Interview of the President by Mort Kondracke

Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:15 PM

Oval Office, Jan. 29, 2008, 9:37 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for doing this. Let me talk about the State of the Union. First of all, I found the atmosphere in the hall to be very amenable. I didn't feel any tension in there, like we had in the past, which is an interesting feeling. And I ascribe some of that to the notion that there are common -- there's just a common call now, there's a need to work together to deal with the economic uncertainties. And frankly, I hadn't found that before.

Secondly, Iraq has improved to the point, it felt like to me, that there was a lot of tension out of the air.

I did call on Congress to do some pretty substantial things, if you think about it. One, of course, fund the troops, stay in the fight in the liberty agenda. I did, from a foreign policy perspective, still talked about peace in the Holy Land. I was pleased to see both sides of the chamber rise on that. I, of course, talked about Iran. And I talked about the compassion agenda and the need for us to spend $30 billion on HIV/AIDS and continue our malaria initiative. Those are programs and projects which, if Congress thinks about it, are big ideas because it will affect the peace of the country.

At home the stimulus package response was interesting. There was this notion that, on some, that we got to get it done now, and the agreement reached would be effective. I was watching pretty carefully; I noticed some felt like they may want to have a hand in designing the bill. We'll see. My concern is -- and I said this in the speech -- is that time is of the essence -- I didn't put it this way -- but time is of the essence, don't derail it by loading the bill up.

Q Does it look to you as though they are, or the Senate is?

THE PRESIDENT: It's hard to tell at this point in time. There's no question a lot of different ideas being floated. And our attitude has been -- as is the attitude of the leaders in the House -- let's get it out of the House and get it to the Senate and just get them to up or down it. Whether or not that happens or not, we'll see. But if this gets delayed -- in other words, if there's a lot of posturing and different ideas here and the procedures in the Senate begin to delay a bill -- the longer it delays, the less timely the checks will be; and the less timely the checks will be, the more anxious those who are observing the economy could become.

Q Is there a deadline beyond which it's not useful anymore?

THE PRESIDENT: Henry Paulson has not given me that deadline, but his -- the deadline we're operating on is get it done now so that checks get out in the spring.

The other issue that was interesting to observe was FISA. On the one hand, the members were more than anxious to praise those on the front lines of fighting terror, and I appreciated their response. And then I went on to say: but give them the tools. So we'll watch this issue play out here. Our attitude, of course, is that there's been ample time for debate; everybody knew what was coming down the pike. Most members fully understand that there has to be a FISA plan in place that is effective -- effective means proper tools, as well as giving liability to people that are alleged to have helped us. The reason that's important is that obviously there has to be a sense of trust with the private sector when it comes to helping protect America, otherwise people are going to be reluctant to help if they think they're going to get sued for billions of dollars.

Q You're going to have to accept some extension, because the House is about to go out of town. So is there a possibility that they're going to -- you don't want a 30-day extension, but that they'll do one extension after another?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll see, Mort. We were talking about that this morning; that's still very much in play right now. Maybe this will be one of those issues that unfolds as the day goes along. We just want a bill. And we want a bill in a timely manner. If you noticed in my speech, I said, as soon as possible -- but I meant as soon as possible. A 30-day delay is really not as soon as possible.

Just a couple of other issues, then I'll answer your questions. The education -- the No Child Left Behind bill is a success. It was a bipartisan legislative success, but more importantly, it is a success because it enables us to measure. And when you measure you can herald success, which I did in the speech. But it enables you to more likely address failure, which I did in the speech. And the Pell Grant for Kids Initiative is a tie-in to the accountability system in No Child Left Behind, because if you don't measure it, you have no earthly idea of whether a kid is trapped in a failed school.

And the idea is to provide parents flexibility when it comes to their schools. Pell Grants for Kids will trigger after AYP, annual yearly progress is not met. If you notice I said, liberate from failing schools.

The other important point that I was making in the speech is that one of the true assets of America is the parochial school system and other non-public schools, particularly in inner-city America. And if you look, for example, just at one aspect of these non-public schools -- look at the Catholic schools, they provide a great service to America, a quality education at low cost. And yet if you look at the number of classrooms that are shutting down across the country, you can't help but say there is an asset that is slowly but surly leaving the American scene -- which is not good for the country.

And so the Pell Grants for Kids not only enhances the accountability in the No Child Left Behind Act, but also provides hopefully an opportunity for these important institutions of learning to be able to get a second wind and to stop the process of these assets being shut down.

Q The Democrats will see "voucher" in this.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, my question to them would be, do you see voucher in the Pell Grant for somebody going to Notre Dame, or any other non-public school. And so it's -- first of all, I think that's a very important initiative. It's an idea that may be labeled one thing or the other, but they can't ignore the fact that there are poor children trapped in schools that aren't changing. And then the question to all Americans is, is that good for the country? And the answer is, it's not.

As you noticed, I mentioned the D.C. scholarship program, which is a forerunner of this expanded program, and I've strongly urged Congress to pass this. It's a very important initiative. And it ties into No Child Left Behind. I understand No Child has been politicized, but what can't be denied is that accountability is the touchstone to reform. And accountability is the way to make sure minority students aren't shuffled through the system.

Q Are you willing to address their objections that NCLB has never been fully funded?

THE PRESIDENT: We're funding to it the best we can. But I would remind them that most of the funding in public education comes from state government, and that's where it should be. If you're saying, through the NCLB, we want to know, but you chart the path to excellence, and if it's not working, you change; in other words, we want to make sure accountability and responsibility are aligned properly. And that's at the local level.

See, one of the concerns from the right is that No Child Left Behind undermines local control of schools. It doesn't -- it enhances local control of schools. But the best way to -- and so therefore, we'll do the best we can from a budgetary perspective and have increased Title I funding. But the funding issue should not be an excuse to undermine the fundamental reform inherent in No Child Left Behind, which is that we will measure disaggregate results, post the scores, and demand change when there's failure.

Q Can I ask you a couple of legacy kind of questions?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead.

Q Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are basing their campaigns on the idea that Washington is broken.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Do you think Washington is broken?

THE PRESIDENT: If I were running for President, I would be for change. As a matter of fact, every candidate has got to figure out a way to be for change. I campaigned for change every time I ran, except for twice: 1998, my reelection campaign for governor; 2004 my reelection campaign for President. (Laughter.)

Can Washington function better? Of course it can. As a matter of fact, I pointed out last night, there's a good way for people to earn the trust of Washington, and that is through reforming the appropriations process. In other words, I pointed out that earmarks, particularly those that are slipped into committee reports, conference reports, or bill reports, really is not a democratic process. And that's why I put the -- will sign the EO this afternoon, basically saying that if you do this again, I will instruct people not to spend the money. The money will be available; it's just not going to be available for those projects, it will be a competitive process under which the money will be spent.

So to the extent that Washington needs reform, of course it does. Is this administration addressing it? Yes we are. But I can understand why people running for office will be saying, give me a chance, I can do it better. That's the message of every race.

Q But on the basis of your seven years, now going on eight, there are things that you wanted to get done that haven't gotten done that seemingly can't get done: immigration reform, entitlement reform, health care reform -- I mean, one thing after another, big things that --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wouldn't say "one thing after another." I would say that those are certainly three big things. We have reformed education, we have reformed Medicare, we have cut taxes. But no question -- let me take entitlement reform. Entitlement reform is an issue that is evolutionary, in this sense: Social Security has gone from the third rail of American politics. If you address it, you will lose politically; that was the whole mantra. My attitude is, as time goes on, as younger people begin to understand that Social Security is failing, that if you don't address it, it will be the third rail.

Secondly, what has changed is that the notion of defined benefits inherent in the old retirement programs is now shifting to defined contributions. More and more Americans have got their 401(k)s. More and more people understand the power of managing your own assets.

Thirdly, I believe that over time, minority communities will recognize that one of the failures of our society has been the accumulation of assets, assets that people can -- in their communities, that they can pass on from one generation to the next. And a powerful part of the freedom agenda at home has got to be to have systems that encourage asset accumulation.

And so it's -- this is an evolutionary issue. One thing history will be able to say is that we finally had a President who stood up in front of the nation more than one time and said, here is a solution for Social Security.

And on immigration, my judgment on immigration is, is that we should have had a bill last year. And delays in the process enabled the voices of negativism to go on the offense, and it frightened the members. But what's going to end up happening is, is that there's going to be enormous pressure on our economy, for starters, because people who are relying upon foreign workers to do jobs that just aren't simply being done otherwise will start pressuring Congress to come up with rational plans. And if you start addressing the worker issue, it's going to mean that you're going to also have to address those who are here illegally.

Logic will prevail over time, once the emotion gets out of the issue.

Q So you don't think that this town is so polarized that you can't get stuff done, that over time --

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely there's going to be something done on entitlements, and there will be something done on immigration. It just takes time. Just like reforming Medicare. Circumstances --

Q But you're not going to see it. It will be some time after your --

THE PRESIDENT: This time?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as you noticed in my remarks, I didn't say, get it done tomorrow. Now, I did say, you can solve this. On the Social Security issue I said, I've laid out my plan, which I did, which will work, which is basically the -- I don't know if I need to review it with you.

Q You don't. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. And on immigration, I was a little more forthcoming when I said, it can be resolved in a way that upholds laws. In other words, it was -- whether or not the Congress has the political will to address it or not, I can't predict yet. But I will tell you something, Mort, I do believe that these members are beginning to feel some pressure from concerned employers about two aspects of the current law. One, that they're having trouble finding workers. And if you're a chicken plucker or an apple grower or a hotel manager, you got to be concerned about finding people willing to do that kind of work, particularly if this economy continues to grow and the unemployment rate remains down.

Secondly, employers are concerned about work site enforcement, not because they know that we shouldn't uphold the law -- which we will do, we'll have work site enforcement -- but because they're uncertain about who they're dealing with because of the fraud and the documentation. Therefore, we'll argue, the members -- or should argue to members, if they're having trouble finding employees, let's be rational about how to help them. And secondly, if document fraud is a concern for those who are actually providing jobs, why don't we come up with a new document that is tamper-proof?

As I say, these issues -- one of the interesting things about the legislative process that I've learned, at least -- I gave a speech as the governor of Texas about reforming how we pay for our schools. And at the time it was quite controversial. And people came to me and said, you don't need to address this issue now. And I said, why not? It's coming. And I call it the storm clouds on the horizon: We can see the storm clouds; shouldn't we deal with them now?

Legislative bodies tend to be reactive. In other words, until the crisis is at hand, sometimes it's hard to get them to act. There is a crisis coming. These issues will be dealt with, and the question is, when. It's much easier to deal with the issues before the crisis is really upon them.

And we'll see whether Congress heeds the call to come up with your solutions. I'm interested to see how they think they can solve the issue.

Q You told Bret Baier the other day that you were not able to be the uniter -- not a divider -- that you wanted to be. So what happened?

THE PRESIDENT: I think -- first of all, the biggest disappointment for me has not been able to establish the -- you know, the kind of the -- set those common goals that we were able to do in Texas.

Q Why not?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the town is just very polarized right now. And I have actually -- I've looked back at history and looked at other periods; it's been pretty polarized in the past too. I mean, I remind people that -- you know, they say, gosh, it's been a tough presidency and all that business. And I said, nothing compared to Abraham Lincoln -- which was one polarized time. So the process itself, the political process itself, tends to create polarization.

But we have found common ground. You know, I know the story line has divided Washington, but if you think about it, we have found common ground. We found common ground in fighting the terrorists. We have debates over certain aspects of it, but most members understand that we've got to have good front lines here in America to protect America from attack.

We'll get a FISA bill, which is a sign of -- you know, there's enough common ground to recognize these professionals need the tools. We got tax cuts. You've got to understand on the tax cut issue, there's a philosophical difference in Washington on money. I mean, I view it that the Democrats want more money so they can spend more money. I don't believe you raise taxes to balance a budget -- the temptation is going to be too big to spend that money. And the job of the President, if you're a fiscal conservative person, is to lean-out the process, is to be the person that says, no, you can't have more money, because it's not going to go to balancing the budget.

Secondly, I'm a supply-sider. There's a big philosophical divide on supply-siders. People expect -- you know, there's one thing to compromise on pieces of legislation to get something done. It's another thing to compromise on principle -- which I have refused to do. People say, oh, you must be a uniter by compromising your beliefs. There are certain things on which I will not compromise. And I don't see how you can be President if you don't stand strong on your principles. There's too much incoming, there's too many complicated decisions, too much flattery, too much criticism, too many polls, too many focus groups. And the President has to say: Here is the ground on which I stand.

And one of the places I made my stand is what I said last night in this speech: We trust you, and we empower you with more of your own money. And on foreign policy, it is: I truly believe there's an Almighty, and a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child is liberty. That's what I believe. And history has proven me correct.

I fully recognize some don't agree with that. They say, well, you know, okay, some of us will be free, the others are not going to free; let's just make sure we have stability. The problem with that is, is it doesn't, in my judgment, understand the nature of the world in which we live, because I see us engaged in an ideological struggle, the likes of which we have faced before. The difference this time is that an enemy kills the innocent through suicides and asymmetrical warfare to achieve their objectives. But the struggle is the same. And the outcome will be the same if we do not lose faith in the transformative power of liberty. And that's what I talked about last night.

Now, is that a unifying message? Not really, because some people don't agree with it. But I have tried to speak in -- you know, what I try to do in my speeches -- if you go back and look at them -- is, mine is not a laundry list of this, that and the other. Mine is an attempt to get Congress to focus on big ideas based upon a philosophy. And two years ago, I think it was, I gave a speech warning the country about isolationism and protectionism.

So I view that opportunity to speak to the country about, you know, the big ideas we're facing, and how Americans must lead. Inherent in my remarks is that we must be confident in what we stand for, and not feel like we have to subsume our interests, our beliefs, in order to reach kind of unanimity in the world. Well, that also applies at home. And so people say, yes, you can unify -- but I will not unify if I have to compromise my beliefs.

Q Do you think that the United States is --

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for letting me go on and on.

Q No, this is music to my ears. You state some things that make for a very good interview. (Laughter.)

Do you think that the United States is a stronger country than when you found it? And I would point out that our standing in the world -- and I grant, it's polls -- but is down in a lot of countries because of the freedom agenda, I suppose, but -- and Iraq war. And we're deeper in debt than we were before -- I mean, the national debt is bigger than we were before. And our debt to foreigners is bigger than it was before. So are we a stronger country?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, absolutely we are stronger. Absolutely. We're stronger because our military is stronger, and our military is becoming modern. We're stronger because we recognize the threats of the 21st century, and are dealing with them. We're stronger because we've added jobs; more Americans are working. We're stronger because real wages are up. We're stronger because productivity is strong. We're stronger because we're still a flexible economy with a strong entrepreneurial spirit. We have more debt, but we've also got more assets. We're stronger because America is in the lead, using its influence.

I frankly don't care what the opinion polls say. My attitude is, you can make a poll really say anything you want it to be. But when it comes to the world recognizing that America must play a constructive, leading role, I think you'll find in capital after capital they hope America does stay engaged. And when it comes to, where do you want to live, many people say, I'd like to be in America.

And so, yes, I say people respect America and what we stand for. Sometimes they don't like the President. No question the Iraq war -- no question they don't like the Iraq war. Nobody likes war. And approval ratings on war are not necessarily an accurate reflection about people's admiration for America. When Abraham Lincoln was President, if they had approval ratings, I bet the approval rating would be extremely low because of the war. On the other hand, when people think about what he stood for, the principles on which he stood, it was inspiring. And America inspires others because we believe in human rights and human dignity and freedom to worship.

And the great ideological struggle that's playing out, that's causing angst in the rest of the world, is that there are people willing to murder because of those principles.

Q Is there a conflict between your freedom agenda and your support for the process in Pakistan, where Musharraf probably is going to -- and his party are probably going to run a rigged election?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think so. I hope not. I've certainly talked to him about not rigging the election. No, we believe that there ought to be open and fair elections, and have always said that. We believe that it's in the best course of Pakistan that they address the extremists by firm action, on the one hand, and making sure that people have an opportunity to express themselves in the ballot box on the other.

Morton, one of the things that's interesting about the freedom agenda is that democracies evolve over time based upon histories and traditions of the country. We cannot expect that every nation, all of a sudden, is going to be a flourishing democracy the way we want it to be. What we should expect is that institutions develop where peoples are given a chance to vote. The role of America ought to be, yes we support elections. I strongly supported the elections in the Palestinian Territories, because elections are defining moments, and they create clarity. They help people see the truth. And the truth was, in the Palestinian election, was that people were sick of the corrupt Arafat regime, and they wanted better health and better education. And Hamas hasn't delivered it -- which provides Abbas, who wants to live side-by-side with Israel in peace, an opportunity.

So America can seize on this moment by saying, let's get a state defined for everybody to see, to give these people something to be for, and let's help build institutions. And Pakistan -- the institutions are deeper-rooted in Pakistan than they are in other parts of the world. They've got a very active press, they've got active campaigning. But the thing that has complicated it is not Musharraf, but the murderers who wreak havoc on Pakistan democracy trying to create this kind of -- and this is the tactics, create fear, anxiety and --

Q But do you think Musharraf is doing everything that he can to deal with both the internal and the Taliban threat to -- you know, Karzai constantly complains that --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he does.

Q -- he's not helping anything.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think Karzai's tone on Musharraf has changed somewhat. I think President Musharraf understands the threat to his country and to his self, personally. We've got a very close relationship with him when it comes to fighting off these terrorists. And I can understand why he says -- when people out of America say, we're going to invade you, I can understand why he says, I'm concerned about that. It's a sovereign country. On the other hand, I know -- I talk to him quite frequently, I know that he wants to cooperate. I know that he's interested in taking care of these extremists. And I firmly believe -- and I have no evidence to the contrary that he's going to rig the elections; quite the contrary, he has told me that wants to have free and fair elections.

Q Is it true that he rebuffed us on intelligence cooperation in the tribal areas?

THE PRESIDENT: Not as far as I'm concerned.

Q Because there was a story in The New York Times yesterday that Hayden and --

THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't necessarily believe everything you read in there.

Q Last foreign policy question, or one more foreign policy question. At the rate things are going, is not -- are you not going to leave office with Iran on its way to getting a nuclear weapon, insofar as the international sanctions don't seem to be working?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, 12 months is a long time. Secondly, what is definitely going to happen is that there is going to be a framework for the world to pressure the Iranians. Condi just came back from a successful European trip, where once again it looks like we're going to get the Europeans, as well as Russia and China, to send another message to the Iranians.

Whether or not it's working or not, that's an interesting question. There is evidence that the Iranian economy is not flourishing; the poor people have gotten poorer; that there's economic depravation. And one part of our strategy, of course, is to continue their isolation and continue to pressure, so that hopefully somebody rational shows up and says, enough is enough, therefore it's not worth it. And other than that, it's all I feel comfortable commenting on, except to remind you that all options are on the table.

MR. GILLESPIE: I think the President has only got time for one more, because the chopper is for him.

THE PRESIDENT: That's what you get when you come to a long-winded --

Q I understand. If the Israelis come to you and say, Mr. President, we've got to deal with this threat, what are you going to say?

THE PRESIDENT: I say we are dealing with the threat. And I will remind them what I said -- I was asked that very question in Jerusalem. My answer was, we're working on this issue every day. We recognize there's a threat. Part of the issue was whether or not I even recognize there's a threat is a result of recent -- an intelligence issue. And I did confirm how seriously we take this issue. And they confirmed to me how seriously they take it.

Q Exactly. And in order for them to attack, do another Osirak, if they wanted to do it, they presumably would have to get our permission.

THE PRESIDENT: To the extent that we're talking -- I'm not going to comment on any of the wild speculation that's going on about how this issue should be dealt with.

Q Okay, good. Thank you very much.

END, 10:08 A.M. EST