Text 860, 921 rader
Skriven 2005-04-28 23:33:00 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0504289) for Thu, 2005 Apr 28
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Conference of the President
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 28, 2005

Press Conference of the President
The East Room

President's Remarks
"); //--> view


8:01 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight I will discuss two vital priorities
for the American people, and then I'd be glad to answer some of your
questions.

Millions of American families and small businesses are hurting because of
higher gasoline prices. My administration is doing everything we can to
make gasoline more affordable. In the near-term, we will continue to
encourage oil producing nations to maximize their production. Here at home,
we'll protect consumers. There will be no price gouging at gas pumps in
America.

We must address the root causes that are driving up gas prices. Over the
past decade, America's energy consumption has been growing about 40 times
faster than our energy production. That means we're relying more on energy
produced abroad. To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we
must take four key steps. First, we must better use technology to become
better conservers of energy. Secondly, we must find innovative and
environmentally sensitive ways to make the most of our existing energy
resources, including oil, natural gas, coal and safe, clean nuclear power.

Third, we must develop promising new sources of energy, such as hydrogen,
ethanol or biodiesel. Fourth, we must help growing energy consumers
overseas, like China and India, apply new technologies to use energy more
efficiently, and reduce global demand of fossil fuels. I applaud the House
for passing a good energy bill. Now the Senate needs to act on this urgent
priority. American consumers have waited long enough. To help reduce our
dependence on foreign sources of energy, Congress needs to get an energy
bill to my desk by this summer so I can sign it into law.

Congress also needs to address the challenges facing Social Security. I've
traveled the country to talk with the American people. They understand that
Social Security is headed for serious financial trouble, and they expect
their leaders in Washington to address the problem.

Social Security worked fine during the last century, but the math has
changed. A generation of baby boomers is getting ready to retire. I happen
to be one of them. Today there are about 40 million retirees receiving
benefits; by the time all the baby boomers have retired, there will be more
than 72 million retirees drawing Social Security benefits. Baby boomers
will be living longer and collecting benefits over long retirements than
previous generations. And Congress has ensured that their benefits will
rise faster than the rate of inflation.

In other words, there's a lot of us getting ready to retire who will be
living longer and receiving greater benefits than the previous generation.
And to compound the problem, there are fewer people paying into the system.
In 1950, there were 16 workers for every beneficiary; today there are 3.3
workers for every beneficiary; soon there will be two workers for every
beneficiary.

These changes have put Social Security on the path to bankruptcy. When the
baby boomers start retiring in three years, Social Security will start
heading toward the red. In 2017, the system will start paying out more in
benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Every year after that the
shortfall will get worse, and by 2041, Social Security will be bankrupt.

Franklin Roosevelt did a wonderful thing when he created Social Security.
The system has meant a lot for a lot of people. Social Security has
provided a safety net that has provided dignity and peace of mind for
millions of Americans in their retirement. Yet there's a hole in the safety
net because Congresses have made promises it cannot keep for a younger
generation.

As we fix Social Security, some things won't change: Seniors and people
with disabilities will get their checks; all Americans born before 1950
will receive the full benefits.

Our duty to save Social Security begins with making the system permanently
solvent, but our duty does not end there. We also have a responsibility to
improve Social Security, by directing extra help to those most in need and
by making it a better deal for younger workers. Now, as Congress begins
work on legislation, we must be guided by three goals. First, millions of
Americans depend on Social Security checks as a primary source of
retirement income, so we must keep this promise to future retirees, as
well. As a matter of fairness, I propose that future generations receive
benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get.

Secondly, I believe a reform system should protect those who depend on
Social Security the most. So I propose a Social Security system in the
future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits
for people who are better off. By providing more generous benefits for
low-income retirees, we'll make this commitment: If you work hard and pay
into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty.
This reform would solve most of the funding challenges facing Social
Security. A variety of options are available to solve the rest of the
problem, and I will work with Congress on any good-faith proposal that does
not raise the payroll tax rate or harm our economy. I know we can find a
solution to the financial problems of Social Security that is sensible,
permanent, and fair.

Third, any reform of Social Security must replace the empty promises being
made to younger workers with real assets, real money. I believe the best
way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option, the
opportunity if they so choose, of putting a portion of their payroll taxes
into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this money is saved
and invested, younger workers would have the opportunity to receive a
higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security
system can provide.

The money from a voluntary personal retirement account would supplement the
check one receives from Social Security. In a reformed Social Security
system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number
of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some
Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I
propose that one investment option consist entirely of Treasury bonds,
which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States
government.

Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer
investment that will allow an American to build a nest egg that he or she
can pass on to whomever he or she chooses. Americans who would choose not
to save in a personal account would still be able to count on a Social
Security check equal to or higher than the benefits of today's seniors.

In the coming days and weeks, I will work with both the House and the
Senate as they take the next steps in the legislative process. I'm willing
to listen to any good idea from either party.

Too often, the temptation in Washington is to look at a major issue only in
terms of whether it gives one political party an advantage over the other.
Social Security is too important for "politics as usual." We have a shared
responsibility to fix Social Security and make the system better; to keep
seniors out of poverty and expand ownership for people of every background.
And when we do, Republicans and Democrats will be able to stand together
and take credit for doing what is right for our children and our
grandchildren.

And now I'll be glad to answer some questions, starting with Terry Hunt.

Q Mr. President, a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of
Social Security, rising gas prices and the economy. Are you frustrated by
that and by the fact that you're having trouble gaining traction on your
agenda in a Republican-controlled Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, we're asking people to do things that haven't been
done for 20 years. We haven't addressed the Social Security problem since
1983. We haven't had an energy strategy in our country for decades. And so
I'm not surprised that some are balking at doing hard work. But I have a
duty as the President to define problems facing our nation and to call upon
people to act. And we're just really getting started in the process.

You asked about Social Security. For the past 60 days, I've traveled our
country making it clear to people we have a problem. That's the first step
of any legislative process; is to explain to people the nature of the
problem, and the American people understand we have a problem.

I've also spent time assuring seniors they'll get their check. That's a
very important part of making sure we end up with a Social Security reform.
I think if seniors feel like they're not going to get their check,
obviously nothing is going to happen.

And we're making progress there, too, Terry, as well. See, once the
American people realize there's a problem, then they're going to start
asking members of Congress from both parties, why aren't you doing
something to fix it? And I am more than willing to sit down with people of
both parties to listen to their ideas. Today, I advanced some ideas of
moving the process along. And the legislative process is just getting
started, and I'm optimistic we'll get something done.

Q Is the poll troubling?

THE PRESIDENT: Polls? You know, if a President tries to govern based upon
polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail. I don't think you can
make good, sound decisions based upon polls. And I don't think the American
people want a President who relies upon polls and focus groups to make
decisions for the American people.

Social Security is a big issue, and it's an issue that we must address now.
You see, the longer we wait, the more expensive the solution is going to be
for a younger generation of Americans. The Social Security trustees have
estimated that every year we wait to solve the problem, to fix the hole in
the safety net for younger Americans costs about $600 billion. And so my
message to Congress is -- to Congress is, let's do our duty. Let's come
together to get this issue solved.

Steve.

Q Your top military officer, General Richard Myers, says the Iraqi
insurgency is as strong now as it was a year ago. Why is that the case? And
why haven't we been more successful in limiting the violence?

THE PRESIDENT: I think he went on to say we're winning, if I recall. But
nevertheless, there are still some in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy.
They want to go back to the old days of tyranny and darkness, torture
chambers and mass graves. I believe we're making really good progress in
Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free
society. They're beginning -- they saw a government formed today.

The Iraqi military is being trained by our military, and they're performing
much better than the past. The more secure Iraq becomes, as a result of the
hard work of Iraqi security forces, the more confident the people will have
in the process, and the more isolated the terrorists will become.

But Iraq has -- have got people there that are willing to kill, and they're
hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their
future. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an important part of
spreading peace. It's a region of the world where a lot of folks in the
past never thought democracy could take hold. Democracy is taking hold. And
as democracy takes hold, peace will more likely be the norm.

In order to defeat the terrorists, in order to defeat their ideology of
hate, in the long run, we must spread freedom and hope. Today I talked to
the Prime Minister of Iraq. I had a great conversation with him. I told him
I was proud of the fact that he was willing to stand up and lead. I told
him I appreciated his courage and the courage of those who are willing to
serve the Iraqi people in government. I told him, I said, when America
makes a commitment, we'll stand by you. I said, I hope you get your
constitution written on time, and he agreed. He recognizes it's very
important for the Transitional National Assembly to get the constitution
written so it can be submitted to the people on time. He understands the
need for a timely write of the constitution.

And I also encouraged him to continue to reaching out to disaffected groups
in Iraq, and he agreed. I'm really happy to talk to him; I invited him to
come to America, I hope he comes soon. There are a lot of courageous people
in Iraq, Steve, that are making a big difference in the lives of that
country.

I also want to caution you all that it's not easy to go from a tyranny to a
democracy. We didn't pass sovereignty but about 10 months ago, and since
that time a lot of progress has been made and we'll continue to make
progress for the good of the region and for the good of our country.

Gregory. David Gregory.

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently the head of the Family Research
Council said that judicial filibusters are an attack against people of
faith. And I wonder whether you believe that, in fact, that is what is
nominating [sic] Democrats who oppose your judicial choices? And I wonder
what you think generally about the role that faith is playing, how it's
being used in our political debates right now?

THE PRESIDENT: I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't
like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated. Some would like
to see judges legislate from the bench. That's not my view of the proper
role of a judge.

Speaking about judges, I certainly hope my nominees get an up or down vote
on the floor of the Senate. They deserve an up or down vote. I think for
the sake of fairness, these good people I've nominated should get a vote.
And I'm hoping that will be the case as time goes on.

The role of religion in our society? I view religion as a personal matter.
I think a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life, or
lives her life. And that's how I've tried to live my life, through example.
Faith-based is an important part of my life, individually, but I don't -- I
don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith.

Q Do you think that's an inappropriate statement? And what I asked is --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I just don't agree with it.

Q You don't agree with it.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think people oppose my nominees because -- because of
judicial philosophy.

Q Sorry, I asked you what you think of the ways faith is being used in our
political debates, not just in society --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I know you asked me that. Well, I can only speak to
myself, and I am mindful that people in political office should not say to
somebody, you're not equally American if you don't happen to agree with my
view of religion. As I said, I think faith is a personal issue, and I get
great strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the political
process because they may not agree with me on religion.

The great thing about America, David, is that you should be allowed to
worship any way you want, and if you choose not to worship, you're equally
as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship,
you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim. That's the
wonderful thing about our country, and that's the way it should be.

John.

Q Good evening, Mr. President. Several times we've asked you or your aides
what you could do about the high price of gasoline, and very often the
answer has come back, Congress needs to pass the energy bill. Can you
explain for us how, if it were passed, soon after it were introduced, the
energy bill would have an effect on the current record price of oil that
we're seeing out there?

THE PRESIDENT: John, actually I said in my opening statement that the best
way to affect the current price of gasoline is to encourage producing
nations to put more crude oil on the market. That's the most effective way,
because the price of crude oil determines, in large measure, the price of
gasoline. The feed stock for gasoline is crude oil, and when crude oil goes
up the price of gasoline goes up. There are other factors, by the way, that
cause the price of gasoline to go up, but the main factor is the price of
crude oil. And if we can get nations that have got some excess capacity to
put crude on the market, the increased supply, hopefully, will meet
increased demand, and therefore, take the pressure off price.

Listen, the energy bill is certainly no quick fix. You can't wave a magic
wand. I wish I could. It's like that soldier at Fort Hood that said, how
come you're not lowering the price of gasoline? I was having lunch with the
fellow, and he said, go lower the price of gasoline, President. I said, I
wish I could. It just doesn't work that way.

This is a problem that's been a long time in coming. We haven't had an
energy policy in this country. And it's going to take us a while to become
less dependent on foreign sources of energy. What I've laid out for the
Congress to consider is a comprehensive energy strategy that recognizes we
need to be better conservers of energy, that recognizes that we can find
more energy at home in environmentally friendly ways.

And obviously a contentious issue in front of the Congress is the issue
over the ANWR, which is a part of Alaska. ANWR is 19 million acres of land.
Technology now enables us to use just 2,000 of that 19 million to be able
to explore for oil and gas so we can have oil and gas produced here
domestically.

One of the great sources of energy for the future is liquefied natural gas.
There's a lot of gas reserves around the world. Gas is -- can only be
transported by ship, though, when you liquefy it, when you put it in solid
form. We've only got five terminals that are able to receive liquefied
natural gas so it can get into our markets. We need more terminals to
receive liquefied natural gas from around the world.

We should have a active energy -- nuclear energy policy in America. We've
got abundant resources of coal, and we're spending money for clean-coal
technology. So these are longer term projects all aimed at making us become
less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Terry.

Q So am I reading correctly that the energy bill would not have had an
effect on today's high gasoline --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it would have 10 years ago. That's exactly what I've
been saying to the American people -- 10 years ago if we'd had an energy
strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign dependence. And
-- but we haven't done that. And now we find ourselves in the fix we're in.
It's taken us a while to get there, and it's going to take us a while to
get out. Hopefully, additional crude oil on the market from countries with
some spare capacity will help relieve the price for the American consumers.

Terry.

Q Mr. President, your State Department has reported that terrorist attacks
around the world are at an all-time high. If we're winning the war on
terrorism, as you say, how do you explain that more people are dying in
terrorist attacks on your watch than ever before?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists
abroad so we don't have to face them here at home. And when you engage the
terrorists abroad, it causes activity and action. And we're relentless. We,
the -- America and our coalition partners. We understand the stakes, and
they're very high because there are people still out there that would like
to do harm to the American people.

But our strategy is to stay on the offense, is to keep the pressure on
these people, is to cut off their money and to share intelligence and to
find them where they hide. And we are making good progress. The al Qaeda
network that attacked the United States has been severely diminished. We
are slowly but surely dismantling that organization.

In the long run, Terry -- like I said earlier -- the way to defeat terror,
though, is to spread freedom and democracy. It's really the only way in the
long-term. In the short-term, we'll use our troops and assets and agents to
find these people and to protect America. But in the long-term, we must
defeat the hopelessness that allows them to recruit by spreading freedom
and democracy. But we're making progress.

Q So in the near-term you think there will be more attacks and more people
dying?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to predict that. In the near-term I can only
tell you one thing: we will stay on the offense; we'll be relentless; we'll
be smart about how we go after the terrorists; we'll use our friends and
allies to go after the terrorists; we will find them where they hide and
bring them to justice.

Let me finish with the TV people first. Suzanne. You're not a TV person, Ed
-- I know you'd like to be, but -- (laughter.)

Q You'd be surprised. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: It's a tough industry to get into.

Q Mr. President, it was four years ago when you fist met with Russian
President Vladimir Putin. You said you looked into his eyes and you saw his
soul. You'll also be meeting with the Russian leader in about a week or so.
What do you think of Putin now that he has expressed a willingness to
supply weapons to outlaw regimes, specifically his recent comments that he
said he would provide short-range missiles to Syria and nuclear components
to Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: We have -- first, just on a broader -- kind of in a broader
sense, I had a long talk with Vladimir there in Slovakia about democracy
and about the importance of democracy. And as you remember, at the press
conference -- or if you weren't there, somebody will remember -- he stood
up and said he strongly supports democracy. I take him for his word.

I -- and we'll continue to work. Condi just -- Condi Rice, our Secretary of
State, just came back and she briefed me that she had a very good
discussion with Vladimir about the merits of democracy, about the need to
listen to the people and have a government that's responsive.

We're working closely with the Russians on -- on the issue of
vehicle-mounted weaponry to Syria. We didn't appreciate that, but we made
ourselves clear. As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly
enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant, and then collect that
uranium after it's used for electricity -- power purposes. That's what
they've decided to do.

And I appreciate that gesture. See, what they recognize is that -- what
America recognizes, and what Great Britain, France, and Germany recognize,
is that we can't trust the Iranians when it comes to enriching uranium;
that they should not be allowed to enrich uranium.

And what the Iranians have said was, don't we deserve to have a nuclear
power industry just like you do? I've kind of wondered why they need one
since they've got all the oil, but nevertheless, others in the world say,
well, maybe that's their right to have their own civilian nuclear power
industry. And what Russia has said: Fine, we'll provide you the uranium,
we'll enrich it for you and provide it to you, and then we'll collect it.
And I appreciate that gesture. I think it's -- so I think Vladimir was
trying to help there. I know Vladimir Putin understands the dangers of a
Iran with a nuclear weapon. And most of the world understands that, as
well.

Wendell.

Q Mr. President, have you asked your ambassador to the U.N., Ambassador
John Bolton, about allegations that he acted improperly to subordinates? Do
you feel that these allegations warrant your personal intervention? And if
they're true, do you feel that they should disqualify him from holding the
post, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, John Bolton has been asked the questions about --
about how he handles his business by members of the United States Senate.
He's been asked a lot of questions and he's given very good answers. John
Bolton is a seasoned diplomat. He's been serving our country for, I think,
20 years. He has been confirmed by the United States Senate four times. In
other words, he's been up before the Senate before and they've analyzed his
talents and his capabilities and they've confirmed him.

John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm a little too blunt.
John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations. It seemed like to
me it makes sense to put somebody who's capable, smart, served our country
for 20 years, been confirmed by the United States Senate four times, and
who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the ambassador to the
U.N.

See, the U.N. needs reform. If you're interested in reforming the U.N.,
like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody
who's skilled and who is not afraid to speak his mind at the United
Nations.

Now, I asked John during the interview process in the Oval Office, I said,
before I send you up there to the Senate, let me ask you something: do you
think the United Nations is important? See, I didn't want to send somebody
up there who said, it's not -- it's not worth a darn; I don't think I need
to go. He said, no, it's important. But it needs to be reformed.

And I think the United Nations is important. As a matter of fact, I'll give
you an example. Today I met with the United Nations representative to
Syria, Mr. Larsen. He's an impressive fellow. Now, he's delivered -- to
Lebanon, excuse me -- he's delivered a very strong message to the Syrian
leader, though, that the world expects President Assad to withdraw not only
his military forces, but his intelligence services, completely from
Lebanon.

And now he is in charge of following up to make sure it happens. I think
that's a very important and useful role for the United Nations to play. We
have played a role. France has played a role. A lot of nations have played
roles. But the United Nations has done a very good job in Syria -- with
Syria in Lebanon of making sure that the world expects the Lebanese
elections to be free in May, without Syrian influence. He's an impressive
fellow. I applaud him for his hard work.

But there's an example of why I think the United Nations is an important
body. On the other hand, the United Nations has had some problems that
we've all seen. And if we expect the United Nations to be effective, it
needs to clean up its problems. And I think it makes sense to have somebody
representing the United Nations who will -- who will be straightforward
about the issues.

Stretch. You mind if I call you Stretch in front of --

Q I've been called worse.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay.

Q Getting back to Social Security for a moment, sir, would you consider it
a success if Congress were to pass a piece of legislation that dealt with
the long-term solvency problem, but did not include personal accounts?

THE PRESIDENT: I feel strongly that there needs to be voluntary personal
savings accounts as a part of the Social Security system. I mean, it's got
to be a part of a comprehensive package. The reason I feel strongly about
that is that we've got a lot of debt out there, a lot of unfunded
liabilities, and our workers need to be able to earn a better rate of
return on our money to help deal with that debt.

Secondly, I like the idea of giving someone ownership. I mean, why should
ownership be confined only to rich people? Why should people not be allowed
to own and manage their own assets who aren't the, you know, the so-called
investor class? I think everybody ought to be given that right. As a matter
of fact, Congress felt so strongly that people ought to be able to own and
manage their own accounts, they set one up for themselves. You've heard me
say, I like to say this, if it's good enough for the Congress, it is -- it
ought to be good enough for the workers, to give them that option. The
government is never saying, you have to set up a personal savings account.
We're saying, you ought to have the right to set up a personal saving
account so you can earn a better rate of return on your own money than the
government can.

And it's that difference between the rate of return, between what the
government gets on your money and what a conservative mix of bonds and
stocks can get on your money that will make an enormous difference, and a
person being able to build his or her own nest egg that the government
cannot spend.

Now, it's very important for our fellow citizens to understand there is not
a bank account here in Washington, D.C., where we take your payroll taxes
and hold it for you and then give it back to you when you retire. Our
system here is called pay-as-you-go. You pay into the system through your
payroll taxes, and the government spends it. It spends the money on the
current retirees, and with the money left over, it funds other government
programs. And all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs.

The reason I believe that this ought to work is not only should a worker
get a better rate of return, not only should we encourage ownership, but I
want people to have real assets in the system. I want people to be able to
say, here's my mix of bonds and stocks that I own, and I can leave it to
whomever I want. And I hear complaints saying, well, you know, there's
going to be high -- Wall Street fees are going to fleece the people.
There's ways to have fee structures that are fair. As a matter of fact, all
you got to do is go to some of these states where they've got personal
accounts available for their workers, and you'll find that the fees will be
fair.

People say, well, I don't want to have -- take risks. Well, as I had a line
in my opening statement, there are ways where you don't have to take risk.
People say, I'm worried about the stock market going down right before I
retire. You can manage your assets. You can go from bonds and stocks to
only bonds as you get older. In other words, we're giving people
flexibility to own their own asset. And I think that's a vital part of
making sure America is a hopeful place in the future. So not only will
these accounts make the system work better, but the accounts are a better
deal. The accounts will mean something for a lot of workers that might not
have assets they call their own.

David.

Q Mr. President, in your question -- your answer before about Iraq, you set
no benchmarks for us to understand when it is the troops may be able to --

THE PRESIDENT: In Iraq?

Q In Iraq, yes -- about when troops may be able to come back.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q Based on what you've learned now in two years of fighting the insurgency
and trying to train the Iraqi security forces, can you say that within the
next year you think you could have very substantial American withdrawal of
troops?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I know there's a temptation to try to get me to lay
out a timetable, and as you know, during the campaign and -- I'll reiterate
it -- I don't think it's wise for me to set out a timetable. All that will
do is cause an enemy to adjust. So my answer is, as soon as possible. And
"as soon as possible" depends upon the Iraqis being able to fight and do
the job.

I had a good video conference recently with General Casey and General
Petreaus -- General Casey is in charge of the theater; General Petreaus, as
you know, is in charge of training -- and they we're upbeat about what
they're seeing with the Iraqi troops. One of the questions I like to ask
is, are they able to recruit. In other words, you hear -- you see these
killers will target recruiting stations, and I've always wondered whether
or not that has had an effect on the ability for the Iraqis to draw their
fellow citizens into the armed forces. Recruitment is high. It's amazing,
isn't it, that people want to serve, they want their country to be free?

The other question that -- one of the other issues that is important is the
equipping issue, and the equipment is now moving quite well. In other
words, troops are becoming equipped.

Thirdly, a fundamental problem has been whether or not there's an
established chain of command, whether or not a civilian government can say
to the military, here's what you need to do -- and whether the command goes
from top to bottom and the plans get executed. And General Petreaus was
telling me he's pleased with the progress being made with setting up a
command structure, but there's still more work to be done.

One of the real dangers, David, is that as politics takes hold in Iraq,
whether or not the civilian government will keep intact the military
structure that we're now helping them develop. And my message to the Prime
Minister and our message throughout government to the Iraqis is, keep
stability; don't disrupt the training that has gone on -- don't politicize
your military -- in other words, have them there to help secure the people.

So we're making good progress. We've reduced our troops from 160,000 more
or less to 139,000. As you know, I announced to the country that we would
step up our deployments -- step up deployments and retain some troops for
the elections. And then I said we'd get them out, and we've done that. In
other words, the withdrawals that I said would happen, have happened.

Go ahead; I can see you've got a follow-up right there on the tip of your
tongue.

Q Do you feel that the number of troops that you've kept there is limiting
your options elsewhere in the world? Just today you had the head of the
Defense Intelligence Agency say that he was now concerned that the North
Koreans, for example, could put a weapon, a nuclear weapon on a missile
that could reach Japan or beyond. Do you feel, as you are confronting these
problems, the number of troops you've left tied up in Iraq is limiting your
options to go beyond the diplomatic solutions that you described for North
Korea and Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that question. The person to ask that to,
the person I ask that to, at least, is to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
my top military advisor. I say, do you feel that we've limited our capacity
to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq? And the
answer is, no, he doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got
plenty of capacity.

You mentioned the Korean Peninsula. We've got good capacity in Korea. We
traded troops for new equipment, as you know; we brought some troop -- our
troop levels down in South Korea, but replaced those troops with more
capacity. Let me talk about North Korea, if you don't mind. Is that your
question?

Q Go right ahead. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised you didn't ask it. (Laughter.)

Look, Kim Jong-il is a dangerous person. He's as man who starves his
people. He's got huge concentration camps. And, as David accurately noted,
there is concern about his capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon. We don't
know if he can or not, but I think it's best when you're dealing with a
tyrant like Kim Jong-il to assume he can.

That's why I've decided that the best way to deal with this diplomatically
is to bring more leverage to the situation by including other countries. It
used to be that it was just America dealing with North Korea. And when Kim
Jong-il would make a move that would scare people, everybody would say,
America, go fix it. I felt it -- it didn't work. In other words, the
bilateral approach didn't work. The man said he was going to do something
and he didn't do it, for starters.

So I felt a better approach would be to include people in the neighborhood,
into a consortium to deal with him. And it's particularly important to have
China involved. China has got a lot of influence in North Korea. We went
down to Crawford with Jiang Zemin, and it was there that Jiang Zemin and I
issued a statement saying that we would work for a nuclear weapons-free
Korean Peninsula.

And so when Kim Jong-il announced the other day about his nuclear
intentions and weapons, it certainly caught the attention of the Chinese
because they had laid out a policy that was contradicted by Kim Jong-il,
and it's helpful to have the Chinese leadership now involved with him. It's
more -- it's better to have more than one voice sending the same message to
Kim Jong-il. The best way to deal with this issue diplomatically is to have
five other -- four other nations beside ourselves dealing with him. And
we'll continue to do so.

Finally, as you know, I have instructed Secretary Rumsfeld -- and I work
with Congress -- Secretary Rumsfeld has worked with Congress to set up a
missile defense system. And we're in the process of getting that missile
defense system up and running. One of the reasons why I thought it was
important to have a missile defense system is for precisely the reason that
you brought up, that perhaps Kim Jong-il has got the capacity to launch a
weapon, and wouldn't it be nice to be able to shoot it down. And so we've
got a comprehensive strategy in dealing with him.

Ed, yes.

Q Mr. President, good evening.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Sir, you've talked all around the country about the poisonous partisan
atmosphere here in Washington. I wonder why do you think that is? And do
you personally bear any responsibility in having contributed to this
atmosphere?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm sure there are some people that don't like me. You know,
Ed, I don't know. I've thought long and hard about it. I was -- I've been
disappointed. I felt that people could work -- work together in good faith.
It's just a lot of politics in the town. It's kind of a zero-sum attitude.
We can't -- we can't cooperate with so-and-so because it may make their
party look good, and vice-versa.

Although having said that, we did have some success in the education bill.
We certainly came together as a country after September the 11th. I
appreciate the strong bipartisan support for supporting our troops in
harm's way. There's been a lot of instances of bipartisanship, but when you
bring a tough issue up like Social Security, it -- sometimes people divide
into camps.

I'm proud of my party. Our party has been the party of ideas. We said,
here's a problem, and here's some ideas as to how to fix it. And as I've
explained to some people, I don't want to politicize this issue -- people
say, you didn't need to bring this up, Mr. President, it may cost you
politically. I don't think so. I think the American people appreciate
somebody bringing up tough issues, particularly when they understand the
stakes: the system goes broke in 2041.

In 2027, for those listening, we'll be obligated to pay $200 billion more
dollars a year than we take in, in order to make sure the baby boomers get
the benefits they've been promised. In other words, this is a serious
problem, and the American people expect us to put our politics aside and
get it done.

You know, I can't answer your question as to why. I'll continue to do my
best. I've tried to make sure the dialogue is elevated. I don't believe
I've resorted to name-calling here in Washington, D.C. I find that to not
be productive. But I also understand the mind of the American people.
They're wondering what's going on. They're wondering why we can't come
together and get an energy bill, for example. They're wondering why we
can't get Social Security done. And my pledge to the American people is,
I'll continue to work hard to -- with people of both parties and share
credit, and give people the benefit of the credit when we get something
done.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Just to follow up on Ed's question, we like to
remind you that you came to Washington hoping to change the tone, and yet,
here we are, three months into your second term and you seem deadlocked
with Democrats on issues like Bolton, DeLay, judges. Is there any danger
that the atmosphere is becoming so poisoned, or that you're spending so
much political capital that it could imperil your agenda items like Social
Security, energy?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think so, Bill. I think when it's all said and done,
we're going to get a lot done. I mean, after all, one of the issues that
people have been working on for a long time is class-action lawsuit reform,
and I signed that bill. An issue that people have been working on for a
long time is bankruptcy law reform, and I signed that bill. And the House
got an energy bill out recently, and I talked to Senator Domenici the other
day and he's upbeat about getting a bill out pretty quickly and get it to
conference and get the issues resolved.

I'm pretty aware of what the issues might be that will hang up a
conference, and I think we can get those issues resolved. We're more than
willing to help out. So I do believe I'll get an energy bill by August.

There's a budget agreement, and I'm grateful for that. In other words, we
are making progress. No question the Social Security issue is a big issue,
but it's -- as I said before, we hadn't talked about this issue for 20
years. And they thought we had it fixed 20 years -- 22 years ago, for 75
years, and here we are, 22 years later after the fix, talking about it
again. And it's serious business. If you're a grandmother or a grandfather
listening, you're going to get your check. But your grandchildren are going
to have a heck of a price to bear if we don't get something done now.

You see, it's possible if nothing gets done that the payroll taxes will go
up to some 18 percent. Imagine that for your children and grandchildren,
living in a society where payroll taxes are up at 18 percent. Or there will
be dramatic benefit cuts as time goes on. Now is the time to get it done.
And my pledge to the American people is that I'm going to stay on this
issue because I know it's important for you.

Fletcher.

Q Yes, Mr. President. You had talked about North Korea and you mentioned
that the six-party talks allow you to bring extra leverage to the table.
But do you think they're working, given North Korea's continued threats and
the continuing growth of their nuclear stockpile?

Q And how long do you let it go before you go to the U.N.?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that question. I do think it's making a
difference to have China and Japan and South Korea and Russia and the
United States working together with North Korea. In my judgment, that's the
only way to get this issue solved diplomatically, is to bring more than one
party to the table to convince Kim Jong-il to give up his nuclear
ambitions. And how far we let it go on is dependent upon our consensus
amongst ourselves. Condi, the other day, laid out a potential option of
going to the United Nations Security Council. Obviously, that's going to
require the parties agreeing. After all, some of the parties in the process
have got the capacity to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution.

So this is an issue we need to continue to work with our friends and
allies. And the more Kim Jong-il threatens and brags, the more isolated he
becomes. And we'll continue to work with China on this issue. I spend a lot
of time dealing with Chinese leaders on North Korea, as do people in my
administration. And I'll continue to work with our friends in Japan and
South Korea. And Vladimir Putin understands the stakes, as well.

Mark.

Q Mr. President, under the law, how would you justify the practice of
renditioning, where U.S. agents who brought terror suspects abroad, taking
them to a third country for interrogation? And would you stand for it if
foreign agents did that to an American here?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a hypothetical, Mark. We operate within the law and
we send people to countries where they say they're not going to torture the
people.

But let me say something: the United States government has an obligation to
protect the American people. It's in our country's interests to find those
who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. And we will do so
within the law, and we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture
people. And we expect the countries where we send somebody to, not to
torture, as well. But you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to
the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their country
of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to
do that. We -- we still at war.

One of my -- I've said this before to you, I'm going to say it again, one
of my concerns after September the 11th is the farther away we got from
September the 11th, the more relaxed we would all become and assume that
there wasn't an enemy out there ready to hit us. And I just can't let the
American people -- I'm not going to let them down by assuming that the
enemy is not going to hit us again. We're going to do everything we can to
protect us. And we've got guidelines. We've got law. But you bet, Mark,
we're going to find people before they harm us.

John McKinnon.

Q Yes, sir. I'd just like to ask, simply, what's your view of the economy
right now? First-quarter growth came in weaker than expected, there have
been worries about inflation and lower spending by consumers. Are these
basically just bumps in the road, in your opinion, or are they reasons for
some real concern and could they affect your agenda on Social Security?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that, John. I am concerned about the economy
because our small business owners and families are paying higher prices at
the gas pump. And that affects the lives of a lot of people. If you're a
small business owner and you have to pay higher gas prices and you're --
likely you may not hire a new worker. In other words, higher gas prices, as
I have said, is like a tax on the -- on the small business job creators.
And it's a tax on families. And I do think this has affected consumer
sentiment; I do think it's affected the economy.

On the other hand, the experts tell me that the forecast of economic growth
in the coming months looks good. There's more to do to make sure that we
don't slip back into slow growth or negative growth. One is to make sure
taxes stay low; secondly, is to continue to pursue legal reform. I hope we
can get an asbestos reform bill out of both the House and the Senate.
There's some positive noises on Capitol Hill as to whether or not we can
get an asbestos reform bill. That will be an important reform in order to
make sure that our economy continues to grow.

We need to continue to open up markets for U.S. products. As you know,
there will be a vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement here,
hopefully soon. I'm a strong believer that that's in the interest of
American job creators and workers, that we open up those markets. I know
it's important geopolitically to say to those Central American countries,
you've got a friend in America. We said we'd have an agreement with you,
and it's important to ratify it. It'll help strengthen the neighborhood.

We've also got to make sure that we continue to reduce regulation. I think
an important -- I know an important initiative that we're going to be
coming forth with here probably in the fall is tax reform. I was amazed by
the report the other day that there is some $330 billion a year that goes
unpaid by American taxpayers. It's a phenomenal amount of money. To me, it
screams for making the tax system easier to understand, more fair and to
make sure that people pay their taxes -- "more fair" means pay what you
owe.

And so there are a lot of things we can do, John, to make sure economic
growth continues. But I'm an optimistic fellow -- based not upon my own
economic forecast -- I'm not an economist -- but based upon the experts
that I listen to.

Let's see here. Richard. (Laughter.) There is somebody with a bad throat
back there. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, you've made No Child Left Behind a big part of your
education agenda. The nation's largest teachers union has filed suit
against it, saying it's woefully inadequately funded. What's your response
to that? And do you think that No Child Left Behind is working?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think it's working. And the reason why I think it's
working is because we're measuring, and the measurement is showing progress
toward teaching people how to read and write and add and subtract. Listen,
the whole theory behind No Child Left Behind is this: if we're going to
spend federal money, we expect the states to show us whether or not we're
achieving simple objectives -- like literacy, literacy in math, the ability
to read and write. And, yes, we're making progress. And I can say that with
certainty because we're measuring, Richard.

Look, I'm a former governor, I believe states ought to control their own
destiny when it comes to schools. They are by far the biggest funder of
education, and it should remain that way. But we spend a lot of money here
at the federal level and have increased the money we spend here quite
dramatically at the federal level. And we changed the policy: instead of
just spending money and hope for the best, we're now spending money and
saying, measure.

And some people don't like to measure. But if you don't measure, how do you
know whether or not you've got a problem in a classroom? I believe it's
best to measure early and correct problems early, before it's too late.
That's why as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act we had money available
for remedial education. In other words, we said we're going to measure, and
when we detect someone who needs extra help, that person will get extra
help.

But, absolutely, it's a good piece of legislation. I will do everything I
can to prevent people from unwinding it, by the way.

Q What about the lawsuit? Which --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know about the lawsuit; I'm not a lawyer. But,