text:
The President�s FY2008 Budget reduces the deficit each year and reaches a balanced budget within five years. A strong economy and better spending restraint will help us achieve this goal, while continuing to invest in the Nation�s prosperity and security.
Keeping the Economy Strong
For Immediate ReleaseSeptember 29, 2007
President's Radio Address
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.
Today I am signing emergency legislation to fund the Federal government for the next seven weeks. This legislation was necessary because Congress failed in its most basic responsibility: to pass the spending bills that fund the day-to-day operations of the government. There are 12 of these bills this year, and Congress did not complete a single one of them, so Congress had to send me a stop-gap measure before the fiscal year ends this Sunday at midnight.
Congress's failure to pass these 12 spending bills is disappointing, but I do thank the Congress for passing this temporary measure, and for passing it without any new spending, new policies or new projects. It would have been wrong to deny essential government services to the American people while Congress works through its annual spending bills. I also appreciate the way this bill handles our disagreements over the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Congressional leaders have put forward an irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand this program beyond its original intent. And they know I will veto it. But it is good that they kept the program running while they try to work out a more responsible approach.
Congress now has more time to complete its work on its annual spending bills. Earlier this year congressional leaders promised to show that they could be responsible with the people's money. Unfortunately they seem to have chosen the path of higher spending. They have proposed spending increases that would add an extra $205 billion on top of my Administration's budget request over the next five years. There's only one way to pay for such a large spending increase, and that is to raise taxes on the American people. So it is no surprise that the same Members of Congress who are planning this big increase in Federal spending are also planning the biggest tax increase in American history.
If these members get their way, the tax relief my Administration delivered could be taken away from you. Let me explain what this would mean for an average taxpayer. If you have children, your taxes would rise by $500 for each child. If you're a family of four making $60,000 a year, your taxes would be more than $1,800 higher. If you're a single mother with two children, working to make ends meet, your taxes would go up by more than a $1,000. If you're a small business owner working to meet a payroll, your taxes would increase by almost $4,000. And if Congress allows our tax relief to expire, more than 5 million low-income Americans who currently pay no income taxes would once again have to pay taxes.
These are not the only taxes Congress wants to raise. They're proposing higher taxes on dividends and capital gains. They're proposing higher taxes on cigars and cigarettes. They're proposing to raise taxes on domestic oil and natural gas production. They're proposing new taxes on stock and bond transactions. And they refuse to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent. If this tax ban expires, it would open the doors for State and local officials to impose new taxes on your access to the Internet.
At a time when many American families are dealing with rising mortgage rates, college costs, and health care expenses, it is wrong to take even more money out of your paychecks. Washington's elected leaders can do better. By working together, we can keep taxes low, help keep the economy growing, balance the Federal budget, and build on our record of fiscal discipline and greater economic opportunity for all Americans.
Thank you for listening. END
President Bush Signs Bills to Increase Statutory Limit on Public Debt Limit, Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008 and TMA, Abstinence Education, and QI Programs Extension Act of 2007
On Saturday, September 29, 2007, the President signed into law:
H.J.Res. 43, which increases the statutory limit on the public debt limit;
H.J.Res. 52, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2008; and
H.R. 3668, the "TMA, Abstinence Education, and QI Programs Extension Act of 2007," which extends the Transitional Medical Assistance, Abstinence Education, and Qualifying Individuals programs, and modifies other Medicare and Medicaid programs.
"By encouraging cooperative conservation, innovation, and new technologies, my Administration has compiled a strong environmental record. This Earth Day, harmful air pollutant levels are down more than ten percent since 2001. Millions more Americans are drinking cleaner, safer water. We have removed hazardous fuels from more than 19 million acres of federal land. We have created, restored, or protected more than 2.5 million acres of wetlands, and we have conserved almost 200 million of acres of habitat through Farm Bill conservation programs. And we are taking positive steps to confront the important challenge of climate change. Our work is not done. We also have a responsibility to pass on to future generations our commitment to the environment."
-- President George W. BushApril 20, 2007
On September 28, 2007, President Bush will address the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change and urge a new path forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. Today's meeting launches President Bush's major economies initiative to work with all of the world's largest users of energy and largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, including both developed and developing nations, to establish a new international approach on energy security and climate change in 2008 that will contribute to a global agreement by 2009 under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Key To This Effort Will Be The Advance Of Clean Energy Technologies
By developing new, low-emission technologies, the world's major economies can meet the growing demand for energy while reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. For many years, those who worried about climate change and those who worried about energy security were on opposite ends of the debate. But these challenges share a common solution: technology.
The United States Is Leading The Way In Developing Clean Energy Technologies
Since the President took office, the Federal government has invested nearly $18 billion to research, develop, and promote clean and efficient energy technologies and help get them to market. The private sector has responded with significant investments, ranging from corporate research and development to the venture capital markets.
An Age Of Clean Energy Requires Transforming The Way We Produce Electricity
Since 2001, the United States has invested more than $2.5 billion to research and develop clean coal. In addition, in partnership with other nations and the private sector, the U.S. is moving closer to producing energy from the world's first zero emissions coal-fired plant.
The United States is working to reduce barriers to new nuclear power plants in the country without compromising safety. Just last week, a company filed the first application since the 1970s to build new nuclear reactors in the U.S.
Since 2001, America has increased wind energy production by more than 300 percent and launched the Solar America initiative to lower the cost of solar power. Taken together, low-carbon technologies like wind and solar power have the potential to contribute significantly to America�s electricity production.
An Age Of Clean Energy Also Requires Transforming The Way We Fuel Our Cars And Trucks
America is investing in new clean energy alternatives:
The President's "Twenty in Ten" plan will help ensure cost-effective new technologies reach the market. This plan will help reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by as much as 20 percent in ten years by:
As We Work To Transform Energy Production, We Must Also Address Unsustainable Rates Of Deforestation
Scientists estimate that nearly 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to deforestation. The world's forests help reduce the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by storing carbon dioxide in trees. But when our forests disappear, the concentration of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere increases. We need to preserve and expand forests at home and abroad.
America has taken steps to help increase the amount of carbon storage in our forests and to safeguard our forests for future generations:
The U.S. is also partnering with other nations to promote forest conservation and management across the world. We welcome and support new initiatives from Australia, Brazil, China, and Indonesia, and will continue to do our part. We remain committed to initiatives such as the Congo Basin Forest Partnership and Asia Forest Partnership. We will also continue our efforts through the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, which helps developing nations redirect debt payments toward forest conservation programs.
# # #
For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretarySeptember 28, 2007
Fact Sheet: Toward a New Global Approach to Climate Change and Energy Security President Bush Addresses Climate Change At First Major Economies Meeting On Energy Security As Part Of His New Initiative In May 2007 And Welcomed By G8 Leaders In June And APEC Leaders In September
Today, President Bush will address the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change and urge a new path forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. Today's meeting launches President Bush's major economies initiative to work with all of the world's largest users of energy and largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, including both developed and developing nations, to establish a new international approach on energy security and climate change in 2008 that will contribute to a global agreement by 2009 under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
President Bush Participates in Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change U.S. Department of State, 10:09 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you. Welcome to the State Department. I'm honored to address this historic meeting on energy security and climate change. And I appreciate you all being here.
Energy security and climate change are two of the great challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously. The world's response will help shape the future of the global economy and the condition of our environment for future generations. The nations in this room have special responsibilities. We represent the world's major economies, we are major users of energy, and we have the resources and knowledge base to develop clean energy technologies.
Our guiding principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. We know this can be done. Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases. Several other nations have made similar strides.
This progress points us in the right direction, but we've got to do more. So before this year's G8 summit, I announced that the United States will work with other nations to establish a new international approach to energy security and climate change. Today's meeting is an important step in this process. With the work we begin today, we can agree on a new approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen energy security, encourage economic growth and sustainable development, and advance negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Applause.)
I thank the State Department for hosting this event. I appreciate members of my Cabinet who have joined us today. I thank Jim Connaughton, who is the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, for being here. I appreciate you being the personal representative of this, and I hope you're doing -- I hope you think he's doing a fine job. (Applause.)
I welcome Minister Rachmat, the Minister of Environment of Indonesia, who is the Chairman of the upcoming U.N. climate meeting in December. I welcome Mr. de Boer, who is the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. I welcome all the ministers and delegates who are here. We really appreciate you coming. I thank the ambassadors for joining this august group. I thank members of the Congress who have taken time to come by: Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Congressman Bart Gordon of Tennessee. I appreciate you taking time to come by and participate in these meetings.
Every day energy brings countless benefits to our people. Energy powers new hospitals and schools so we can live longer and more productive lives. Energy transforms the way we produce food, so we can feed our growing populations. Energy enables us to travel and communicate across great distances, so we can expand trade and prosperity. Energy sustains the world's most advanced economies, which makes it possible for us to devote resources to fighting hunger and disease and poverty around the globe.
In this new century, the need for energy will only grow. Much of this increased demand will come from the developing world, where nations will need more energy to build critical infrastructure and grow their economies, improve the lives of their people. Overall, the demand for energy is expected to rise by more than 50 percent by 2030.
This growing demand for energy is a sign of a vibrant, global economy. Yet it also possesses -- poses serious challenges, and one of them, of course, is energy security. Right now much of the world's energy comes from oil, and much of the oil comes from unstable regions and rogue states. This dependence leaves the global economy vulnerable to supply shocks and shortages and manipulation, and to extremists and terrorists who could cause great disruptions of oil shipments.
Another challenge is climate change. Our understanding of climate change has come a long way. A report issued earlier this year by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded both that global temperatures are rising and that this is caused largely by human activities. When we burn fossil fuels we release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the concentration of greenhouse gases has increased substantially.
For many years those who worried about climate change and those who worried about energy security were on opposite ends of the debate. It was said that we faced a choice between protecting the environment and producing enough energy. Today we know better. These challenges share a common solution: technology. By developing new low-emission technologies, we can meet the growing demand for energy and at the same time reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, our nations have an opportunity to leave the debates of the past behind, and reach a consensus on the way forward. And that's our purpose today.
No one country has all the answers, including mine. The best way to tackle this problem is to think creatively and to learn from other's experiences and to come together on a way to achieve the objectives we share. Together, our nations will pave the way for a new international approach on greenhouse gas emissions.
This new approach must involve all the world's largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, including developed and developing nations. We will set a long-term goal for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem. And by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it.
By next summer, we will convene a meeting of heads of state to finalize the goal and other elements of this approach, including a strong and transparent system for measuring our progress toward meeting the goal we set. This will require concerted effort by all our nations. Only by doing the necessary work this year will it be possible to reach a global consensus at the U.N. in 2009.
Each nation will design its own separate strategies for making progress toward achieving this long-term goal. These strategies will reflect each country's different energy resources, different stages of development, and different economic needs.
There are many policy tools that nations can use, including a variety of market mechanisms, to create incentives for companies and consumers to invest in new low-emission energy sources. We will also form working groups with leaders of different sectors of our economies, which will discuss ways of sharing technology and best practices.
Each nation must decide for itself the right mix of tools and technologies to achieve results that are measurable and environmentally effective. While our strategies may be differentiated, we share a common responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing.
The key to this effort will be the advance of clean energy technologies. Since I became President, the United States government has invested nearly $18 billion to research, develop and promote clean and efficient energy technologies. The private sector here in our country has responded with significant investments, ranging from corporate research and development to venture capital. Our investments in research and technology are bringing the world closer to a remarkable breakthrough -- an age of clean energy where we can power our growing economies and improve the lives of our people and be responsible stewards of the earth the Almighty trusted to our care.
The age of clean energy requires transforming the way we produce electricity. Electric power plants that burn coal are the world's leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions. The world's supply of coal is secure and abundant. And our challenge is take advantage of it while maintaining our commitment to the environment. One promising solution is advanced clean coal technology. The future of this technology will allow us to trap and store carbon emissions and air pollutants produced by burning coal. Since 2001 the United States has invested more than $2.5 billion to research and develop clean coal. And in partnership with other nations and the private sector we're moving closer to a historic achievement -- producing energy from the world's first zero-emissions coal-fired plant.
We also need to take advantage of clean safe nuclear power. Nuclear power is the one existing source of energy that can generate massive amounts of electricity without causing any air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Without the world's 439 nuclear power plants, there would be nearly 2 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere each year. And by expanding the use of nuclear power, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions even more.
The United States is working to reduce barriers to new nuclear power plants in our country without compromising safety. Just last week, a company applied for approval to build the first new nuclear reactor in my country since the since the 1970s. As we build new reactors here in the United States, we're also working to bring the benefits of nuclear energy to other countries.
My administration established a new initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. This partnership will work with nations with advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as France and Japan and China and Russia. Together we will help developing nations obtain secure, cost-effective and proliferation-resistant nuclear power, so they can have a reliable source of zero-emissions energy.
We'll also need to expand our use of two other promising sources of zero-emissions energy, and that's wind and solar power. Wind power is becoming cost-effective in many parts of America. We've increased wind energy production by more than 300 percent. We also launched the Solar America Initiative to lower the cost of solar power, so we can make -- help make this technology competitive, as well. Taken together, low-carbon technologies like wind and solar power have the potential to one day provide up to 20 percent of America's electricity.
The age of clean energy also requires transforming the way we fuel our cars and trucks. Almost all our vehicles run on gasoline or diesel fuel. This means we produce greenhouse gas emissions whenever we get behind the wheel. Transportation accounts for about 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions every year. To reduce these emissions we must reduce our dependence on oil. So America is investing in new, clean alternatives. We're investing millions of dollars to develop the next generation of sustainable biofuels like cellulosic ethanol, which means we'll use everything from wood chips to grasses to agricultural waste to make ethanol.
We're offering tax credits to encourage Americans to drive fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles. We're working to develop next-generation plug-in hybrids that will be able to travel nearly 40 miles without using a drop of gasoline. And your automobile doesn't have to look like a golf cart. (Laughter.)
We're on track to meet our pledge of investing $1.2 billion to develop advanced hydrogen-powered vehicles that emit pure water instead of exhaust fumes. We're also taking steps to make sure these technologies reach the market. We've asked Congress to set a new mandatory -- I repeat, mandatory -- fuel standard that requires 35 billion gallons of renewable and other alternative fuels in 2017, and to reform fuel economy standards for cars the same way we did for light trucks. Together these two steps will help us cut America's consumption of gasoline by 20 percent in 10 years. It's an initiative I've called 20-in-10.
Ushering in the age of clean energy is an historic undertaking. We take it seriously here in the United States. Achieving this vision will require major investment in innovation by all our nations. Today the United States and Japan fund most of the research and development for clean energy technologies. Meeting the objectives we share and the goal we're going to set will require all the nations in this hall to increase their clean energy research and development investments.
We must also work to make these technologies more widely available, especially in the developing world. So today I propose that we join together to create a new international clean technology fund. This fund will be supported by contributions from governments from around the world, and it will help finance clean energy projects in the developing world. I've asked Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to coordinate this effort, and he plans to begin exploratory discussions with your countries over the next several months.
At the same time, we also must promote global free trade in energy technology. The most immediate and effective action we can take is to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers on clean energy goods and services.
As we work to transform the way we produce energy, we must also address another major factor in climate change, which is deforestation. The world's forests help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by storing carbon dioxide. But when our forests disappear, the concentration of greenhouse gas levels rise in the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that nearly 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas admissions [sic] are attributable to deforestation.
We're partnering with other nations to promote forest conservation and management across the world. We welcome new commitments from Australia, Brazil, with China and Indonesia. The United States remains committed to initiatives such as the Congo Basin Forest Partnership and the Asian Forest Partnership. We will continue our efforts through the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, which helps developing nations redirect debt payments toward forest conservation programs. So far my administration has concluded 12 agreements, concluding [sic] up to 50 million acres of forest lands.
America's efforts also include an $87-million initiative to help developing nations stop illegal logging. These efforts will help developing nations save their forests, and combat a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
The United States is also taking steps to protect forests in our own country. It's one thing to help others; we got to make sure we do a good job here at home -- and we are. Since 2001, we've provided more than $3 billion to restore our forests and protect them against catastrophic fires as part of a Healthy Forest Initiative. In partnership with our farmers and ranchers, we're providing tens of billions of dollars in incentives for conservation. We're promoting sustainable public and private land-management policies. By taking these steps, we've helped increase the amount of carbon storage in our forests, and we've helped safeguard a national treasure for generations to come.
What I'm telling you is, is that we've got a strategy; we've got a comprehensive approach. And we look forward to working with our Congress to make sure that comprehensive approach is effective. And we look forward to working with you as a part of this global effort to do our duty.
And we've done this kind of work before. And we have confidence in the success of our efforts. Twenty years ago nations finalized an agreement called the Montreal Protocol to phase-out substances that were depleting the ozone layer. Since then, we have made great strides to repair the damage. Just last week, developed and developing nations reached consensus on speeding up the recovery of the ozone layer by accelerating the phase-out of these harmful substances. This accelerated phase out will bring larger benefits because they'll dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We have seen what happens when we come together to work for a common cause, and we can do it again. And that's what I'm here to urge you. The United States will do our part. We take this issue seriously. And we look forward to bringing a spirit of cooperation and commitment to our efforts to confront the challenges of energy security and climate change. By working together, we will set wise and effective policies. That's what I'm interested in, effective policies. I want to get the job done. We've identified a problem, let's go solve it together.
We will harness the power of technology. There is a way forward that will enable us to grow our economies and protect the environment, and that's called technology. We'll meet our energy needs. We'll be good stewards of this environment. Achieving these goals will require a sustained effort over many decades. This problem isn't going to be solved overnight. Yet years from now our children are going to look back at the choices we make today, at this deciding moment: It will be a moment when we choose to expand prosperity instead of accepting stagnation; it will be a moment when we turn the tide against greenhouse gas emissions instead of allowing the problem to grow; it will be a moment when we rejected the predictions of despair and set a course of a more hopeful future.
The moment is now, and I appreciate you attending this meeting. And we look forward to working with you. May God bless you all. (Applause.) END 10:29 A.M. EDT
Excerpt of President's Radio Address on SCHIP Legislation
Friday, September 28, 2007
I also appreciate the way this bill handles our disagreements over the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Congressional leaders have put forward an irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand this program beyond its original intent. And they know I will veto it. But it is good that they kept the program running while they try to work out a more responsible approach.
Press Briefing by Dana Perino James S. Brady Briefing Room, 12:00 P.M. EDT
MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. Happy Friday. I have nothing to begin with; go ahead. Kelly.
Q When the President spoke with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to her, she offered prayers that the President would not veto the S-CHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program. Has the President changed his view?
MS. PERINO: I didn't -- I wasn't there for the conversation. I know that they did speak. The President was happy to take a phone call from the Speaker, as he always is. They had a conversation in which Speaker Pelosi asked the President not to veto the bill. The President has been very clear for months that if the bill came to him in its current form, that he would veto it. That is his intention. And I don't see any changing of the minds there.
But what he did say is that, I'm going to veto this bill and after that let's see if we can sit down and come to a compromise. The President's position and the principle that he will stick to is that the neediest children should be served first, and that's the one he's going to stand by.
Q What did God tell him, from prayers?
MS. PERINO: Well, you know, just one thing about that -- I think that the rhetoric in Washington can get so heated sometimes. I think it is preposterous for people to suggest that the President of the United States doesn't care about children, that he wants children to suffer. There are things I've been reading about feelings that the President -- that there's -- ascribing feelings that the President has about children that are absolutely not his view. You don't see the President suggesting that no one cares about children.
The President's principle on this program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, is that the neediest children should be taken care of first. The bill that they signed -- that they passed last night specifically eliminated the requirement that states enroll 90 percent of children in households under 200 percent of the federal poverty level. And that's the reason the President is going to veto this bill.
The President cares just as much as anyone else about the children of the United States.
Q Do you mean he rules out --
MS. PERINO: It eliminated --
Q -- that lower level?
MS. PERINO: -- it eliminated that requirement from the bill.
Q The requirement; but it doesn't rule the kids out of the program, does it?
MS. PERINO: No, but it rules out the requirement, and the point is that the President believes that the requirement is important for the neediest children to be taken care of first.
There is a policy difference here. It's not about who cares about children more than the other. It's a policy difference. And the President is saying, let's take care of the neediest children first, let's not put scarce federal dollars towards a program that was meant for the poorest children and let it creep up to middle income families with incomes up to $83,000 a year.
Q Doesn't he think the neediest -- does he think they are not --
MS. PERINO: And on that point, the President consistently since his -- since he has been President has tried to address the root causes of our health care problems. If you go back to this year's State of the Union, he wants to provide Americans, all Americans, with access to affordable health care. And he has proposed ways to do that through our tax system and making it more fair for people to be able to buy insurance on their own; on portability, meaning allowing people who are changing jobs to be able to take their health care with them; to be able to work with the states in order to provide more money.
Q What's he afraid of? What's he afraid of -- really providing more health care?
MS. PERINO: And another point on S-CHIP -- the other thing on S-CHIP is that the states are welcome to spend as much additional money as they would like on their program in their state. This is about a federal match program. And so the President is going to veto the bill, and then we will get about the business of talking about how to move forward.
Another point to make, just so that you all know, there is an extension of this program in the continuing resolution. So no one is going to lose their coverage because of this veto. There will be an extension and then we'll move forward.
Q Does it strike the President that 18 senators -- Republican senators voted for this bill? Did that make him have any second thoughts about his plan to veto?
MS. PERINO: The President does not have second thoughts. We have continued to reach out to members of Congress to let them know what the President's position is and why he feels that way. And he recognizes that there are some on Capitol Hill who disagree. As the President, he has the power to veto a bill, and that's what he intends to do.
Q Is he going to explore with any of these Republican senators their thinking and --
MS. PERINO: Well, certainly we want -- when the President says to Nancy Pelosi that he would like to make sure that we all sit down and have a conversation, that will include the -- members of the President's own party. I don't have any updates for you in terms of scheduling on that. We don't know when we will get the bill to veto it.
Q Will there be coverage?
MS. PERINO: Of the veto? Stay tuned. I would assume so.
Q So is he assuming that the House would not overturn his veto? Because it appears that the Senate would.
MS. PERINO: Well, we'll have to see. I'm not a vote-counter. But right now it looks like the House would not be able to override the President's veto.
Q Dana, on a related thing, the Senate passed the CR last night, 94-1. What's the plans for the signing of that? Does he have to do that by Sunday night?
MS. PERINO: Just by Sunday night. So we'll keep you updated. He will sign it before then, to make sure that everything -- all the trains continue to run on time.
Q But he will be signing it?
MS. PERINO: He will sign it.
Q Does he have it?
MS. PERINO: I don't know.
Q So what are you doing to keep the House Republicans in line on this to prevent an override? You said you think that --
MS. PERINO: I think that the House Republicans are able to make up their own mind and to look at a policy and make a decision. No doubt that it's difficult, especially politically and in a communications -- it's a communications challenge when there are advertisements running in your district saying that you don't care about children, which is preposterous. But if you stand on principle, you ultimately will win on the end because you have good policy. And that's what the President --
Q We have lots of kids without health care.
Q So what's the political advice from here to Republicans who are in the swing districts and close races and so forth who are finding themselves targets of that and are getting pressure from a number of quarters on this?
MS. PERINO: Sure, there's a lot of pressure from all different sides, and we're going to have an increasing number of spending bill fights going into the fall. As you know, the Congress hasn't passed any of its appropriations bills yet, and we're going to have a continuing resolution. The President would prefer to have some bills so that we can actually make sure that we're spending taxpayer dollars wisely.
And advice that the President would give, I think, is that they have to think about the principle here. What the President wants to do is cover the neediest children first. And that is a really good principle to stand on.
Q Another principle the President made in his State of the Union, like you said, was to increase access. He's also indicated he's flexible -- maybe a refundable tax credit. I guess my question is, first of all, the CR only extends through November 16th, so you only have a negotiating period up until then. But Grassley indicated earlier in the week that he believes from previous discussions that the real issue here is leveraging CHIP to try to get some of these other proposals, to try to get a larger package of health care through. Is the White House open to doing that, whether linking it, or, you know, using --
MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on what future discussions are going to be. It could be a range of things that they talk about. But I can tell you this: In the State of the Union the President announced his health care policies, and we did lots of outreach on that. And we would hope that the Congress would try to take those up. And that was in the President's budget. At the same time -- and in the same budget -- was the President's proposal to increase the S-CHIP funding by 20 percent for the next five years. And so those two things have been going on a parallel track -- we didn't link them, meaning that you could only have one without the other. They were both in the budget.
Q I know you didn't link them then, but now you're facing a real showdown. Has the White House been insistent that you only want to do this as a stand-alone bill or --
MS. PERINO: As I told you earlier -- probably in my office -- there's going to be lots of discussions moving forward and we'll keep you updated as we can.
Q Dana, explain why you think the neediest wouldn't be helped first. Even though this expands the poverty level, or goes above a certain percentage, why do you think the other --
MS. PERINO: Well, the fact is that --
Q -- children would be jumped over? Just explain --
MS. PERINO: Sure. Well the fact is that there are -- I don't know which report it is, there's lot of reports out on this -- but that there are many children in the states who would qualify for S-CHIP who are not signed up. They are not enrolled. And over the years the states have signed up children of higher incomes that wouldn't necessarily fit under that 200 percent of poverty level or under. We would like to have more aggressive searching for these other children who could be on this program and take care of them first. And the other thing we don't want to do is have people move off of private insurance onto government-run health care. We don't think that's the right policy here.
Q Okay, but your -- your theory is that they should put more effort into searching for these kids who aren't on it. That's what the --
MS. PERINO: We should sign them up.
Q -- emphasis should be before other children who others believe -- I mean why not get as many on --
MS. PERINO: We don't think that we should move --
Q -- as possible, if they're not signing on, why not bring the others in?
MS. PERINO: Well, because we don't think that we should move children who are already able to be covered under private health care insurance should be simply moved off of that and put on to a government program. If they have private health insurance, that is a better system for the children as well.
Q And that's just their incentive. You think that people who are on private health care will just suddenly move to the --
MS. PERINO: That has been happening. That has been happening.
Q Dana, two quick questions. One: At the United Nations, that was really one of best speeches President ever had in the U.N. He had a great -- he had a strong warning for Burma, and Burma is still burning. There is the bloodshed in yesterday's Washington Post editorial, (inaudible) save Burma. But how can we save Burma? And what authority do you think President had from the United Nations Security Council and international community, especially China and Russia?
MS. PERINO: Well, we are very pleased that U.N. Envoy Mr. Gambari is going to be going to Burma; he will be there tomorrow. We have called on the Burmese to allow him to be able to meet with anyone he wants to meet -- military leaders, religious leaders, and Aung San Suu Kyi. And we will have more information as we get it out of that meeting. It could take a little bit of time over the weekend to get that. In addition to that, yesterday Treasury Department tightened sanctions on many individuals, and the State Department has just announced additional people who are placed on their travel ban.
Q Also, in New York also, the President of Iran sounds like Hitler of the 1940's and he said that as far as the nuclear issue is concerned his country -- it is a closed issue.
MS. PERINO: Oh. Well, the President of Iran said a lot of things in the United Nations but I think the one thing that he accomplished was to remind the United Nations Security Council why they should remain tough, hang together, and make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon.
Q Has any other nation --
MS. PERINO: Go ahead, Toby.
Q When the President met with the Chinese Foreign Minister yesterday, did he receive any assurances at all that China will step in on this Myanmar?
MS. PERINO: I wasn't there for their private discussion. I know that the President was pleased that -- I think that the Chinese were helpful in allowing to make sure the U.N. Special Envoy was allowed to get there, to Burma.
Q The question is, you know, the United States has had sanctions on Myanmar for years and years, and it hasn't really done anything. So why would you think that these additional sanctions will accomplish anything more?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think that they've had impact in other places around the world when we've used them. It's a good tool. And by tightening them on the individuals we announced yesterday, in addition to this travel ban -- we can do that from our end, but the President also spoke to Prime Minister Gordon Brown today, in order to continue to have conversations with our international partners to keep the pressure on, to make sure that we are supportive of the Burmese people so that they can return to a free society.
Q Dana, to go back to S-CHIP. I just want to clear this up. The assertion that the neediest or some of the neediest children are not being served rests on the belief that they haven't been found, and that is --
MS. PERINO: Well, that's part of the problem --
Q -- the entire reason for asserting?
MS. PERINO: Well, we've had lots of statements of administration policy on this. It is an issue that is very complicated. But one of the things that has happened over the past several years is that children who would be over 200 percent of poverty in their household have been added to the S-CHIP rolls over time. And some states have started putting adults on that program, as well.
The President thinks that we should return to the original intent of the program, which is children under 200 percent of poverty should be covered first, before others are added to the program.
Q Your rationale for believing that they aren't already covered is what?
MS. PERINO: I believe it's well documented. I can't remember the study, though. I don't think that anyone is actually disabusing us of that notion. The states -- one of the things that Hillary Clinton and Senator Schumer put into their -- one of the bills was an allowance for people to go up to -- that that state to go up to 400 percent of the poverty level.
Q Sure, but how do we know that the neediest kids are not being covered?
MS. PERINO: I'll get it for you. I'll get it for you.
Q And why is that, and is that, the only rationale you have for saying that you can't --
MS. PERINO: No, the other point that we have is there is a -- the policy difference; the policy difference of not wanting to have additional government-run health care, socialized-type medicine, for this problem. One of the things here is that we have a problem where we need to address the root causes of it. And there are differences of opinion. Democrats tend to want to address things with bigger government programs; Republicans don't, and this President falls in that category.
Q Dana, just --
Q Dana, on the climate change speech the President gave today --
MS. PERINO: Let me go to Martha and then I'll go to Wendell.
Q Just one -- just one little bit from yesterday. Do you know the percentages -- you said, for instance, that there are children who had private health insurance.
MS. PERINO: That have been moved off.
Q That have been moved off. Do you know the percentages of those who actually had it --
MS. PERINO: Let me see if I can get them for you.
Q -- who were moved off?
MS. PERINO: I'll see if I can get them for you.
Q On the climate change speech the President gave today, he said once again that goals for greenhouse gas emissions is sufficient; better than mandatory limits. Isn't it inherent in the President's argument that mandatory limits would hurt economies; that the goals would not be as aggressive as the mandatory limits?
MS. PERINO: Not necessarily. I think -- yes, the President believes that the mandatory limits that Kyoto would have placed on the United States would have been very harmful. And apparently, so did 98 other senators who voted against Kyoto back in the Clinton administration.
Q I believe I'm talking about Kyoto at this point. I'm talking about setting --
MS. PERINO: I'm making a point.
Q Okay.
MS. PERINO: The President has set a goal in 2001 for the -- I'm sorry, 2002 -- for the United States to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012. That was a goal. And we measure it every year. And we are held to account on that goal. And we, because of lots of different actions in several different sectors across the economy, we are on track to meet that goal. Countries that place -- that have goals strive to meet them. That is the point.
But mandatory cuts on carbon emissions, the President believes, would not be the right thing for the economy because, one reason -- the technology does not exist today to be able to do that. On the other hand, if you look at the Montreal Protocol, which reduced CFCs -- it's the substance that helps eat away the ozone layer -- that technology existed. And so when governments were putting money into those technologies, they were seeing an immediate return on investment.
The only way right now, today, in order to stop carbon emissions coming out of coal-fired power plants -- of which 54 percent of our energy is derived -- is to turn them off. And that's why the President thinks that we should move forward on several different parallel tracks: alternative energy, new technologies that are cleaner-burning, and also some mandatory measures. We have a renewable fuel standard that we want, 35 billion gallons by -- let's see -- 20-in-10, so it's 2017. So we have lots of different ways that we can move forward.
But one of the things the President wanted to do today is to get beyond the fights about Kyoto and to get to the post-Kyoto discussions that the U.N. is going to be having, and bring together all the major economies. Because in Kyoto the developing countries weren't a part of it. Now, what the President did today is have all the major emitting countries, all the major economies come together and decide, how can we establish a goal long-term. And everyone is going to have to report what their midterm goals are, as well.
Each state is different, each state has a different fuel mix: some use a lot of coal; some use a lot of wind; some have natural gas. It's going to depend on individual countries. Instead of a cram-down, the President wants to see some bottom-up action.
Q You seem to be telling me that mandatory caps would have to be the Kyoto caps; goals would be something else. My question is, isn't it inherent in the idea of setting a goal, rather than mandatory caps, the goal is not going to be as aggressive? Why would the caps have to be --
MS. PERINO: That's not necessarily true. A goal can be just as aggressive. If you look at -- many countries that signed up to Kyoto, they weren't able to meet those targets.
Q Let me try one more time.
MS. PERINO: Okay.
Q If your mandatory cap is not as stringent as Kyoto required -- I mean, you're telling me the technology does not exist to meet the Kyoto caps. I'll agree with that. If you set a cap that is less aggressive, what is the problem with that?
MS. PERINO: Let me take a step back. Whether you have a mandatory cap or a goal, there are some countries that didn't meet their mandatory cap anyway. So I think the President's point of establishing a goal that the entire world can get behind is a better approach than having just a few countries, and not including the developing world.
Look, the developing world is going to have to not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also figure out a way to keep their economies going. Some of these countries, people live in terrible poverty and they need energy in order to have jobs and heat their homes and light their homes and their schools, and they need to have clean-burning technologies in order to be able to do that.
One exciting thing that the President announced today is this international global technology fund, which people could put money into, we could pool resources, pool ideas and ingenuity so we can come up with the new technologies. But then these other countries that are developing, like China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, can take advantage of what they have -- an ability to grow their economy without harming the environment at the same time.
Q Dana, on S-CHIP, on the requirement that 90 percent of the children be enrolled, 90 percent is a very high number, and it's quite difficult --
MS. PERINO: It's 95 percent.
Q -- 95 percent, well, it's even higher. It's quite difficult to reach that number of children. Would the President be willing to compromise and to go down, perhaps, to 85 percent?
MS. PERINO: We'll see what happens in the discussions after the -- after he vetoes the bill. I don't know.
Q It almost seems as though the number has been set so high as to make it unattainable.
MS. PERINO: Look, as a society we have a responsibility to help the neediest people first, and that's what the President wants to do.
Paula, I'm going to go up here, since you've had a few. Elaine.
Q Dana, do you have anything more on this SVTS this morning with the President and the Prime Minister? Were there any kind of agreements made or additional steps that they might take on Burma?
MS. PERINO: On which, on Burma?
Q Burma.
MS. PERINO: They had a very good discussion, the Prime Minister and Gordon -- and President Bush this morning. It lasted about a half an hour. There was a discussion on Burma. It lasted about a half an hour. They covered several topics. On Burma they agreed to continue to work cooperatively. The EU is currently looking at sanctions, as well, and that would be coupled with the ones that we've done, including -- and possibly others around the world. So there was a commitment also to follow up after the Mr. Gambari visit.
Q And then I have another question, unrelated to this. Apparently this week Rush Limbaugh used the phrase "phony soldiers" to describe American troops who oppose the Iraq war. Given that the President has commented last week on the MoveOn ad of General Petraeus, and called it disgusting, is this something that the President would feel compelled to comment on?
MS. PERINO: It's the first I've heard of that comment. I'm taking that it is accurate; I have not heard it myself. The President believes that if you are serving in the military that you have the right that every American has, which is you are free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there are some that oppose the war, and that's okay.
Q And the use of the phrase "phony soldiers" to describe these --
MS. PERINO: It's not one that the President would have used, no.
Q Back on climate, Dana. The President talked about his approach bringing -- as a way to find consensus. But his approach is very different from the Europeans. So isn't that sort of -- the consensus will only be reached if Europeans --
MS. PERINO: I actually think that we're closer -- I think that a lot of Europeans support this meeting that we've had today. And if you look at -- I know that there have been some comments out there, with some people saying they wanted to have it the old way. The old way didn't work, and it didn't include the developing nations. And this is a way to get everybody talking on the same page, so that as you go into the 2012 -- post-2012 U.N. discussions and negotiations in a post-Kyoto world, you have all those major emitting countries on the same page, working together.
Q Do you see that attitude expressed by Europeans, that the old way didn't work?
MS. PERINO: Certainly. I think that if you talk to any of your colleagues who were there at the State Department meetings, you'll see that there's a lot of support for what the President is doing. And we didn't do it on our own, we had a lot of help. And we're looking forward to the Bali meetings in December, and then additional actions over the year.
Q Dana.
MS. PERINO: Yes, Les.
Q Thank you very much. Two questions. The Washington Post quotes Irena Briganti of FOX News as saying, "National Public Radio's lack of news judgment is astonishing and their treatment of a respected journalist like Juan Williams is appalling." And my question: Could you tell us how the President feels about this tax-exempt and tax-supported network so discriminating against an undeniably qualified reporter who he invited to interview him?
MS. PERINO: That's a question for NPR to answer, for the decision that they made --
Q No, no, I want to know what the President thinks.
MS. PERINO: I've never spoken to the President about what he thinks about any particular organization. We enjoy working with them here at the White House. They have really good correspondents that we like working with.
Q All right. The President does not believe that the First Amendment prohibits him from speaking out against the Miller Brewing Company's widely reported financing of an obscene parody of "Jesus Christ's Last Supper" in San Francisco, does he?
MS. PERINO: Well, you're clearing the room, Les. I'm going to decline to comment.
Q Thank you. END 12:24 P.M. EDT
For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretarySeptember 27, 2007
President Bush Meets with Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters and Federal Aviation Administration Acting Administrator Bobby Sturgell Oval Office, 2:20 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Today I'm joined by Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, and the Acting Administrator of the FAA, Bobby Sturgell. I want to thank you all for coming.
We've been having a discussion about the fact that a lot of our air travelers are not only inconvenienced, they're -- in some cases they're just not being treated fairly. And there's a lot of anger amongst our citizens about the fact that, you know, they're just not being treated right.
And the Secretary and I have been talking about what to do about it, and I've instructed her to report back to me as quickly as possible on two matters: One, to make sure that consumers are treated fairly and complaints are listened to, and that we address some of the egregious behavior that our consumers have been subjected to. Endless hours sitting in a airplane on a runway, and there's no communication between the pilot and the airport is just not right. And so Mary is going to work very hard to make sure the system is much more responsive.
The other issue, of course, is dealing with congestion. One of the reasons why consumers on airlines, airline passengers are being so inconvenienced is because the skies are too crowded. And there's some short-term things we're going to do, and Mary is going to report back to me about what those will be.
Also Congress needs to look at this FAA reauthorization -- I call it "modernization" -- and work with this department, and work with Bobby bringing our FAA into the 21st century, so that our consumers and passengers and citizens won't be inconvenienced with it.
We've got a problem, we understand there's a problem, and we're going to address the problem. Madam Secretary, I appreciate your willingness to do so.
SECRETARY PETERS: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. END 2:21 P.M. EDT
Fact Sheet: New Steps to Address Airport Passenger Delays
President Bush Announces Administrative Steps To Reduce Delays, Urges Congress To Act On Common Sense Reforms
Today, President Bush directed Transportation Secretary Mary Peters to take action to address air traffic congestion and flight delays. President Bush has asked Secretary Peters to meet with airline industry and aviation officials in the most over-stressed part of our system � the New York metro airspace � to develop a plan to alleviate congestion and reduce delays. A third of the Nation's air traffic passes through this airspace, and two-thirds of the Nation's air traffic can be affected when the New York area experiences delays. This means delays there affect travelers across the Nation. Secretary Peters will report back to the President before the end of the year with proposed solutions that could be in effect by next summer.
The President has laid out two steps that will help alleviate delays and related consumer problems:
In February, the Administration sent Congress a practical, comprehensive plan to modernize our air traffic control system, but Congress has failed to act on this proposal or address growing aviation delays in any meaningful way. The President urges Congress to act with the Administration to make bold aviation reforms this fall. The Administration's proposal:
To ensure the summer of 2008 is not worse than 2007, DOT and the FAA are pushing forward immediately in the following areas:
In just eight days, the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- or "SCHIP" -- is set to expire. This important program helps children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but who do not qualify for Medicaid, to get the coverage they need. I strongly supported SCHIP as a governor, and have strongly supported it as President. My 2008 budget proposed to increase SCHIP funding by $5 billion over five years, a 20 percent increase over current funding.
Instead of working with my Administration to enact this funding increase for children's health, Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed. One of their leaders has even said such a veto would be a "political victory." As if this weren't irresponsible enough, Congress is waiting until the SCHIP program is just about to expire before passing a final bill. In other words, Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point. The proposal congressional leaders are pushing would raise taxes on working Americans and would raise spending by $35 to $50 billion. Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. And their proposal would move millions of children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care. Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage -- not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage.
My Administration remains committed to working with Congress to pass a responsible SCHIP bill. In the meantime, I called this week for Congress to make sure health insurance for poor children does not lapse. If they fail to do so, more than a million children could lose health coverage. Health coverage for these children should not be held hostage while political ads are being made and new polls are being taken. Congress must pass a clean, temporary extension of the current SCHIP program that I can sign by September 30th, the date the program expires.
In addition to extending the SCHIP program, Congress needs to focus on passing fundamental spending bills -- especially the annual funding bill for the Department of Defense. Congress must also pass additional funding for our troops fighting the war on terror. We need these bills so we can get our men and women in uniform essential equipment -- like additional armored fighting vehicles that are resistant to mines and ambushes.
The American people expect their elected leaders in Washington to work together by passing responsible bills in a timely manner. I am confident that with good will on both sides, Democrats and Republicans can do this. We can meet our obligations to help poor children get health coverage. We can meet our responsibilities to the men and women keeping our Nation safe. And we can do our duty to spend the taxpayer's money wisely.
Thank you for listening. END
-- President George W. BushJuly 18, 2007
MYTH #1: President Bush's proposal would not help poor children.
MYTH #2: Cost is the only reason for President Bush's veto threat.
MYTH #3: President Bush is wrong in claiming the Senate SCHIP bill would cover children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 per year (400 percent of the Federal poverty level).
Background Information:
MYTH #4: Democrats are not seeking a political victory by passing a bill they know will be vetoed.
MYTH #5: President Bush will be responsible if SCHIP is not reauthorized by September 30.
# # #
For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretarySeptember 21, 2007
President Bush Welcomes 2006 and 2007 NCAA Sports Champions to White House The South Lawn, 3:26 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. It is a beautiful day to welcome champs to the White House. And I'm honored to stand with some of our country's finest student athletes -- and look at some of our finest student athletes -- and glad to give you an excuse to skip class. (Laughter.) But I'm really glad to welcome you here and to congratulate you on being a champion.
I really enjoy a day like today. You didn't get to see, but I got to shake hands with athletes and coaches and people, some of whom have come a long way to be recognized here at the White House. And it is really a lot of fun to be with people who set high standards and work hard to achieve goals, which you've done.
And there are some others here who want to recognize you, as well: Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee -- thanks for coming, Lamar; Lisa Murkowski from Alaska; Senator Gordon Smith and Sharon from Oregon. We're sure glad you all are here. Zach Wamp from the state of Tennessee, and Kim, glad you all are here, as well. They are here because the states they represent happen to have teams who are champs, as well.
I want to welcome all the team captains, the coaches, the school officials and all the fans who have joined us. You're different -- you've come from different schools, different sports, but you deserve to be called "champion."
The first champions I want to recognize are the Arizona State Indoor Track and Field and Outdoor Track and Field champs. (Applause.) I learned a new symbol. (Laughter.) The Women's Track team from Arizona State claimed two national championships in one year. In the winter, the Sun Devils earned the Indoor title; in the spring, the Outdoor title. It makes Arizona State one of only three schools in NCAA history to win Women's Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field championships in the same season.
I congratulate Coach Kraft and all the athletes who joined us today. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)
Coach Pat Casey and the Oregon State Baseball team have joined us. (Applause.) Oregon State is here to celebrate two consecutive national championships in baseball. Earlier this summer the Beavers won all five of their games in the College World Series. That is hard to do. You outscored your opponents 42-16. You trailed for only one inning. You took the lead and never looked back. And as a result, you're the first college baseball team to win back-to-back titles in 10 years. And I'm proud you're here, and congratulations on the job you're doing. (Applause.)
Speaking about repeat champs, the Duke Women's Golf team is with us today. The ladies of the golf team have now won three NCAA championships in a row, and five overall. They're really hard to beat. This spring, the team played through wind and rain to win the championship tournament by 15 strokes. And I want to welcome Coach Brooks and the team here today. Coach Brooks picked his 102nd career win. This is the most in the history of NCAA women's golf. You've got a good coach, got good players. When you play hard, you end up right here at the White House. Congratulations, and thanks for coming. (Applause.)
How about the Johns Hopkins Men's Lacrosse team? (Applause.) Coach Pietramala and the team won a tough championship game. This is not the first time they've been here, by the way. They were here back in 2005. Everybody is going to remember -- at least people who pay attention to lacrosse will remember that the Blue Jay team scored a goal in just 12 seconds in the game, and hung on to win 12-11 in a tough game. This is the ninth Men's Lacrosse championship for Johns Hopkins. I congratulate you on carrying on a proud tradition at a fine university. And welcome to the White House. (Applause.)
Pat Summitt knows something about coaching. We're proud to welcome this soon-to-be, if not already, Hall of Fame coach, and the ladies basketball team from the University of Tennessee. (Applause.) This team is upholding a long-time tradition for Tennessee Women's Basketball. After all, this is their seventh national title under Coach Summitt. Here's how the coach described the moment. She said, "To win anything, you have to be a tight team. They believed in each other and obviously had one goal: to cut down the nets." They did, and we're proud to welcome you here to the White House. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)
Brown University Women's Crew is with us today. Brown University Crew has a lot to celebrate in recent years. After all, they have won the NCAA title five out of the last nine seasons. These women know how to row. (Laughter.) Brown is the winningest women's crew program in the history of the NCAAs. We wish their coaches all the very best as they deal with a personal problem -- I'm sorry they're not here, but these women -- if anybody can lift their spirits, because they performed brilliantly. I also appreciate the fact that we've got Academic All-Americans and National Scholar Athletes on this team, as well. Congratulations on achieving excellence on all fronts, and welcome to the White House. (Applause.)
Coach Robinson and others coach the mighty Golden Gophers of Minnesota in the University of Minnesota Men's Wrestling team. (Applause.) Grapplers. This spring you earned the third national title in team history. And I appreciate the fact that you train hard, work hard, and as we say in Texas, "out-wrastle 'em." (Laughter.) Congratulations and welcome to the White House. (Applause.)
Here's the final group of champs. From the great state of Alaska, the Men and Women's Rifle Team from the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. (Applause.) It is safe to say, this team traveled the furthest to be here. You earned the trip. This is, by the way, the eighth time in nine years that the Nanooks have been the NCAA champions in Rifle. Interestingly enough, guess who they beat? West Point. Anytime you outshoot West Point, you're really good at what you do. (Laughter.) And so we welcome you to the White House, and thanks for coming. (Applause.)
As I explained to some of the teams, one of the reasons why I love to welcome people here is to remind you that you can be a champ on the field and you can be a champ off the field. Because you're a champ on the field, you have a chance to inspire somebody to make right choices in life. You have the opportunity to set a good example. You don't know how many youngsters are looking at you, but there's a lot. People are wondering how champs behave. So by setting high standards and working hard to achieve them, you're influencing other people.
I also appreciate the fact that you're involved with raising money for cancer awareness, or collecting toys and clothing for those in need. Some of the teams have supported the Special Olympics. A lot of the folks on these teams have volunteered in the communities in which they live. And I thank you for that. You're proving what I know is true, that you had to be a dedicated soul to get here in the White House -- to get here to the White House when it comes to athletics, but it is that same dedication that makes you achieve excellence in sports that helps you be an excellent person in life.
And so we welcome you here. We thank you for coming. May God bless you all. (Applause.) END 3:36 P.M. EDT
President Bush Strongly Supports Reauthorization of SCHIP
The President strongly supports reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). His SCHIP proposal expands funding by 20 percent and maintains a focus on covering children in poor families.
Unfortunately, Congress's bill goes far beyond SCHIP's mandate by covering some higher income households and adults.
Months ago, the President made clear he would veto an SCHIP bill that: takes the program away from its original intent of covering poor children; moves millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care; and is an incremental step toward a government-run health care system. The bill also includes excessive spending funded with significant tax increases.
Once the Democrats finish their political posturing, the President looks forward to working with Congress to pass SCHIP reauthorization legislation he can sign.
The President urges Congress to quickly pass a clean, temporary extension of the current SCHIP program so the millions of families who rely on SCHIP do not suffer when this important program expires on September 30.
For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretarySeptember 20, 2007
Press Conference by the President James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, 10:46 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. In just 10 days the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as S-CHIP, is set to expire. This important program helps children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid to get coverage they need.
I have strongly supported S-CHIP as a governor, and I have done so as President. My 2008 budget proposed to increase S-CHIP funding by $5 billion over five years. It's a 20 percent increase over current levels of funding. Unfortunately, instead of working with the administration to enact this funding increase for children's health, Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know that will be vetoed. One of their leaders has even said such a veto would be, "a political victory."
As if this weren't irresponsible enough, Congress is waiting until the S-CHIP program is just about to expire before getting a final bill passed. In other words, members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington. The legislation would raise taxes on working people, and would raise spending by between $35 billion and $50 billion. Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.
The proposal would move millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care. Our goals should be for children who have no health insurance to be able to get private coverage, not for children who already have private health insurance to be able to get government coverage.
What I'm describing here is a philosophical divide that exists in Washington over the best approach for health care. Democratic leaders in Congress want to put more power in the hands of government by expanding federal health care programs. Their S-CHIP plan is an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American.
I have a different view. I believe the best approach is to put more power in the hands of individuals by empowering people and their doctors to make health care decisions that are right for them. Instead of expanding S-CHIP beyond its original purpose, we should return it to its original focus, and that is helping poor children, those who are most in need. And instead of encouraging people to drop private coverage in favor of government plans, we should work to make basic private health insurance affordable and accessible for all Americans.
My administration will continue working with Congress to pass a responsible S-CHIP bill. In the meantime, Congress has an obligation to make sure health insurance for poor children does not lapse. If they fail to do so, more than a million children could lose health coverage. Health coverage for these children should not be held hostage while political ads are being made and new polls are being taken. Congress must pass a clean, temporary extension of the current S-CHIP program that I can sign by September the 30th. And that's the date when the program expires.
I've instructed Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt, who has joined us today, to work with states on ways to mitigate the damage that would result if Congress allows this program to lapse. Our goal in passing legislation should be getting something done for those in need, not getting nothing done so politicians in Washington can claim a political victory.
Mike Leavitt is going to answer questions, if you have any, after my press conference. You looked a little concerned as to whether or not I'd answer any questions. And now I'm happy to take any questions you have, starting with Terry.
Q Mr. President, economists say that the nation is at increasing risk of recession. What do you say?
THE PRESIDENT: I say that the fundamentals of our nation's economy are strong. Inflation is down. Job markets are steady and strong. After all, the national unemployment rate is 4.6 percent. Corporate profits appear to be strong. Exports are up. There is no question that there is some unsettling times in the housing market, and credits associated with the housing market. And that's why I look forward to working with Congress to modernize the FHA loans so that people can refinance their homes, and to change the tax code so that if somebody renegotiates a loan they don't have to pay a penalty, a tax penalty, in so doing.
I'm optimistic about our economy. I would be pessimistic, however, if the Congress has its way and raises taxes. I believe the worst thing that can happen now is to allow the Congress to do that which they have said they want to do, which is to raise the taxes on people, and -- because I think taking money out of the hands of investors and consumers and small business owners would weaken the economy.
And so, as I say, I'm optimistic, but I would be pessimistic if I thought Congress was going to get their way. And they're not. They're not going to raise taxes.
Q Do you think there's a risk of a recession? How do you rate that?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low -- (laughter) -- and being fiscally responsible with the people's money. We've submitted a plan that will enable this budget to become balanced by 2012, so long as Congress learns to set priorities. And we can balance the budget without raising taxes.
Q Thank you. The French Foreign Minister has raised the possibility of war with Iran. Is there a risk that the escalating rhetoric over Iran increases the chances of war, and what would be your message to the U.N. next week regarding Iran?
THE PRESIDENT: I have consistently stated that I'm hopeful that we can convince the Iranian regime to give up any ambitions it has in developing a weapons program, and do so peacefully. And that ought to be the objective of any diplomacy. And to this end, we are working with allies and friends to send a consistent message to the Iranians that there is a better way forward for them than isolation; financial isolation and/or economic sanctions.
I believe it's imperative that we continue to work in a multilateral fashion to send that message. And one place to do so is at the United Nations. We're also talking to different finance ministers about how we can send a message to the Iranian government that the free world is not going to tolerate the development of know-how in how to build a weapon, or at least gain the ability to make a weapon.
And the reason why is, is because it's very important for us to take the threats coming out of the mouth of the President of Iran very seriously. He's a person that is, you know -- constantly talks about the use of force to -- on Israel, for example, and Israel is our very firm and strong ally.
I also -- it's very important for the Iranian people to know that our -- the United States recognizes the grand tradition and history of Iran, and that we respect the people of Iran. We just believe that their government has made choices that make it difficult for them to realize their dreams, realize their full potential. The Iranian economy is suffering -- some of it through mismanagement, some of it as a result of international pressures. And the people of Iran have got to know that some of the suffering that they're having inside their country is caused by their government, its inability to work with the world in a responsible way regarding their desire to enrich uranium. So we'll keep the pressure on them -- again, the objective, of course, is to solve this peacefully.
David. Welcome back.
Q Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Where have you been?
Q I've been around.
THE PRESIDENT: You've been doing those shows. (Laughter.)
Q Sir, Israeli opposition leader Netanyahu has now spoken openly about Israel's bombing raid on a target in Syria earlier in the month. I wonder if you could tell us what the target was, whether you supported this bombing raid, and what do you think it does to change the dynamic in an already hot region in terms of Syria and Iran and the dispute with Israel and whether the U.S. could be drawn into any of this?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to comment on the matter. Would you like another question?
Q Did you support it?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to comment on the matter.
Q Can you comment about your concerns that come out of it at all, about for the region?
THE PRESIDENT: No. Saying I'm not going to comment on the matter means I'm not going to comment on the matter. You're welcome to ask another question, if you'd like to, on a different subject.
Q I'll ask you about Iraq. Efforts to curtail the deployment of troops is an ongoing debate right now. One of the things you spoke about in your address last week had to do with impatience with the Iraqi government. And you spoke about that, but not in much detail. How is that dynamic changing, your level of frustration with the lack of political progress? And how long can Americans reasonably expect you to wait before you take some kind of action that really forces the Iraqi government's hand to reach the goals of reconciliation that you set for them?
THE PRESIDENT: In my speech, I made it clear that there has to be a change in security for there to be reconciliation. And I also said that progress will yield fewer troops. In other words, return on success, is what I said.
There are two types of reconciliation, David. One is that reconciliation, that very visible reconciliation that happens through the passage of law. In other words, it's reconciliation that shows the Iraqi people that people from different backgrounds can get along and, at the same time, that government can function. Clearly there needs to be work there. In other words, there needs to be the passage of law. For example, we strongly believe that an oil revenue-sharing law will send a message to Sunni, Shia and Kurd alike that there is an effort at the national level to achieve reconciliation.
Having said that, however, there is a functioning government. And the reason I bring -- I guess my point is this, that in spite of the fact they haven't passed a law, there is the sharing of oil revenues on a relatively equitable basis. The other -- and so we'll continue to work with the government to insist and impress upon them the need for there to be the passage of law, whether it be provincial election laws or de-Baathification law or the oil law.
There is local reconciliation taking place. I had a fascinating conversation in the Roosevelt Room earlier this week with members of provincial reconstruction teams from around Iraq who talked about how people are sick and tired of murder and violence, and that they expect their local governments and their central government to be more responsive to their needs, and local governments are beginning to respond.
Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there's a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for them. And I understand it's hard work for them. Having said that, I'm not going the give them a pass when it comes to the central government's reconciliation efforts.
I also said in my speech, local politics will drive national politics. And I believe that. I believe that as more reconciliation takes place at the local level you'll see a more responsive central government.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, was recently asked by New York Times columnist David Brooks, if knowing what he knows now, invading Iraq was a good idea. And I believe your Defense Secretary answered, "I don't know." Does that represent daylight with you? Is that second-guessing? Have you spoken to the Defense Secretary? And does that change your mind at all?
THE PRESIDENT: I think he made it pretty clear the removal of Saddam -- I don't know about this column, but I know his previous statements, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision. But I haven't talked to him about the column. If I had to ask everybody in my government to respond to columns and news stories, that's all I'd be doing, is talking to people in my government.
I am absolutely convinced Secretary Gates knows that removing Saddam was the right thing, and I'm absolutely convinced he believes we will succeed in Iraq. And so I've got a lot of trust in the man. He's doing a fine job as the Secretary.
Q You won't comment on what the Israelis may or may not have done --
THE PRESIDENT: That's an accurate statement. I hope you got that from my answer -- now, you're afraid -- now, Gregory is worried I'm actually going to comment, see.
Q That's what I'm hoping.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to, so you might want to go to another subject.
Q I know you won't comment on that. But let's talk about whether or not you believe that North Korea is aiding Syria with a nuclear program.
THE PRESIDENT: We have made it clear, and will continue to make it clear to the North Koreans through the six-party talks that we expect them to honor their commitment to give up weapons and weapons programs, and to the extent that they are proliferating, we expect them to stop that proliferation, if they want the six-party talks to be successful.
In other words, whether it be the exportation of information and/or materials is an important part -- it doesn't matter to us whether they do -- in terms of the six-party talks, because they're both equally important, I guess is the best way to say it. In other words, we want -- it does matter -- let me rephrase that -- it matters whether they are, but the concept of proliferation is equally important as getting rid of programs and weapons.
Q So you believe they are aiding Syria?
THE PRESIDENT: It's a general statement that we expect them not to be proliferating.
Q Mr. President, thousands of people are marching today in Jena, Louisiana, in a racially charged case involving six black students for beating a white student. Also, not far from the White House recently, there was a noose that was found hanging from a tree at a college campus. You have worked very hard to bring blacks and Hispanics into your party, but the fallout from the immigration debate, and even some Republican presidential candidates' refusal to go to debates at Univision, as well as Morgan State, calls into question whether or not the state of race relations is deteriorating in this country, and specifically in your party. Your thoughts?
THE PRESIDENT: My advice to whoever will be our nominee is to reach out to the African American community, as well as other communities, because I believe that we've got a very strong record when it comes to empowerment, when it comes to education, or home ownership, or small business formation.
The events in Louisiana are -- have saddened me. I understand the emotions. The Justice Department and the FBI are monitoring the situation down there, and all of us in America want there to be fairness when it comes to justice. We've got a good record to run on and my advice to our candidates would be to run on it.
Q Do you think this is a defining moment in race relations?
Q Mr. President, Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, says he wants to go to Ground Zero and place a wreath there. There is some objection to that in New York. What are your thoughts?
THE PRESIDENT: My thoughts are that the local police will make the proper decision and that if they decide for him not to go -- like it looks like they have -- I can understand why they would not want somebody who is running a country who is a state sponsor of terror down there at the site.
Q Mr. President, back to the economy for a moment. The Fed took its half-point rate cut the other day. Do you think that was enough to stave off recession? And if not, are there other steps you're prepared to do financially?
THE PRESIDENT: Roger, I do not comment on the decisions made by the Fed. I will comment on Ben Bernanke; I think he's doing a fine job. The White House and the Congress are responsible for fiscal policy. The worst decision the Congress could make would be to raise taxes during this period. We don't need to raise taxes in order to fund budget priorities. We have submitted a budget that shows we can get to balance by 2012 without raising taxes, and its one of the reasons I feel so strongly about -- that's why I'm not going to let the taxes be raised.
Q What do you say to those who criticize you for not speaking out on the situation in Louisiana, particularly given your passionate remarks after Hurricane Katrina about race? People say you've gone silent.
THE PRESIDENT: As you know, this is an ongoing trial, litigation taking place. I feel strongly that there ought to be fair justice. And I just spoke out on it.
Q Mr. President, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently was asked if he missed you. He said, no. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I miss him.
Q Alan Greenspan has come out with a book, a recent book, criticizing you for being fiscally irresponsible. And they're not the first former government officials to come out and be critical of you. And I'm wondering two things. First, do you feel betrayed by some of these people who have served you and then have come out and criticized you? And then, more particularly, can you respond to Greenspan's criticism?
THE PRESIDENT: My feelings are not hurt. You might have been a little selective in quoting Donald Rumsfeld, which I know you didn't mean to be, you know. I respect Secretary Rumsfeld, I believe he did a fine job. And I respect Alan Greenspan. I respectfully disagree with Alan Greenspan when it comes to saying that this administration didn't handle the fiscal issues we faced in good fashion. As a matter of fact, we did.
The deficit, as a percent of GDP, is low. It's lower than the 30-year average. We have submitted a plan to balance the budget. We dealt with a recession, a terrorist attack and corporate scandals. And we did it by cutting taxes. The tax cuts worked. The economy recovered. People are working. Interest rates are low.
I'm a supply-sider. I believe supply-side economics, when properly instituted, enables us to achieve certain objectives. One, people find work and there's hope in the economy. Two, that supply-side economics yields additional tax revenues. And if we're smart about how we manage the fiscal budget, it leads to balance, and that's what we have done. We are fighting a war at the same time that we're headed toward balance. In other words, we're making sure our troops get the money they need and veterans get the benefits they need.
Former Chairman Greenspan and I spent a lot of time talking about the unfunded liabilities inherent in Social Security and Medicare. And he's concerned about those unfunded liabilities, as am I. And that's why I went in front of the Congress, in more than one occasion, talking about how to reform Social Security so that young people who are working aren't paying payroll taxes into a system that's going broke.
I'm not going to give up on entitlement reform. They require part -- members of both parties to recognize we have a problem that ought to be solved now. It's time to -- I thought it was time to come together a couple years ago, and that wasn't the political will in Congress. And I'm not so sure we're going to find it now, but I'm going to keep trying because, like the Chairman, I understand that the biggest issue we've got with the deficit are those deficits inherent in these entitlement programs.
Q Mr. President, there's a deal taking place this morning where the government of Dubai would buy a pair -- a stake in the NASDAQ stock market. And there is some concern being expressed on Capitol Hill about this. It's another deal involving, you know, people overseas that we might not trust. What's your reaction to it, and also, what's your level of concern about protectionism in general?
THE PRESIDENT: My reaction is, is that we have a reform process in place that will be able to deal with this issue. In other words, we're going to take a good look at it as to whether or not it has any national security implications involved in the transaction. And I'm comfortable that the process will go forward.
John, I'm also -- I am concerned about protectionism. I'm concerned about it because if the United States loses its confidence when it comes to trading, it will make it less likely our economy would grow. And I just told you, one of the underpinnings of our support is the fact that exports -- for economic vitality is the fact that exports are up, and workers benefit when we're selling products overseas. And I believe these free trade agreements will be an interesting test of protectionism, whether protectionism is real.
We've got four trade agreements that we've negotiated that we want to get passed, and there's going to be some crucial votes coming up here pretty soon in the Congress. And we'll work hard to get all four trade agreements through. And if they don't get through, it is a sign that the protectionists are beginning to be on the ascendancy here in Washington, D.C., and that would be a mistake. And for people who are deeply concerned about poverty around the world like I am, the best way to help lift people out of poverty is through free trade agreements. And that's why we're dedicated to the Doha Round that Secretary Schwab is so actively engaged in -- not Secretary Schwab; trade negotiator Schwab.
And we're committed to reach an accord with these nations so that -- because trade helps poor people realize a better life. And it's a proven fact.
I'm also worried about isolationism. Isolationism tends to run hand in hand with protectionism. You'll find isolationists are those who say it's not our business what happens overseas; it doesn't matter if there's a free society in the heart of the Middle East, as far as our long-term security and peace. I just strongly reject that. I think it does matter a lot that the United States is working with other nations to promote liberty and freedom. I believe liberty is a change agent. Liberty can help hostile parts of the world become peaceful parts of the world.
You know, our strategy in dealing with these extremists who still want to attack us is on the one hand, chase them and find them and bring them to justice; and on the other hand, help change the conditions that caused 19 kids to get on airplanes and come and kill nearly 3,000 citizens on our soil. The best way to do that is to be active with foreign policy. It's not to lose faith in values, but to actively promote universal values. And isolationists would say it's not worth it, doesn't matter to the United States of America. Well, I think it does matter, and I think it matters a lot.
Herman, have you got a question?
Q Yes, sir, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Q Mr. President, for Republicans seeking election next year are you an asset or a liability?
THE PRESIDENT: Strong asset. (Laughter.) Ann.
Q Can I follow?
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.) I knew I made a mistake calling on you in the first place. (Laughter.)
Q He's known you a long time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he has.
Q And you got an MBA?
THE PRESIDENT: The problem is I called him and I've known him for a long time.
Q You knew what you were getting into. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Look, candidates who go out and say that the United States is vulnerable to attack and we're going to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to protect us are going to do well. Candidates who go out and say that helping these Iraqis realize the benefits of democracy are going to do well. Candidates who go out and say that it's very important for the United States to have clear principles when it comes to foreign policy, they'll do well. Candidates who say we're not going to raise your taxes will do well.
Q Quick follow, if I may, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, you may not.
Q Mr. President, back to your grade point average on holding the line on taxes --
THE PRESIDENT: Whew, I thought you were going to talk about the actual grade point average. (Laughter.) I remind people that, like when I'm with Condi I say, she's the Ph.D. and I'm the C-student, and just look at who's the President and who's the advisor. (Laughter.) But go ahead.
Q If there is a tax increase on cigarettes to fund the S-CHIP program, is that a tax increase you oppose?
THE PRESIDENT: It does. We don't need to raise taxes. What I want is the Congress to be focused on making sure poor children get the health insurance they were promised. Instead, Congress has made a decision to expand the eligibility up to $80,000. That's not the intent of the program. The program was find poor children and help them with health insurance. Their vision is, expand the eligibility so that people making up to $80,000 will be eligible for this program. I believe this is a step toward federalization of health care. I know that their proposal is beyond the scope of the program, and that's why I'm going to veto the bill.
Let's see, Mark.
Q Mr. President, in January, when you announced the troop surge, you said that its goal was to get all 18 Iraqi provinces, the security for those provinces into Iraqi hands by November of this year. The Pentagon is now telling Congress that's not going to happen until July at the earliest. Have the goalposts shifted once more?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the goals are the same, achieving those goals has been slower than we thought. And the question is, one, whether or not it's worth it to try to achieve the goals. I believe it's worth it for the security of the country, and the reason why I believe it's for the security of the country is that if we were to leave before the job is done extremist groups like al Qaeda would be able to gain safe haven. That's what they've said they want. They believe we won't have the will to hang in there and help this Iraqi government succeed. And they want us out.
So the goals of helping Iraqis provide their own security remain the same and the goals are important toward achieving our objective, and our objective is important for the security of the country. I also believe that a democracy in the heart of the Middle East will be a major blow to extremists or radicals wherever they live in the Middle East. And just yesterday we saw
an attack on an anti-Syria-pro-Lebanese democracy advocate. I don't know who did that, but I do know it is typical of this war we're fighting in, when extremists kill innocent people in order to undermine democracies.
One of the things I feel passionately about is for the United States to recognize what a Middle East would be like if terrorists and extremists were -- would have safe havens and were emboldened by a U.S. defeat. And that's why I'm -- one, I believe we can succeed, and two, I know we got to succeed -- and therefore, have listened carefully to our commanders and our diplomats as to whether or not they think we can succeed, and if so, what do they need to do it. And that's what I talked to the country about.
And so, Mark, yes, the goals are the same. And have we achieved them as fast, no, we haven't. But however, having not achieved them doesn't mean we ought to quit. It means we ought to work hard to achieve the goals, because the end result is the same, whether the goal is done in November or in July, and that is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and is an ally against these extremists and radicals; a country which will deny safe haven to the folks who have sworn allegiance to the crowd that attacked us on September the 11th.
A couple more, and then we'll let Leavitt come up here.
Q A follow-up, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please.
Q Thank you. You said earlier that people in Iraq are sick and tired of the violence. To what extent has the recent Blackwater incident frayed your relations with Prime Minister Maliki and his government? And why are outfits like Blackwater above the law in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I have yet to speak to the Prime Minister about this subject. I'll see him in New York next week at the U.N., I'm confident he'll bring it up. I also appreciate the fact that he's willing to work with the U.S. government to set up a commission to find out what actually happened. The folks like Blackwater who provide security for the State Department are under rules of engagement -- in other words, they have certain rules. And this commission will determine whether or not they violated those rules. And I'm looking forward to finding out what the results are.
Q Any regrets about that incident and the fact that --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's find out what the facts are first. Obviously, to the extent that innocent life was lost, you know, I'm saddened. Our objective is to protect innocent life. And we've got a lot of brave souls in the theater working hard to protect innocent life. And evidently some innocent lives were lost. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families. I want to find out the facts about exactly what took place there in the theater and that's exactly what we're about to find out.
A couple more here. Wolffe.
Q Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You looked asleep back there, that's why I was calling on you.
Q You recently spoke just earlier about the importance of oil revenue sharing in Iraq. Recently a company called Hunt Oil, run by one of your long-time supporters, Ray Hunt, signed a deal with a Kurdish regional government to drill for oil up there. That deal has come under intense criticism from the national government in Baghdad. They say it undermines the discussions about oil legislation. What's you're opinion of that kind of deal and how it impacts this long-stalled legislation?
THE PRESIDENT: Our embassy also expressed concern about it. I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it I'm concerned.
Q Mr. President, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Big Stretch, he's back.
Q What is your reaction to the MoveOn.org ad that mocked General Petraeus as General "Betrayus," and said that he cooked the books on Iraq? And secondly, would you like to see Democrats, including presidential candidates, repudiate that ad?
THE PRESIDENT: I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military. And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org -- or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal. It's one thing to attack me; it's another thing to attack somebody like General Petraeus.
All right. Leavitt is going to answer some questions if you have any for him. Make sure they're -- tone them down a little bit, this is his first time in here. Martha, you and Gregory be polite on him. Thank you for your time. END 11:21 A.M. EDT
President Bush Announces Resignation of Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns Rose Garden, 9:27 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Mike Johanns has informed me that he plans to return home to Nebraska, which means that his service as Secretary of Agriculture must come to an end. Mike has been an outstanding member of my Cabinet. I knew he would be when I asked him to become the Secretary of Agriculture. I've known him for a long time. I've admired the fact that he is not only a decent person and an honest person, but he's a person who can get some things done.
So I accepted his resignation and Laura and I bid Mike and Stephanie a warm farewell. And I thank him from the bottom of my heart for leaving a state he loves to come here to Washington, D.C. to work in an -- to work as the Secretary of Agriculture. You know, Mike brought with him a lot of practical farm experience. After all, he was the proud son of a dairy farmer. He understands the importance of the land. He worked tirelessly on behalf of farmers and ranchers.
And Mike Johanns did an outstanding job as the Secretary of Agriculture. He brought focus and energy to the Department. He was a champion of renewable fuels. He expanded the Department's commitment to conservation. He worked endlessly to open up foreign markets for American beef. He provided timely assistance to farmers and ranchers devastated by natural disasters. I couldn't have asked for a better Secretary of Agriculture.
He worked hard to put in motion a good farm bill. I remember when Mike came here to the Oval he said to me, he said, what I'm going to do is I'm going to travel the country and reach out to the stakeholders to lay the foundation for farm legislation. And that's exactly what he did. And I got feedback from all around America that Mike Johanns listened, he wisely shepherded the process in such a way that we've got a good farm bill in front of the Congress. He set the framework for success, and I'm confident we can get a good bill passed.
So I want to thank you for your good work getting this teed up.
SECRETARY JOHANNS: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: He's got a good team over at the Secretary of -- at the Department of Agriculture. In other words, Mike understands that you've got to surround yourself with good folks. And so I feel very comfortable asking Chuck Connor, the Deputy Secretary, to serve as the Acting Secretary. And I want to thank Chuck for his good work.
Mike came by the White House here a couple of days ago and he asked for my advice -- and I appreciate it. Everybody likes to have their counsel sought. And during the discussion he told me he was interested in continuing to serve America, but in a different role. And I asked him if this was something he was seriously considering -- in other words, sometimes you get these rumors out there in the political process where somebody feels like they've got to say, yes, I'm interested. But no question in my mind that Mike loves Nebraska and he's serious about going home and possibly serving the nation in a different capacity.
And my answer was -- to Mike was, I support you, and I encourage you to follow your heart. If it's Mike's decision and Nebraska's choice, he would make an outstanding member of the United States Senate. There is no doubt in my mind.
And so I want to thank you for your service, thank you for your friendship, thank you for your commitment to America's farmers and ranchers and our country. And Laura and I wish you all the very best.
SECRETARY JOHANNS: Let me start out today and just say, Mr. President, thank you so very much for those kind words. Also thank you for your support to me and to Stephanie throughout the years. It's been a great honor for me, and, I would add, a great honor for the state of Nebraska to serve you and the American people as the Secretary of Agriculture now for nearly three years.
The decision to leave this post has not been an easy one. I grew up with farmers and ranchers as my childhood heroes and my mentors. Representing them in Washington has been a great privilege.
Mr. President, under your leadership American agriculture is stronger today than at any time in history -- whether you look at farm equity, whether you look at net cash income, whether you look at agricultural exports, records are being set under your leadership and they're being broken each year with a new record. It's your leadership that has made the difference.
I want to mention also that your compassion toward the less fortunate is evidenced by the fact that more people are being fed daily by USDA nutrition programs than at any time in our nation's history. The stewardship of our natural resources is absolutely unprecedented. You've more than doubled the number of acres enrolled in the USDA conservation programs. I often have told people over the last three years that it's great to have a boss who knows as much or more about agriculture than I do. Of course, your steady interest and your engagement has kept me on my toes, but I would not have wanted it any other way.
I'm grateful to the men and the women at the U.S. Department of Agriculture who worked hard every day to ensure I kept pace with you to achieve the goals that you established for us. You can count on their continued dedication. The Department is in capable hands. Chuck is a good man who shares our passion for agriculture.
I do want to say something on behalf of farmers and ranchers across America. Thank you for recognizing that rural America is a very special place. One particular rural state has remained especially near and dear to my heart; it is a place where the richness of the land is only equaled by the character of its people. Of course, I'm speaking of the place that Stephanie and I and my family call home, the great state of Nebraska.
In a sense, I brought Nebraskans with me to every Cabinet meeting, every hearing on Capitol Hill, every negotiating session in faraway countries. I often thought of the wisdom they conveyed to me during my years as governor. I often thought of their decency. And I did my best to remain true to the commonsense, practical approach of Nebraskans.
But even as I look forward to returning to the good life in Nebraska, I look back on what has been truly an opportunity of a lifetime; for me a dream come true for a farmer's son. So I stand here today and I humbly thank the President of the United States -- thank you for allowing me to share this part of the journey with you. Mr. President, may God continue to bless and guide Laura, you and your family.
Thank you very much. END 9:36 A.M. EDT
For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretarySeptember 19, 2007
President Bush Discusses the Protect America Act of 2007 National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland 11:50 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I have just received a briefing from Director McConnell and Lieutenant General Alexander, as well as other members of my national security team. I first want to thank the men and women who work out here for their dedication and their hard work. The work they're doing here is necessary to protect our country from an enemy who would like to attack us again. The people who work out here understand that the federal government has no more urgent responsibility than to protect the American people.
Every day, our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security professionals confront enemies who are smart, who are ruthless, and who are determined to murder innocent people to achieve their objectives. It is the job of Congress to give the professionals the tools they need to do their work as effectively as possible.
You don't have to worry about the motivation of the people out here; what we do have to worry about is to make sure that they have all the tools they need to do their job. One of the most important tools they use is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The law provides a critical legal foundation that allows our intelligence community to monitor terrorist communications while protecting the freedoms of American people. Unfortunately, the law is dangerously out of date.
When FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, the legal protections were based on differences in the way that domestic and overseas communications were transmitted. New technologies have come into being since the law was written. Technologies like the disposable cell phone or the Internet eliminated many of those differences. So one of the consequences of the way the law was originally drafted is that when technology changed, legal protections meant only for the people in the United States began applying to terrorists on foreign soil. As a result, our intelligence professionals reported that they were missing a significant amount of real-time intelligence needed to protect the American people. So earlier this year, Director McConnell sent Congress legislation to fix the problem.
In August, a bipartisan majority in Congress passed the Protect America Act. This law has helped close a critical intelligence gap, allowing us to collect important foreign intelligence and information about terrorist plots. The problem is the law expires on February 1st -- that's 135 days from today. The threat from al Qaeda is not going to expire in 135 days.
So I call on Congress to make the Protect America Act permanent. The need for action is clear. Director McConnell has warned that unless the FISA reforms in the Act are made permanent, our national security professionals will lose critical tools they need to protect our country. Without these tools, it'll be harder to figure out what our enemies are doing to train, recruit and infiltrate operatives in our country. Without these tools our country will be much more vulnerable to attack.
Unfortunately, some in Congress now want to restrict the tools. These restrictions would impede the flow of information that helps us protect our people. These restrictions would reopen gaps in our intelligence that we had just closed. As I did in August, in evaluating any FISA bill, I will ask Director McConnell whether the legislation gives him what he needs to protect our nation. The question I'm going to ask is, do our professionals have the tools necessary to do the job to protect the American people from further attack?
In addition to making the Protection [sic] America Act permanent, I urge Congress to take up other critical proposals included in the comprehensive FISA reform my administration submitted last April. It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multi-billion dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, without this protection, state secrets could be revealed in connection with those lawsuits -- and our ability to protect our people would be weakened.
At stake in this debate is more than a piece of legislation. The decisions Congress makes will directly affect our ability to save American lives. I look forward to working with Congress to enact this legislation as quickly as possible, so that our intelligence officials will continue to have the tools they need to keep the American people safe. Thank you. END 11:56 A.M. EDT
Press Briefing by Dana Perino James S. Brady Briefing Room, 12:46 P.M. EDT
MS. PERINO: Hello. I have two statements, and then I'll go to questions.
Regarding the bombing in Beirut: We strongly condemn the assassination of a Lebanese member of parliament, Antoine Ghanem. He was viciously murdered today in Beirut, along with several other innocent persons.
Since October 2004, there has been a pattern of political assassinations and attempted assassinations designed to intimidate those working courageously toward a sovereign and democratic Lebanon. The victims of these cowardly attacks have consistently been those who publicly sought to end Syria's interference in Lebanon's internal affairs. It is no coincidence that this attack comes as Lebanon prepares to elect a new President. And the United States will continue to stand by those Lebanese who continue to courageously stand up for democracy and independence.
The second announcement is, as you know, Judge Mukasey has been visiting members of the Senate leadership and Senate Judiciary Committee. He was on the Hill yesterday and he's up there today. And we've been very pleased with the reception of his nomination, and as people get to know him and look at his record, they are coming to find the things that the President recognized in him and that he will make an excellent Attorney General.
We were pleased today to hear that the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Judge Mukasey for Attorney General. Just one excerpt from that letter: His extensive experience both as a prosecutor and a judge demonstrates a genuine commitment to the law, and an appreciation for the challenges law enforcement faces in its ongoing fight against terrorism.
And with that, I'll take questions.
Q On the Middle East, Israel has declared Gaza an enemy entity. Do you think that that is going to complicate the search for peace?
MS. PERINO: I have not heard that particular announcement out of Israel. I do know that Secretary Rice is on her way to the region right now. The goal is to make sure that we continue to try to move the peace process forward. As you know -- or might not know -- the President will host a meeting here in November, and will talk about -- will talk with different countries in the region about contributions they can make to a peaceful situation there in the Middle East. Without having seen the Israeli statement and without checking, I couldn't comment.
Q Which countries will be at that conference in November?
MS. PERINO: Secretary Rice said today it's to be determined. It's not announced yet -- or it's not finalized yet. So I think that one of the things that she is talking about there is -- today -- is the substance and seriousness of the conversation, what the agenda would look like. And I think from there we'll be able to then figure out who is going to be able to attend.
Q Dana, is the administration directly pointing the finger of blame at Syria for the assassination in Beirut today? And if so, will there be any action taken?
MS. PERINO: No, what I said is that there has been a pattern since 2004. This could fit the pattern. And obviously there is going to have to be an investigation, but I'm not prepared to assign blame to anybody at this point.
Q But suspicions?
MS. PERINO: As I said, there has been a pattern, and this would seem to fit into the pattern.
Q Dana, the President today called for the Foreign Intelligence wiretap law to be made permanent, but what is the White House willing to do to address the concerns of Democrats that this law, as it's currently written, could be used to search Americans' homes, their mail, their business records?
MS. PERINO: I know that that has been one of the concerns that the Democrats have expressed. I do think it's unfounded. That is not how we interpret the legislation. It's not anything that we are utilizing. This is very specific parts of the law in order to gather foreign intelligence to make sure we close an intelligence gap that had opened up once the technology had changed, but the law hadn't since 1978.
To the extent that there are members of Congress -- I was going to say parliament -- members of Congress who want some changes in the law, and they have specific suggestions on how language could be clarified to suit their needs, to give them comfort with the law, but not weaken the act, we'd be willing to take a look at it. But as I said, we don't believe anything needs to be changed, but we're willing to listen to them if they can think of something that will help.
Q How do you explain then what the Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein said in a letter Friday to Congress, where he said that Justice Department lawyers "do not think" that it authorizes collection of medical or library records? But he went on to say "to the extent provision could be read to authorize the collection of business records of individuals in the United States ... we wish to make it very clear we will not use this provision to do so." It sounds like you're saying, well, just trust us.
MS. PERINO: No, I don't see how that -- I think that's exactly what I just said, which is we don't interpret it that way. It's not being used that way, that the Democrats are accusing -- well, I shouldn't say they're accusing; they have concerns. And if they have ways that they can identify that will help clarify it for them that doesn't weaken the act, and still allows us to meet the goal of what the act is supposed to do, we're willing to take a look at it.
Q As discussions about Blackwater in Iraq, or other independent contractors who provide security, if that cannot be resolved, the concerns Iraqis have, do you see any potential impact on the need for active duty U.S. military to provide some of that same security in place of these independent contractors?
MS. PERINO: I understand the question. I just think it's premature to make any comment in that regard. I do know that my colleague, deputy spokesman Tom Casey at the State Department is making an announcement right about now, if he hasn't already, regarding a joint commission of inquiry that the Iraqis and the United States are going to set up in order to look into what happened and to recommend any sort of policy changes that need to made in the future. So that's happening now at the State Department.
Q Can you describe the President's sense, his reaction to this?
MS. PERINO: I have not talked to the President about it, but in checking into it, obviously he said he was concerned. He was glad that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Prime Minister Maliki to express the deep regret for the innocent loss of life. He wants there to be an investigation, an open, transparent, clear investigation. And that would fit into this commission of joint inquiry.
Q He was characterized in other media reports as being furious.
MS. PERINO: I don't know where that came from. It's not the reporting that I had. But he does want it to be fully investigated.
Q One more question. Next week he's going to spend two nights in New York at the U.N., is that right?
MS. PERINO: Yes.
Q What's -- is he planning on -- are there any particular unilateral meetings? Are there leaders he's trying to meet?
MS. PERINO: We'll get you a schedule soon. And also, I should let you know, one of the things that the President will do is he'll participate in a climate change dinner that Ban Ki-Moon, the U.N. Secretary General, is hosting on Monday night. So we leave here I think around 2:00 p.m. on Monday. We'll get there on Monday night, have that dinner. On Tuesday there's a series of bilateral meetings. We'll try to get you a list soon; that's finalizing now. He will also give his speech to UNGA on Tuesday at 9:45 a.m. There's another dinner on Tuesday night, there's more bilateral meetings on Wednesday, and then he'll return about 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday.
Q Dana, with Secretary Gates saying that he doesn't know if the Iraq war was justified, the DNI saying 9/11 might have been avoided, are we getting a mixed message out of the administration?
MS. PERINO: I don't see how those two things fit together.
Q Well, -- focus on what Secretary Gates said --
MS. PERINO: Let's take one at a time.
Q -- as the guy who is in charge of prosecuting that war, who says he doesn't know if it was a good idea.
MS. PERINO: You asked me this question this morning. I called Geoff Morrell, my counterpart at the Department of Defense. He said he'd like to -- he wanted to go and look at the transcript, because I think what I said today remains true
-- one, look at your own network, who had Secretary Gates on on Sunday. And Secretary Gates said removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.
But in his confirmation hearings, if you go back and look at what he said after he came out of the Baker-Hamilton commission and accepted the nomination from the President, and was going through those hearings up at the Senate, he said it's going to take a while to figure out how this all shakes out. And we're seeing that now. When we had General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker here last week, they were able to tell us that the trend lines are moving up, but we really need to focus on getting steeper gains in those trend lines.
What was the other one?
Q That's good enough.
MS. PERINO: Full pass, okay.
Q Dana, why is the President talking about FISA today? Does he have very real concerns that the law will be allowed to expire?
MS. PERINO: Sure. Well, there's a few reasons he's talking about it today. Yesterday was the first hearings that Director McConnell attended up on Capitol Hill. There's more hearings tomorrow. In August 2007, the Congress passed legislation, but put a six-month sunset on it. We're already well into that six months, and Congress has a full slate; they also have recesses that are scheduled. And the President has to push the Congress to make sure that they understand that this law has to get taken up and finalized before the end of that six-month period. We'd like it to be done before.
The two basic things that we want in the legislation would be to make the law permanent, and then, secondly, to provide retroactive liability protection for any companies that may have been alleged to have helped the country in any possible way -- again, all alleged. We got the perspective liability protection in August, but we want to make that retroactive. So those are the basic things that we're looking at.
Now, as I said to Kathleen, I mean, if the Congress has areas where they think the law can be strengthened or clarified in a way that doesn't weaken it, we're willing to take a look at it. We don't think that anything else needs to be changed, but we have an open mind.
Q A few days ago, Karl Rove outlined basically all the President's health care proposals, and yet, if you add them all together it doesn't really add up to universal health care coverage. So I guess my question is, the fact that the President, through the HHS Secretary, said he'd be willing to meet with Congress to maybe try to reach this goal -- can you do that without some sort of requirement for individual --
MS. PERINO: I think what Secretary -- what Secretary Leavitt meant was universal coverage -- that has a different connotation; that is what people think of in terms of government-run health care. That is not what this administration supports. What we do support is making sure that everyone has access to affordable health care. And what Karl pointed out in his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal just yesterday was the different policy proposals that this President has proposed in order to help us reach that goal.
Q But can't you require individuals to get health care coverage without it creating a federal bureaucracy? I mean, it could either be --
MS. PERINO: Well, if you've got an idea we'll take a look at it. I don't see how that would be possible.
Q A couple for you, actually, one to clarify something you said in the gaggle. You said Iran's comments about a plan to retaliate against Israel were -- those comments almost seemed provocative. What does that mean? Does that mean you think that Iran is trying to start something by saying that?
MS. PERINO: I can't think of any other motivation for why somebody would say that. I won't ascribe motives to them, but it does seem provocative. And I will tell you that Israel doesn't want war with its neighbors. And what the world has asked for is for Iran to comply with its Security Council obligations to stop its movement towards a nuclear weapon. And that way, the people of Iran, who can do much better than the government that they have now, would be able to prosper and have a free and good life.
I can't tell you why somebody in Iran would say something like that about Israel. It was totally unprovoked and unnecessary.
Q Okay. On Blackwater, Prime Minister Maliki says that they should be replaced. You and your colleagues at State keep saying in response to that that U.S. civilians in Iraq need protection. Is there any possible way to read this in any other way other than you're rejecting that -- you're saying Blackwater is going to stay whether or not Maliki --
MS. PERINO: No, I think what I would point you to is what I just said, is that Tom Casey, my colleague at the State Department, right now during his briefing is announcing a joint commission of inquiry into the matter, where the incident will be reviewed and policy recommendations will be presented.
Q Are you leaving open that one of those policy recommendations --
MS. PERINO: I'm just not commenting either way. I'm not.
Go ahead, April.
Q Dana, without getting into the legalities of it, there's going to be a major protest or demonstration in Jena, Louisiana, tomorrow, and the impetus of this was at a public school in Louisiana, white and black students, a tree and then nooses. Just getting off the phone with Secretary Spellings; she said, we still have a long way to go -- it shows we still have a long way to go. What are the thoughts of the White House about this? And has anyone directed the Justice Department to look at this matter, as well, to look further into it?
MS. PERINO: Well, as you said and as I told you earlier, that this is a matter that's under litigation. It would be highly inappropriate for me to comment about it from the podium. I can understand why people's feelings are hurt, why tensions are running high, but it would just be inappropriate for me to comment on the case from here.
Q Can understand why people's -- white people's feelings are hurt -- is that what you just --
MS. PERINO: I can understand that -- no, I said "people." I said all people -- it's a tension-filled situation, and I can understand why there are tensions on both sides.
Q Let me just preface this by saying I know the administration wants to stay far away from the 2008 presidential campaign. But you just introduced a concept when you were talking about universal health care -- about "I can't think of a plan" of offering universal health care, when Senator Clinton just offered one in Iowa. And I know that Senator Edwards has offered --
MS. PERINO: No, she said, can I think of a way that they could do universal health care without creating federal bureaucracy along with it.
Q Are you saying -- so would her plan --
MS. PERINO: I'm not commenting on her plan. I'm not. Universal health care has been around for -- the concept has been around for a long time. I'm not commenting on Hillary Clinton's plan. It's a really nice try, but I'm not going to do it. (Laughter.)
Go ahead.
Q Any comment on the elections of Costas Karamanlis as the Prime Minister of Greece?
MS. PERINO: As I said this morning, the President called him this morning to offer his congratulations.
Q Did they discuss any other issue?
MS. PERINO: The President said that he offered his condolences for those who had lost their lives in the wildfires.
Q Any plan to invite him to the United States?
MS. PERINO: I didn't hear of one, but of course, I'm sure that he would be welcome.
Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the failed effort to give D.C. a full vote in the House, "It is clearly unambiguously unconstitutional." And my question: The President agrees with Senator McConnell, doesn't he?
MS. PERINO: We believe that Senate bill 1257 was unconstitutional.
Q Okay. And second: Both of Maryland's U.S. senators, Mikulski and Cardin, voted in favor of this bill. And my question: Does the White House know of any similar effort by these two senators to provide a full House vote for Puerto Rico?
MS. PERINO: I do not.
Q The Treasury Secretary notify Congress today that the debt ceiling is going to be hit October 1st and so they've really got to raise the debt limit. The proposal on the Hill is to raise it to $9.8 trillion. The day this President took office the debt was $5.7 trillion. We're going on doubling the debt. Why is that not an indictment of the supposedly fiscal conservative President and the party --
MS. PERINO: I wish I was fully equipped to answer that question. I don't have the specifics in front of me. I do know that this economy is strong, that we're on our way to balancing the budget. The President showed how we can do that. We have record numbers of taxes coming into the economy. Even though we cut taxes, we have record numbers of tax receipts coming into the treasury. Asking for the debt ceiling to be raised is a fairly routine matter that Treasury Secretaries have done for many years.
Let me just see if I can get someone to get you a more specific answer.
Q On the habeas amendment offered by Specter and Leahy, what is the White House's reason for opposing that?
MS. PERINO: Well, we didn't think that the law needed to be changed. It had just been changed last year in the Military Commissions Act. It's currently under litigation -- under consideration at the Supreme Court level. I don't think that Congress needs to constantly change the law while the courts are still looking at it. We think the law is sound as it is.
Q Two questions. One, -- Osama bin Laden according to
-- WTOP. And also, people in Afghanistan are really asking the President that they are still in trouble as far as al Qaeda in Afghanistan, supported by Osama bin Laden is concerned. So where do we stand on this? Videos are coming one after another -- from Afghanistan.
MS. PERINO: I couldn't comment on another video at this point.
Q And second, according to The Washington Post today, we are legal, but in limbo, talking about over hundreds of legal immigrants marching yesterday in Washington and asking the President that do something for them. They are legal, but they are in trouble as far as --
MS. PERINO: There's no doubt that immigration issues are very complex, and this President -- as you know, he has a very strong record on immigration. And I think on that particular case, that's something that the State Department is looking into.
Q Is that issue coming again on the Hill? Because there was some talk in the Senate as far as immigration is concerned.
MS. PERINO: We would like to see the Congress pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. We think the chances of that are probably slim in this Congress.
Okay. END 1:05 P.M. EDT
For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretarySeptember 18, 2007
President Bush Meets with Military Support Organizations South Lawn, 9:07 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. Laura and I are honored to welcome you here to the South Lawn. Welcome to the people's house. (Applause.) First, I'd like to thank Katy Benko for singing the national anthem. It's not only a beautiful morning to sing the national anthem, it's a beautiful setting in which to sing the national anthem. Katy's husband, Ryan, is deployed to Iraq. Katy, make sure you email him and tell him how appreciative we are of your service, and tell him how appreciative all of us are of your voice. (Applause.)
Laura and I want to thank the members of our -- my administration for joining us. Mr. Vice President, we're really thrilled you're here. Thank you for coming, sir. (Applause.) Secretary of State Condi Rice is with us today. Madam Secretary, appreciate you being here. (Applause.) Secretary Jim Nicholson of the Veterans Affairs Administration; thanks for coming, Jim. (Applause.)
For you veterans who are here, there is no more solemn obligation by your government to make sure you have all it takes to -- for your health care, and for your support. I feel a very strong obligation, since it was my decision that committed young men and women into combat, to make sure our veterans who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan get all the help this government can possibly provide. (Applause.)
I appreciate the Secretary of the Army, Pete Geren, for joining us; the Secretary of the Navy, Don Winter; General "Hoss" Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and his wife Sandee. By the way, General Cartwright is a Marine. (Applause.) I'm not playing to the crowd or anything. (Laughter.)
I want to welcome members of this crowd who have lost a loved one in this war against terror. Our hearts go out to you. We love you. The best way to honor the sacrifices that your loved one made, as well as the sacrifice you have made, is to accomplish the mission, is to achieve the peace. (Applause.)
Laura and I welcome the families who have got a loved one overseas, whether it be in Iraq or Afghanistan, fighting these extremists and terrorists. The best way to honor your loved one is to make sure that he or she has the full support of the United States government as you accomplish the mission that we have set. (Applause.) By the way, for the loved ones here, I fully understand the best way to sustain a volunteer army is to make sure you're happy -- (laughter) -- is to make sure you've got good housing; to make sure that you've got good health care; to make sure that you understand that we know that you're in this fight along with your husband or wife or son or daughter. And that's exactly how this administration feels. (Applause.)
For the veterans who are here, for those of you who are veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan, thank you for volunteering in the face of danger. (Applause.) And for the people who aren't veterans yet, still remain on active duty, thanks for wearing the uniform of the greatest country on the face of the Earth. We're proud of you. (Applause.)
I want to thank the service organizations and those who have come together to support our families and our troops. I can't tell you how important it is for organizations like the Vets for Freedom or the VFW or the American Legion and other groups to -- Gold Star Mothers, got you, okay, thank you -- Blue Star Mothers, Gold Star Mothers, all the mothers, yes. (Applause.) Every day is Mother's Day as far as your concerned, isn't it? (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Don't forget the dads.
THE PRESIDENT: And the dads, yes. I knew this was going to happen. (Laughter.) Yes, the wives; okay, fine. (Laughter.) Everybody is supporting our troops. I want to thank you for doing it. (Applause.)
It's important people hear from you. It's important people hear your voice. And I want to thank you for organizing. I want to thank you not only for the grassroots support of our families, I want to thank you for going up to Capitol Hill. And here's a message I hope you deliver: The Commander-in-Chief wants to succeed -- (applause) -- and the Commander-in-Chief takes seriously the recommendations of our military commanders. General Petraeus came back to the United States to deliver the recommendations he made to me. Inherent in his recommendations is, one, his belief we're succeeding, his belief we will succeed, and I ask the United States Congress to support the troop levels and the strategies I have embraced. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. When the history books are finally written about this chapter in the war against extremists and radicals, they will recognize certain truths: one, that we recognize that if we were to retreat from the Middle East the enemy would not be content to remain where they are, but they would follow us here. We recognize that the best way to protect our homeland is to defeat an enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here on the streets of America. And we recognize that liberty is powerful, that liberty will yield the peace that we want for generations to come; that will recognize that this generation of Americans did the hard work now, so that future generations could live in security and peace.
And so on this beautiful morning we thank you for your steadfast resolve, we appreciate your support of those brave souls who have volunteered in the face of the danger. We ask for God's blessings on the families and our troop in harm's way. And we thank you from the bottom of our collective hearts. God bless you all. (Applause.) END 9:15 A.M. EDT