THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, all. Thank you very much. Please be seated. Thank you. What he said was, it's about time you made it. （Laughter.） Dave was right: I was scheduled here at World Wide, and then the fires hit in California and I went out there to help the people try to recover from the natural disaster. And I told him at the Christmas party there at the White House, I said, I'm coming back. I've always felt like if you're a politician and you make a promise, you better keep it. （Laughter.）
And so I have, and the reason why I wanted to come then and wanted to come back is, I think it's very important for the President to recognize success, and for the President to herald entrepreneurship. And so in meeting with Dave and Jim and the employees of this company, really what I'm saying is that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well here at World Wide. （Applause.）
You heard the man say that over the past seven years revenues have tripled, and they've expanded the job base by 500 people. And what's relevant for America is that it's the small business sector —— I don't know if you call yourself "small" anymore; you're probably a medium-sized business sector —— （laughter） —— that creates jobs. Seventy percent of new jobs in America are created by small- and medium-sized businesses. And if you're worried about the economy like I'm worried about the economy, then it makes sense to put policy in place that encourages investment and growth with the job creators.
And that's what I want to spend a little time talking to you about. But before I do so, I do want to thank the World Wide Technology employees. The truth of the matter is —— （applause） —— this company is doing well because you've got imaginative leadership, but you've also got great employees who are well-motivated, taken care of, inspired. And it's been my honor to meet some of your employees, and I look forward to answering some of your questions here in a minute.
I do want to thank the Governor of the state of Missouri for joining us. Governor Blunt, I'm proud you're here; thank you for taking time out of your schedule. The Governor and I discussed the recent storms that have hit parts of Missouri. I assured him that we will stay in touch with his office and the emergency teams to make sure that if there needs to be a federal response, we will be ready to give one. And obviously for those who've lost their property today, we send our heartfelt condolences, and just want you to know that when natural disaster strikes, if the disaster merits it, there will be a ample and robust government response. So thanks for coming, Governor.
I'm also proud to be here with the United States Senator Kit Bond from Missouri. （Applause.） Needless to say, he used his time on Air Force One to make sure I understood the issues that were facing the state of Missouri. We spent a little time talking about the Missouri River. （Laughter.） And Todd Akin is with us, too. Congressman, I'm proud you're here; thanks for coming.
So we're getting economic news. There's a lot of data beginning to move. On Wednesday the —— they talked about the fact that the economy in the first quarter grew at 0.6 percent; that's the same as it grew in the fourth quarter of last year. That's not good enough for America. It's positive growth, but we can do better than that. Today there was another report out that showed that we lost 20,000 jobs last month, even though the unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent. In other words, the unemployment rate went down. And again, that's a sign that this economy is not as robust as any of us would like it.
The good news is, is that we anticipated this. Last fall we started to get indications that the economy was going to slow down. And so, believe it or not, you can actually work with Congress sometimes —— with people on both sides of the aisle, which is what we did; these two members were incredibly constructive —— to pass a stimulus package, pro-growth package.
There's two aspects to that package I want to spend some time talking about; one of them is, is that you're going to get some money. It turns out it's your money, but you're going to get it back. （Laughter and applause.） Six hundred dollars per person, $1,200 per couple, $300 per child; a family of four will be getting a $1,800 check. And the reason why —— and by the way, it's going to affect 130 million families. And the reason why that is good policy, first of all, it's a temporary tax relief, recognizing that we're going to recover, and this is to help stimulate that recovery. Secondly, we wanted to make sure that people were encouraged to be consumers. We wanted there to be consumption in our society, and no better way to stimulate consumption than to let you have some of your own money back.
Thirdly, it turns out that this money is going to be very helpful in helping people deal with high energy prices and food price. I'm going to spend a little time on energy here in a minute. And fourthly, it's big enough —— in other words, we didn't want to make a political statement, we wanted to make a statement that will affect this economy. When you're affecting 130 million households, with over $150 billion, a pro-growth package, it's going to affect us positively. The experts say that beginning —— toward the end of this quarter and the beginning of next quarter, we should see some positive signs as a result of the pro-growth economic package.
Now, some of you are saying, you think I'm ever going to see my money? We've heard "the check is in the mail" deal before. Well, it's coming. They started hitting last Monday, and Secretary of the Treasury Paulson is on top of this, and so you'll start seeing —— if you're not —— if you didn't get your money electronically, you're going to start seeing it come in the check form.
And for those people in Missouri, and around the nation, that do not file income taxes, you need to contact the local IRS office because you're likely to be eligible. And therefore, you got to make sure you sign up for the program in order to get the money. We want you to get the money. And so if you're involved in a church group that's worried about helping people, then make sure that parishioners, or make sure people in the community centers understand that if you're not a filer you're still eligible to get a check.
Now, the other aspect of the program was to stimulate investment for companies like World Wide. In other words, there's a —— you can effect the tax code that provides incentives for the CEOs to say, I think we need —— we ought to buy some equipment. And that's important for a couple of reasons. One, it makes you more productive, it makes you more competitive, it gives the employees a better chance to keep this company on a cutting edge.
Secondly, somebody has to make that which you purchase. So if the tax code says it's in your interest to buy a piece of equipment, or to buy software, or to buy something to make this company a better company, then somewhere in the economy somebody is going to make it for you. And that also creates jobs. There's a ripple effect for using the tax code to stimulate investment.
I was talking to Dave and Jim, and they were telling me that the incentives built in the pro-growth plan for businesses are causing them to make new investments for you that they may have put off for later years. And the effects of this aspect of the pro-growth plan are beginning to kick in, as well. In other words, it's just starting. We passed the deal in February.
The point I'm trying to tell you is, is that we worked well with Congress and that the effects of a robust attempt to inject life hasn't really kicked in yet. And I'm —— if you believe these economists, if they had three hands they'd say, on the one hand, on the other hand, and then on the third hand. （Laughter.） But we've got some smart folks around that are analyzing what this means, and they feel confident about it.
I've been —— since I've been your President, I want to remind you we have been through a recession, we have been through a terrorist attack, we have been at war, we have had corporate scandals, we have had major natural disasters, and yet this economy always recovers. We're a resilient economy because we've got good, capable, smart, hardworking people in America. And I know it's tough times, and I know you're having to pay more at the fuel pump than you want, but this economy is going to come on. I'm confident it will. And I want to thank the folks at World Wide for being a part of the leading edge of optimism here in America; a leading edge in making sure that people can find good, hard —— paying jobs.
Let me talk about energy very quickly. I'm fully aware that people are paying dearly at the pump. The other day at a press conference I said it's like a tax; it's a tax on you. The more that gasoline goes up, the more you're paying —— the more you're paying for the pump, the less money you have in your pocket to spend for your family. I will tell you it's taken us a while to get in this fix, and therefore it's going to take us a while to get out of the fix. But I want to remind you that an energy policy that basically prohibits America from finding oil in our own land is an energy policy that has led to high gasoline prices.
When I first got to the Congress, I suggested that we have a comprehensive energy policy: one that recognizes the short-term effects of being reliant upon foreign oil; one that says we can use new technologies that will enable us to power our automobiles in different kinds of ways, using ethanol, for example, or battery technology; and one, ultimately, that will allow hydrogen to power the car.
So we worked well with Congress on the interim step. As you know, ethanol is beginning to take off, and I'm convinced we're going to be able to make ethanol out of something other than corn here relatively quickly, like wood chips, or grasses grown in the desert, which will be very exciting for the American people. Hydrogen —— we're doing a lot of research on your behalf to have hydrogen-powered automobiles, which means you're running on hydrogen, the waste product of which is water.
But in the meantime, in the short run, we didn't allow exploration for oil and gas in places like Alaska, our outer-continental shelf. And guess what happened? World demand exceeded supply, and now you're paying for it. If Congress truly is interested in helping relieve the price of gasoline, they would do two things: They would recognize that we can drill for oil and gas in environmentally friendly ways here in the United States, where there is good reserves; and they would build refineries. They would encourage the construction of refineries. Do you know that there hadn't been a new refinery built in America since 1976? No wonder there's constricted supplies. If you want more of something, in this case you got to build the additional manufacturing capability. And so our gasoline supplies are restricted, as well.
My attitude is, I understand the pain, but I also understand if we don't allow us to explore in environmentally friendly ways for oil and gas reserves in the United States of America, we'll remain dependent in the short-term on foreign oil. And that's not good for us.
I want to talk about housing very quickly. The key to the housing market is for the market to adjust —— you know, built too many houses. We just got to work through the system. But there's things government should and can do that is responsible —— mainly, is to help credit-worthy people stay in their home. That's the best thing we can do, is to help somebody who is capable of paying the mortgage, and if they just need a little help to be able to stay in the home, is to help provide that help.
And here's the dilemma: If you got a —— bought yourself a mortgage, in the old days the originator of your mortgage, like a savings and loan, was somebody that you could go and talk in the office, say, listen, man, I got a little bit of a problem, I'm in a bind, I need a little help on my interest payment; or, can you extend my note out a little bit. The originator of the mortgage, the guy who loaned you the money, still owned the paper. In this day and age the person that loaned you the money for the mortgage may not own the mortgage anymore.
And so we came together —— the Treasury Department and groups that help people understand the mortgage market and refinancing experts —— and put together what's called the HOPE NOW Alliance, which enables people to go and renegotiate loans. That's what we want to do: We want to help people stay in their homes. The market is going to correct. And what we want to do is to say, here's a way for you to stay in your home. They go to these lenders, big lenders and say, look, just help them out a little bit —— delay interest or renegotiate the interest rates or extend the payments. We've helped about 1,400,000 homeowners stay in their homes.
I know there's all kinds of proposals coming out of Congress. One such proposal was, why don't you use your money to buy empty houses. Well, that doesn't help the person who's no longer in the house. That may help the lender. That may help the speculator. I'm interested in helping the homeowner. So we'll work with Congress on legislation, but in my judgment the best kind of legislation focuses on the person that actually owns the home.
Now, look, some people were in there speculating. I don't think government ought to help speculators. And government —— you know, the truth of the matter is some folks probably shouldn't have tried to buy a home in the first place. But there's a lot of good, creditworthy people —— they just need a little relief to stay in the home.
The other thing I'm worried about is these reset mortgages. What I'm very concerned about is somebody went out and got them a mortgage, and the person that sold them the mortgage said, boy, this is a good, low interest rate for you. They forgot to tell them the second half: that in a couple of years, it's going to bump up. These resets, as you know, you buy a low interest rate and you get on the paper, and then by a couple of years later, all of a sudden the interest rate booms up.
And what I'm really concerned about is fraudulent tactics that didn't tell people that didn't really quite understand what was going on the full story. And it's a federal responsibility to make sure if that stuff goes on, people are held to account. We don't want people being cheated in America.
The other thing that the government can do is to reform what's called these GSEs. These are big government-backed lending institutions. And we can reform them and get them focused on their core mission, which is to help the mortgage industry move forward, help people in homes.
And finally another interesting idea is to let the states' housing authorities issue tax-free bonds, which will then provide more money for refinancing.
Finally, I do want to talk about trade. It's an interesting subject here in America. A lot of people who say, trade is bad for our country. We shouldn't be a nation that opens up markets —— that's what they're saying. Unless of course, you're a Missouri farmer who's selling your product into foreign markets. Unless, of course, you're World Wide Technology, which is expanding in a robust way and is looking for new markets. By the way, it's in your interests if you're working for World Wide that markets be open. If you're good at what you're doing —— and you are, obviously; otherwise you wouldn't be successful —— then trade policy ought to make it easier for you to enter foreign markets.
All I want is for America to be treated the way we treat other nations. I think that's a reasonable thing to ask. And so let me talk about the Colombia free trade agreement. You might have been reading about that lately. It's one of these issues that has created consternation —— at least in Washington. Most goods from Colombia come into the United States duty-free. That's a result of longstanding congressional policy. Most of our goods and services are taxed going into Colombia. Most goods coming here come in duty-free; most goods produced in the United States, or services like yours, pay a tariff. That means a tax; it's more expensive. It's harder to get into the market because what you charge is upped by tax.
I think it makes sense to have Congress say, we want Colombia to treat us just the way we treat Colombia. It turns out 9,000 businesses export into Colombia in the United States, 8,000 of which are small and mid-sized businesses. Isn't that interesting? Many of the people benefitting, people working for companies that export into Colombia work for small businesses and medium-sized businesses.
But Congress doesn't see it that way right now. A lot of members of Congress do, but they have absolutely shut down the vote on the Colombia free trade agreement. And I think it's irresponsible. If you're worried about the state of the economy, we ought to be opening up markets, not shutting down markets. We ought to be insisting we're treated fairly.
And I'll tell you another problem. In not moving the Colombia free trade agreement, we are turning our back on a very strong ally of the United States of America. There's a President of Colombia named Uribe, and he's got a tough situation down there because he's dealing with what's called FARC, which is an extremist group that uses drug dollars to perpetuate violence and to move their products —— mainly to here. And here's a man who says, I'm going to deal with them, I'm going to be tough with them. And then all of a sudden the United States Congress turns its back on him. What kind of message is that?
And so I strongly urge the Congress to understand that opening up markets is good for our economy. But I also strongly urge the Congress to understand —— whether it would be Colombia or Panama or Korea —— that we can't be turning our backs on our allies. This is good economics and it's good national security.
Those are some of the things on my mind. I've got a lot on my mind, by the way. （Laughter.） Getting ready to march down the aisle. （Laughter and applause.）
What I thought I'd do is answer some questions, any question, any topic. I've been around long enough to dodge them if I can't figure out the answer. （Laughter.） I can ask myself one.
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman —— oh, Mr. President. （Laughter.）
Q As Dave mentioned, we're doing very well as a company. Had a very good first quarter, best first quarter ever. Last year, the last three years, we've grown about 29 percent. One of the challenges that we have is managing the cost of health care. So with all of our employees here, can you give some of your thoughts in regards to how do we manage the continuing increased cost of health care?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. In essence, there's two paths. One is for the government to basically make most of the decisions. In other words, say, we're going to make sure you have health care, and we'll make sure it's available for you. And the problem with that system is they basically make decisions for you.
I happen to believe in private medicine. I think it is by far the best route to go because private medicine has made American health care the best in the world. I don't care what people tell you, America's health care is on the leading edge of change, and our American people get really good health care.
Now the question is, who pays for it? The question is, is it available and is it affordable? So the approach I've taken is to, one, remember the most important element in any system is the buyer, is the consumer, is the customer. That would be you, if you're a patient. And therefore, the policies that I've articulated have been all aimed at empowering you to have more decision-making in the health care system, so as to help deal with costs. If there's no decision-making in the system —— there's no shopping, there's no consumerism —— price goes up. It's an economic fact.
So I'm a strong believer in health savings accounts. I don't know if you have them here, but they are very empowering instruments. They let you make the decisions. They let you save when you don't spend money; they let you roll the money over tax-free; they let you pull it out tax-free for medical care. It's your money —— and it grows.
The other thing is, is that it's portable. When you go from one job to the next it follows you. So I think it's a very important aspect in a society in which, if you're under 30 years old, you're likely to have worked for seven or eight jobs. This is a very highly mobile workplace we have now.
Secondly, if you're a small business, you ought to be allowed to pool risk, just like big companies can do. But you ought to be able to do it across jurisdictional boundaries. That's fancy words for, if you're a restaurant in Missouri, you ought to be able to put your employees in a risk pool with a restaurant in Texas. The larger the risk pool —— in other words, the more people involved in the insurance —— the less price goes up, the easier it is for somebody to find affordable product. But now it's against the law to do that. So small businesses ought to be allowed to pool risk. That's what big companies do. And I believe we ought to treat World Wide just like —— give World Wide the same advantages in the marketplace that big companies get to do. Those are called association health plans.
The tax code is discriminatory. It says that if you work for a company, you get tax benefits. If you don't, you don't get tax benefits. If you're a very small company trying to provide health care, the tax code discriminates against your employees. We ought to change the tax code. We ought to treat everybody the same in the tax code —— all aiming to drive the establishment of an individual market so that people can better afford health care.
Now, look, we spend a lot of money, by the way, on people who need help. My view of America is that we're rich enough to take care of people who can't help themselves, and we do. We got a robust Medicare system —— which, by the way, my administration reformed for the first time since Lyndon Johnson, substantially reformed it since Lyndon Johnson was the President. And now you get a prescription drug benefit. So for all you guys my age, get yourself a prescription drug benefit pretty soon. （Laughter.）
We take care of the —— through Medicaid —— community health centers all throughout the country, and we're expanding them so that people can get primary care in a place other than an emergency room.
Thirdly, there needs to be transparency in pricing. How many of you ever asked a doctor how much something costs? Have you ever shopped? The answer is no, you likely haven't. It's because the system —— somebody else pays your bill in a third-party payer system. And so when somebody else pays the bill there is no incentive to worry about cost —— "What do I care? Somebody else is paying the bill," you think, until your benefit structure starts to change because of inflation in the health care system.
And so the whole purpose is to have transparency in the system. One of the things we're doing —— you know, we're a big purchaser of health care, thanks to you —— like, veterans, Medicare, Medicaid. And so we're now saying that if you participate with the government, post price. Let people see what the different prices are. Post quality ratings. It's nice to know if you're a consumer, isn't it, whether or not you got a —— whether or not somebody you're thinking about paying has got a good record.
The other thing is, is that one of the real cost-drivers —— or two other cost-drivers I want to discuss —— so in other words, consumerism helps deal with cost. Transparency helps deal with cost. This is a system in which there's been no cost consciousness whatsoever.
Thirdly, information technology —— the best way to describe this in health care is that people are still taking handwritten files, putting them under their arms and delivering it from one office to the next. And that means oftentimes there's medical errors because the files get lost. Doctors can't write very clearly anyway. And so you —— something gets illegible.
Most industries —— your industry is using high-tech to modernize. There's a lot of cost efficiencies that can be wrung out of the system by the advent of information technology. The dream is that someday you've got a medical record, your own medical record —— by the way, tamper-proof; in other words, protected —— that you can use from one office to the next. It's a sign that efficiencies in the system have taken hold.
I'll tell you an interesting story about that. The Veterans Administration in New Orleans was clobbered during Katrina. And so you had a lot of veterans leaving the New Orleans area —— many of them going to Houston, for example —— but they had electronic medical records. It turns out the Veterans Affairs is generally ahead of the rest of the field. And all they did was take their chip and they plugged it into the computers in Houston, and the whole medical records was available. That's —— not only it's good for the customer, the patient, but what I'm telling you is it'll help wring out the inefficiencies in the system. Health care is an inefficient system right now.
And finally —— it's a long answer, sorry —— （laughter） —— I've thought a lot about it. （Laughter.） I've analyzed what's best on how to deal with this. It's a very —— it's a tough issue for you and it's a tough issue for small businesses. It's a tough issue. But one of the cost-drivers, just so you know, is lawsuits. And if you're an attorney, I don't mean to be stepping on your toe; everybody needs a good attorney, you know —— particularly me, since I'm getting sued all the time. But it's a —— （laughter） —— I think I am.
And so I have, and the reason why I wanted to come then and wanted to come back is, I think it's very important for the President to recognize success, and for the President to herald entrepreneurship. And so in meeting with Dave and Jim and the employees of this company, really what I'm saying is that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well here at World Wide. （Applause.）
You heard the man say that over the past seven years revenues have tripled, and they've expanded the job base by 500 people. And what's relevant for America is that it's the small business sector —— I don't know if you call yourself "small" anymore; you're probably a medium-sized business sector —— （laughter） —— that creates jobs. Seventy percent of new jobs in America are created by small- and medium-sized businesses. And if you're worried about the economy like I'm worried about the economy, then it makes sense to put policy in place that encourages investment and growth with the job creators.
And that's what I want to spend a little time talking to you about. But before I do so, I do want to thank the World Wide Technology employees. The truth of the matter is —— （applause） —— this company is doing well because you've got imaginative leadership, but you've also got great employees who are well-motivated, taken care of, inspired. And it's been my honor to meet some of your employees, and I look forward to answering some of your questions here in a minute.
I do want to thank the Governor of the state of Missouri for joining us. Governor Blunt, I'm proud you're here; thank you for taking time out of your schedule. The Governor and I discussed the recent storms that have hit parts of Missouri. I assured him that we will stay in touch with his office and the emergency teams to make sure that if there needs to be a federal response, we will be ready to give one. And obviously for those who've lost their property today, we send our heartfelt condolences, and just want you to know that when natural disaster strikes, if the disaster merits it, there will be a ample and robust government response. So thanks for coming, Governor.
I'm also proud to be here with the United States Senator Kit Bond from Missouri. （Applause.） Needless to say, he used his time on Air Force One to make sure I understood the issues that were facing the state of Missouri. We spent a little time talking about the Missouri River. （Laughter.） And Todd Akin is with us, too. Congressman, I'm proud you're here; thanks for coming.
So we're getting economic news. There's a lot of data beginning to move. On Wednesday the —— they talked about the fact that the economy in the first quarter grew at 0.6 percent; that's the same as it grew in the fourth quarter of last year. That's not good enough for America. It's positive growth, but we can do better than that. Today there was another report out that showed that we lost 20,000 jobs last month, even though the unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent. In other words, the unemployment rate went down. And again, that's a sign that this economy is not as robust as any of us would like it.
The good news is, is that we anticipated this. Last fall we started to get indications that the economy was going to slow down. And so, believe it or not, you can actually work with Congress sometimes —— with people on both sides of the aisle, which is what we did; these two members were incredibly constructive —— to pass a stimulus package, pro-growth package.
There's two aspects to that package I want to spend some time talking about; one of them is, is that you're going to get some money. It turns out it's your money, but you're going to get it back. （Laughter and applause.） Six hundred dollars per person, $1,200 per couple, $300 per child; a family of four will be getting a $1,800 check. And the reason why —— and by the way, it's going to affect 130 million families. And the reason why that is good policy, first of all, it's a temporary tax relief, recognizing that we're going to recover, and this is to help stimulate that recovery. Secondly, we wanted to make sure that people were encouraged to be consumers. We wanted there to be consumption in our society, and no better way to stimulate consumption than to let you have some of your own money back.
Thirdly, it turns out that this money is going to be very helpful in helping people deal with high energy prices and food price. I'm going to spend a little time on energy here in a minute. And fourthly, it's big enough —— in other words, we didn't want to make a political statement, we wanted to make a statement that will affect this economy. When you're affecting 130 million households, with over $150 billion, a pro-growth package, it's going to affect us positively. The experts say that beginning —— toward the end of this quarter and the beginning of next quarter, we should see some positive signs as a result of the pro-growth economic package.
Now, some of you are saying, you think I'm ever going to see my money? We've heard "the check is in the mail" deal before. Well, it's coming. They started hitting last Monday, and Secretary of the Treasury Paulson is on top of this, and so you'll start seeing —— if you're not —— if you didn't get your money electronically, you're going to start seeing it come in the check form.
And for those people in Missouri, and around the nation, that do not file income taxes, you need to contact the local IRS office because you're likely to be eligible. And therefore, you got to make sure you sign up for the program in order to get the money. We want you to get the money. And so if you're involved in a church group that's worried about helping people, then make sure that parishioners, or make sure people in the community centers understand that if you're not a filer you're still eligible to get a check.
Now, the other aspect of the program was to stimulate investment for companies like World Wide. In other words, there's a —— you can effect the tax code that provides incentives for the CEOs to say, I think we need —— we ought to buy some equipment. And that's important for a couple of reasons. One, it makes you more productive, it makes you more competitive, it gives the employees a better chance to keep this company on a cutting edge.
Secondly, somebody has to make that which you purchase. So if the tax code says it's in your interest to buy a piece of equipment, or to buy software, or to buy something to make this company a better company, then somewhere in the economy somebody is going to make it for you. And that also creates jobs. There's a ripple effect for using the tax code to stimulate investment.
I was talking to Dave and Jim, and they were telling me that the incentives built in the pro-growth plan for businesses are causing them to make new investments for you that they may have put off for later years. And the effects of this aspect of the pro-growth plan are beginning to kick in, as well. In other words, it's just starting. We passed the deal in February.
The point I'm trying to tell you is, is that we worked well with Congress and that the effects of a robust attempt to inject life hasn't really kicked in yet. And I'm —— if you believe these economists, if they had three hands they'd say, on the one hand, on the other hand, and then on the third hand. （Laughter.） But we've got some smart folks around that are analyzing what this means, and they feel confident about it.
I've been —— since I've been your President, I want to remind you we have been through a recession, we have been through a terrorist attack, we have been at war, we have had corporate scandals, we have had major natural disasters, and yet this economy always recovers. We're a resilient economy because we've got good, capable, smart, hardworking people in America. And I know it's tough times, and I know you're having to pay more at the fuel pump than you want, but this economy is going to come on. I'm confident it will. And I want to thank the folks at World Wide for being a part of the leading edge of optimism here in America; a leading edge in making sure that people can find good, hard —— paying jobs.
Let me talk about energy very quickly. I'm fully aware that people are paying dearly at the pump. The other day at a press conference I said it's like a tax; it's a tax on you. The more that gasoline goes up, the more you're paying —— the more you're paying for the pump, the less money you have in your pocket to spend for your family. I will tell you it's taken us a while to get in this fix, and therefore it's going to take us a while to get out of the fix. But I want to remind you that an energy policy that basically prohibits America from finding oil in our own land is an energy policy that has led to high gasoline prices.
When I first got to the Congress, I suggested that we have a comprehensive energy policy: one that recognizes the short-term effects of being reliant upon foreign oil; one that says we can use new technologies that will enable us to power our automobiles in different kinds of ways, using ethanol, for example, or battery technology; and one, ultimately, that will allow hydrogen to power the car.
So we worked well with Congress on the interim step. As you know, ethanol is beginning to take off, and I'm convinced we're going to be able to make ethanol out of something other than corn here relatively quickly, like wood chips, or grasses grown in the desert, which will be very exciting for the American people. Hydrogen —— we're doing a lot of research on your behalf to have hydrogen-powered automobiles, which means you're running on hydrogen, the waste product of which is water.
But in the meantime, in the short run, we didn't allow exploration for oil and gas in places like Alaska, our outer-continental shelf. And guess what happened? World demand exceeded supply, and now you're paying for it. If Congress truly is interested in helping relieve the price of gasoline, they would do two things: They would recognize that we can drill for oil and gas in environmentally friendly ways here in the United States, where there is good reserves; and they would build refineries. They would encourage the construction of refineries. Do you know that there hadn't been a new refinery built in America since 1976? No wonder there's constricted supplies. If you want more of something, in this case you got to build the additional manufacturing capability. And so our gasoline supplies are restricted, as well.
My attitude is, I understand the pain, but I also understand if we don't allow us to explore in environmentally friendly ways for oil and gas reserves in the United States of America, we'll remain dependent in the short-term on foreign oil. And that's not good for us.
I want to talk about housing very quickly. The key to the housing market is for the market to adjust —— you know, built too many houses. We just got to work through the system. But there's things government should and can do that is responsible —— mainly, is to help credit-worthy people stay in their home. That's the best thing we can do, is to help somebody who is capable of paying the mortgage, and if they just need a little help to be able to stay in the home, is to help provide that help.
And here's the dilemma: If you got a —— bought yourself a mortgage, in the old days the originator of your mortgage, like a savings and loan, was somebody that you could go and talk in the office, say, listen, man, I got a little bit of a problem, I'm in a bind, I need a little help on my interest payment; or, can you extend my note out a little bit. The originator of the mortgage, the guy who loaned you the money, still owned the paper. In this day and age the person that loaned you the money for the mortgage may not own the mortgage anymore.
And so we came together —— the Treasury Department and groups that help people understand the mortgage market and refinancing experts —— and put together what's called the HOPE NOW Alliance, which enables people to go and renegotiate loans. That's what we want to do: We want to help people stay in their homes. The market is going to correct. And what we want to do is to say, here's a way for you to stay in your home. They go to these lenders, big lenders and say, look, just help them out a little bit —— delay interest or renegotiate the interest rates or extend the payments. We've helped about 1,400,000 homeowners stay in their homes.
I know there's all kinds of proposals coming out of Congress. One such proposal was, why don't you use your money to buy empty houses. Well, that doesn't help the person who's no longer in the house. That may help the lender. That may help the speculator. I'm interested in helping the homeowner. So we'll work with Congress on legislation, but in my judgment the best kind of legislation focuses on the person that actually owns the home.
Now, look, some people were in there speculating. I don't think government ought to help speculators. And government —— you know, the truth of the matter is some folks probably shouldn't have tried to buy a home in the first place. But there's a lot of good, creditworthy people —— they just need a little relief to stay in the home.
The other thing I'm worried about is these reset mortgages. What I'm very concerned about is somebody went out and got them a mortgage, and the person that sold them the mortgage said, boy, this is a good, low interest rate for you. They forgot to tell them the second half: that in a couple of years, it's going to bump up. These resets, as you know, you buy a low interest rate and you get on the paper, and then by a couple of years later, all of a sudden the interest rate booms up.
And what I'm really concerned about is fraudulent tactics that didn't tell people that didn't really quite understand what was going on the full story. And it's a federal responsibility to make sure if that stuff goes on, people are held to account. We don't want people being cheated in America.
The other thing that the government can do is to reform what's called these GSEs. These are big government-backed lending institutions. And we can reform them and get them focused on their core mission, which is to help the mortgage industry move forward, help people in homes.
And finally another interesting idea is to let the states' housing authorities issue tax-free bonds, which will then provide more money for refinancing.
Finally, I do want to talk about trade. It's an interesting subject here in America. A lot of people who say, trade is bad for our country. We shouldn't be a nation that opens up markets —— that's what they're saying. Unless of course, you're a Missouri farmer who's selling your product into foreign markets. Unless, of course, you're World Wide Technology, which is expanding in a robust way and is looking for new markets. By the way, it's in your interests if you're working for World Wide that markets be open. If you're good at what you're doing —— and you are, obviously; otherwise you wouldn't be successful —— then trade policy ought to make it easier for you to enter foreign markets.
All I want is for America to be treated the way we treat other nations. I think that's a reasonable thing to ask. And so let me talk about the Colombia free trade agreement. You might have been reading about that lately. It's one of these issues that has created consternation —— at least in Washington. Most goods from Colombia come into the United States duty-free. That's a result of longstanding congressional policy. Most of our goods and services are taxed going into Colombia. Most goods coming here come in duty-free; most goods produced in the United States, or services like yours, pay a tariff. That means a tax; it's more expensive. It's harder to get into the market because what you charge is upped by tax.
I think it makes sense to have Congress say, we want Colombia to treat us just the way we treat Colombia. It turns out 9,000 businesses export into Colombia in the United States, 8,000 of which are small and mid-sized businesses. Isn't that interesting? Many of the people benefitting, people working for companies that export into Colombia work for small businesses and medium-sized businesses.
But Congress doesn't see it that way right now. A lot of members of Congress do, but they have absolutely shut down the vote on the Colombia free trade agreement. And I think it's irresponsible. If you're worried about the state of the economy, we ought to be opening up markets, not shutting down markets. We ought to be insisting we're treated fairly.
And I'll tell you another problem. In not moving the Colombia free trade agreement, we are turning our back on a very strong ally of the United States of America. There's a President of Colombia named Uribe, and he's got a tough situation down there because he's dealing with what's called FARC, which is an extremist group that uses drug dollars to perpetuate violence and to move their products —— mainly to here. And here's a man who says, I'm going to deal with them, I'm going to be tough with them. And then all of a sudden the United States Congress turns its back on him. What kind of message is that?
And so I strongly urge the Congress to understand that opening up markets is good for our economy. But I also strongly urge the Congress to understand —— whether it would be Colombia or Panama or Korea —— that we can't be turning our backs on our allies. This is good economics and it's good national security.
Those are some of the things on my mind. I've got a lot on my mind, by the way. （Laughter.） Getting ready to march down the aisle. （Laughter and applause.）
What I thought I'd do is answer some questions, any question, any topic. I've been around long enough to dodge them if I can't figure out the answer. （Laughter.） I can ask myself one.
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman —— oh, Mr. President. （Laughter.）
Q As Dave mentioned, we're doing very well as a company. Had a very good first quarter, best first quarter ever. Last year, the last three years, we've grown about 29 percent. One of the challenges that we have is managing the cost of health care. So with all of our employees here, can you give some of your thoughts in regards to how do we manage the continuing increased cost of health care?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. In essence, there's two paths. One is for the government to basically make most of the decisions. In other words, say, we're going to make sure you have health care, and we'll make sure it's available for you. And the problem with that system is they basically make decisions for you.
I happen to believe in private medicine. I think it is by far the best route to go because private medicine has made American health care the best in the world. I don't care what people tell you, America's health care is on the leading edge of change, and our American people get really good health care.
Now the question is, who pays for it? The question is, is it available and is it affordable? So the approach I've taken is to, one, remember the most important element in any system is the buyer, is the consumer, is the customer. That would be you, if you're a patient. And therefore, the policies that I've articulated have been all aimed at empowering you to have more decision-making in the health care system, so as to help deal with costs. If there's no decision-making in the system —— there's no shopping, there's no consumerism —— price goes up. It's an economic fact.
So I'm a strong believer in health savings accounts. I don't know if you have them here, but they are very empowering instruments. They let you make the decisions. They let you save when you don't spend money; they let you roll the money over tax-free; they let you pull it out tax-free for medical care. It's your money —— and it grows.
The other thing is, is that it's portable. When you go from one job to the next it follows you. So I think it's a very important aspect in a society in which, if you're under 30 years old, you're likely to have worked for seven or eight jobs. This is a very highly mobile workplace we have now.
Secondly, if you're a small business, you ought to be allowed to pool risk, just like big companies can do. But you ought to be able to do it across jurisdictional boundaries. That's fancy words for, if you're a restaurant in Missouri, you ought to be able to put your employees in a risk pool with a restaurant in Texas. The larger the risk pool —— in other words, the more people involved in the insurance —— the less price goes up, the easier it is for somebody to find affordable product. But now it's against the law to do that. So small businesses ought to be allowed to pool risk. That's what big companies do. And I believe we ought to treat World Wide just like —— give World Wide the same advantages in the marketplace that big companies get to do. Those are called association health plans.
The tax code is discriminatory. It says that if you work for a company, you get tax benefits. If you don't, you don't get tax benefits. If you're a very small company trying to provide health care, the tax code discriminates against your employees. We ought to change the tax code. We ought to treat everybody the same in the tax code —— all aiming to drive the establishment of an individual market so that people can better afford health care.
Now, look, we spend a lot of money, by the way, on people who need help. My view of America is that we're rich enough to take care of people who can't help themselves, and we do. We got a robust Medicare system —— which, by the way, my administration reformed for the first time since Lyndon Johnson, substantially reformed it since Lyndon Johnson was the President. And now you get a prescription drug benefit. So for all you guys my age, get yourself a prescription drug benefit pretty soon. （Laughter.）
We take care of the —— through Medicaid —— community health centers all throughout the country, and we're expanding them so that people can get primary care in a place other than an emergency room.
Thirdly, there needs to be transparency in pricing. How many of you ever asked a doctor how much something costs? Have you ever shopped? The answer is no, you likely haven't. It's because the system —— somebody else pays your bill in a third-party payer system. And so when somebody else pays the bill there is no incentive to worry about cost —— "What do I care? Somebody else is paying the bill," you think, until your benefit structure starts to change because of inflation in the health care system.
And so the whole purpose is to have transparency in the system. One of the things we're doing —— you know, we're a big purchaser of health care, thanks to you —— like, veterans, Medicare, Medicaid. And so we're now saying that if you participate with the government, post price. Let people see what the different prices are. Post quality ratings. It's nice to know if you're a consumer, isn't it, whether or not you got a —— whether or not somebody you're thinking about paying has got a good record.
The other thing is, is that one of the real cost-drivers —— or two other cost-drivers I want to discuss —— so in other words, consumerism helps deal with cost. Transparency helps deal with cost. This is a system in which there's been no cost consciousness whatsoever.
Thirdly, information technology —— the best way to describe this in health care is that people are still taking handwritten files, putting them under their arms and delivering it from one office to the next. And that means oftentimes there's medical errors because the files get lost. Doctors can't write very clearly anyway. And so you —— something gets illegible.
Most industries —— your industry is using high-tech to modernize. There's a lot of cost efficiencies that can be wrung out of the system by the advent of information technology. The dream is that someday you've got a medical record, your own medical record —— by the way, tamper-proof; in other words, protected —— that you can use from one office to the next. It's a sign that efficiencies in the system have taken hold.
I'll tell you an interesting story about that. The Veterans Administration in New Orleans was clobbered during Katrina. And so you had a lot of veterans leaving the New Orleans area —— many of them going to Houston, for example —— but they had electronic medical records. It turns out the Veterans Affairs is generally ahead of the rest of the field. And all they did was take their chip and they plugged it into the computers in Houston, and the whole medical records was available. That's —— not only it's good for the customer, the patient, but what I'm telling you is it'll help wring out the inefficiencies in the system. Health care is an inefficient system right now.
And finally —— it's a long answer, sorry —— （laughter） —— I've thought a lot about it. （Laughter.） I've analyzed what's best on how to deal with this. It's a very —— it's a tough issue for you and it's a tough issue for small businesses. It's a tough issue. But one of the cost-drivers, just so you know, is lawsuits. And if you're an attorney, I don't mean to be stepping on your toe; everybody needs a good attorney, you know —— particularly me, since I'm getting sued all the time. But it's a —— （laughter） —— I think I am.