to commend you on your presentation today. And I tell you I'm 100 percent behind your fight against terrorism. Also --

THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you just leave it at that?

Q Oh, no. Oh, no. (Laughter and applause.)

I tell you, one of the reasons I'm qualified to say that, you probably heard of Ernie Shavers, the boxer. I trained Ernie Shavers. He fought Muhammad Ali, and Muhammad Ali say he hit him so hard he woke up his ancestors in Africa. (Laughter.) So I know a little bit about boxing and things. But I know in boxing -- and I taught over 3,300 children over 13 years, two of them fought for world championships, including Ernie Shavers. I taught them that the best defense is a good offense. That's what you're doing over there now. And I commend you. (Applause.)

My mom and dad had moved from Alabama to Ohio in the mid '40s. They were the parents of five sons. We all served in the military. I served eight years, and we all served honorably. So I am Marine. I've also been a Boy Scout and a firefighter. To lead in, the young person spoke about domestic policy. This Wednesday coming, I'll be making my sixth trip to the New Orleans, Mississippi area as a contractor. I'm president of the Ohio Minority Contracting Association. I want to publicly thank Senator Voinovich right now for directing me to Senator Trent Lott, who has directed me to Haley Barbour, the Governor down there, who opened up opportunities.

We got people doing debris removal, putting on roofs. And I got a $600,000 proposal to feed 22,000 workers down there who have been underfed. You've been down there. I have, too. People are working 14 and 16 hours a day. And I've never been so proud to be an American, to see the outpouring of people out there helping one another, particularly the faith-based community. So I thank you, appreciate you, and look forward to putting this proposal in your hand. Thank you. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's see, I got an invitation and a proposal. (Laughter.)

Yes, sir. Anybody work here in this town? (Laughter and applause.)

Q Sorry about that. Mr. President, I just finished Ambassador Paul Bremer's book, and one of the things I just wanted to say to you and to Ambassador Bremer is thank you for protecting us.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. (Applause.)

You're next.

Q Okay, my question is --

THE PRESIDENT: We have dueling microphones here. Keep firing away.

Q Okay. My question is, since 9/11, one of the key things that we need is immigration reform, including comprehensive immigration reform that is right now in front of Senator Specter's committee in the Judiciary. There are two principles I'm hoping that you would support: One, the good people, the engineers, the PhDs, the doctors, the nurses, the people in the system who have followed the rules, will go to the head of the line in any form of immigration reform. That's Title IVz of the bill.

Secondly, the illegals who have not followed the rules -- I understand the debate, I appreciate your statements about immigration reform, but isn't it better that we know who they are, have them finger-printed and photographed, and allow some form of 245I to come back so --

THE PRESIDENT: Tell people what that is. Tell people what 245I is.

Q Okay -- 245I is a partial amnesty program that expired back in 2001, in fact, was going to be voted on on 9/11, unfortunately. But those -- it was a small segment of the illegal population where they would pay the $1,000 fine and, for example, coming in illegally, then marrying an American citizen, could somehow legalize their status.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Let me give you some broad principles on immigration reform as I see them. First of all, we do need to know who's coming into our country and whether they're coming in illegally, or not legally -- legally or not legally -- and whether they're coming in or going out. And part of reforms after September the 11th was a better system of finding out who's coming here.

Secondly, we have a big border between Texas and Mexico that's really hard to enforce. We got to do everything we can to enforce the border, particularly in the south. I mean, it's the place where people are pouring across in order to find work. We have a situation in our own neighborhood where there are way -- disparities are huge, and there are jobs in America that people won't do. That's just a fact. I met an onion grower today at the airport when I arrived, and he said, you got to help me find people that will grow onions -- pluck them, or whatever you do with them, you know. (Laughter.) There are jobs that just simply aren't getting done because Americans won't do them. And yet, if you're making 50 cents an hour in Mexico, and you can make a lot more in America, and you got mouths to feed, you're going to come and try to find the work. It's a big border, of which -- across which people are coming to provide a living for their families.

Step one of any immigration policy is to enforce our border in practical ways. We are spending additional resources to be able to use different detection devices, unmanned UAVs, to help - - and expand Border Patrol, by the way, expand the number of agents on the border, to make sure we're getting them the tools necessary to stop people from coming across in the first place.

Secondly, part of the issue we've had in the past is we've had -- for lack of a better word -- catch and release; the Border Patrol would find people sneaking in; they would then hold them for a period of time; they'd say, come back and check in with us 45 days later, and then they wouldn't check in 45 days later. And they would disappear in society to do the work that some Americans will not do.

And so we're changing catch and release. We're particularly focusing on those from Central America who are coming across Mexico's southern border, ending up in our own -- it's a long answer, but it's an important question: How do we protect our borders, and at the same time, be a humane society?

Anyway, step one, focus on enforcing border; when we find people, send them home, so that the work of our Border Patrol is productive work.

Secondly, it seems like to me that part of having a border security program is to say to people who are hiring people here illegally, we're going to hold you to account. The problem is our employers don't know whether they're hiring people illegally because there's a whole forgery industry around people being smuggled into the United States. There's a smuggling industry and a forgery industry. And it's hard to ask our employers, the onion guy out there, whether or not he's got -- whether or not the documents that he's being shown that look real are real.

And so here's a better proposal than what we're doing today, which is to say, if you're going to come to do a job an American won't do, you ought to be given a foolproof card that says you can come for a limited period of time and do work in a job an American won't do. That's border security because it means that people will be willing to come in legally with a card to do work on a limited basis, and then go home. And so the agents won't be chasing people being smuggled in 18-wheelers or across the Arizona desert. They'll be able to focus on drugs and terrorists and guns.

The fundamental question that he is referring to is, what do we do about -- there's two questions -- one, should we have amnesty? And the answer, in my judgment, is, no, we shouldn't have amnesty. In my judgment, granting amnesty, automatic citizenship -- that's what amnesty means -- would cause another 11 million people, or however many are here, to come in the hopes of becoming a United States citizen. We shouldn't have amnesty. We ought to have a program that says, you get in line like everybody else gets in line; and that if the Congress feels like there needs to be higher quotas on certain nationalities, raise the quotas. But don't let people get in front of the line for somebody who has been playing by the rules. (Applause.)

And so, anyway, that's my ideas on good immigration policy. Obviously, there's going to be some questions we have to answer: What about the person who's been here since 1987 -- '86 was the last attempt at coming up with immigration reform -- been here for a long period of time. They've raised a family here. And my only advice for the Congress and for people in the debate is understand what made America. We're a land of immigrants. This guy is from Hungary, you know. (Applause.) And we got to treat people fairly. We've got to have a system of law that is respectful for people.

I mean, the idea of having a program that causes people to get stuck in the back of 18-wheelers, to risk their lives to sneak into America to do work that some people won't do is just not American, in my judgment. And so I would hope the debate would be civil and uphold the honor of this country. And remember, we've been through these periods before, where the immigration debate can get harsh. And it should not be harsh. And I hope -- my call for people is to be rational about the debate and thoughtful about what words can mean during this debate.

Final question, sir. You're paying me a lot of money and I got to go back to work. (Laughter.)

Q My name is Jose Feliciano.

THE PRESIDENT: No.

Q Yes, it is. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- it's like the time I called a guy and said, hey, this is George Bush calling. He said, come on, quit kidding me, man. (Laughter.) Que quiere decir?

Q -- aqui. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's right.

Q And, actually, I'm chairman of the Hispanic Roundtable -- I was going to ask you that same question. However, I'm going to ask you a simple one now, and this relates to preemptive self- defense. How is it, Mr. President, that Iran today is really different from what Iraq was three years ago?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, there were 16 Security Council resolutions. The world had spoken with a clear voice not one time, I think 16 -- is that right, Stretch, 16? I'm asking a member of the press corps. I like to, like, reverse roles sometimes -- (laughter and applause.) Really checking to see if they're paying attention, you know. (Laughter.) Halfway through they kind of start dozing off. (Laughter.)

But the world had spoken by a lot against Saddam Hussein. There was a diplomatic process. You might remember that the Congress, I think in '98, voted a resolution that there should be regime change. My predecessor looked at the same intelligence I looked at and saw a threat. But the difference -- one difference was that in Iraq there was a series of unanimous resolutions that basically held the Iraqi government to account, which Saddam Hussein ignored. It was like resolution after resolution after resolution.

The Iranian issue is just beginning to play out. And my hope, of course, is as I said earlier, that we're able to solve this issue diplomatically. It's very important that the United States work with our allies -- in this case, the lead group of negotiators has been Germany, France, and Great Britain -- so that the Iranians hear a unified voice.

Now, the voice sometimes -- I mean, if you're one -- you're negotiators, probably got some lawyers here who are good negotiators -- it's easier to negotiate one person versus six. I'm not suggesting you're a lawyer, you know, but I kind of had the feeling you might have been. (Laughter.)

And so it's very important for us to continue to make sure that they hear one voice. Non-transparent societies have got an advantage over those of us who are transparent, where every move is in the press, every opinion is aired out. And so it's very important to work to make sure that they hear the one voice. Now, you might have read in the newspapers where our Ambassador in Iraq, Zal, has reached out to the Iranians to make it clear to them about our concerns about involvement in Iraq -- it's very important, however for the Iranians to understand that the discussion is limited to Iraq. We feel like they need to know our position.

Ultimately, Iraq-Iranian relations will be negotiated between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government. Ours is just -- we're using this as an opportunity to make it clear about our concerns of interference within a process that is -- a democratic process that is evolving. Our position is still very clearly that the Iraqis -- Iranians should not have a program to build a nuclear weapon, and/or the capacity, the knowledge necessary to build something which could lead to a nuclear weapon. And we're working closely with or allies and friends to continue to make that clear to them.

So the issues are different. The issues are different stages of diplomacy.

Listen, I've enjoyed this. I hope you have, as well. God bless. (Applause.)

END 1:56 P.M. EST

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Source

About headlines and content that has changed after it was added to this site - see disclaimer here

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.