    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2002, Book I)]
    [March 13, 2002]
    [Pages 394-407]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    March 13, 2002

        The President. Good afternoon. Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary
    Committee will vote on the nomination of Charles Pickering to serve on the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Pickering is a respected and well-
    qualified nominee who was unanimously confirmed 12 years ago to the
    district bench. His nomination deserves a full vote, a vote in a full
    Senate. I strongly urge his confirmation.
        While tomorrow's vote is about one man, a much larger principle is
    also at stake. Under our Constitution, the President has the right and
    responsibility to nominate qualified judges, and the legislative branch

    [[Page 395]]

    has the responsibility to vote on them in a fair and timely manner. This
    process determines the quality of justice in America, and it demands
    that both the President and Senate act with care and integrity, with
    wisdom and deep respect for the Constitution. Unfortunately, we are
    seeing a disturbing pattern where, too often, judicial confirmations are
    being turned into ideological battles that delay justice and hurt our
    democracy.
        We now face a situation in which a handful of United States Senators
    on one committee have made it clear that they will block nominees, even
    highly qualified, well-respected nominees, who do not share the
    Senators' view of the bench, of the Federal courts. They seek to
    undermine the nominations of candidates who agree with my philosophy
    that judges should interpret the law, not try to make law from the
    bench. And because these Senators fear the outcome of a fair vote in the
    full Senate, they're using tactics of delay.
        As a result, America is facing a vacancy crisis in the Federal
    judiciary. Working with both Republicans and Democrats, I have nominated
    92 highly qualified, highly respected individuals to serve as Federal
    judges. These are men and women who will respect and follow the law. Yet
    the Senate has confirmed only 40 of these 92 nominees, and only 7 of the
    29 nominees to the circuit courts, the courts of last resort in a vast
    majority of cases.
        This is unacceptable. It is a bad record for the Senate. The Senate
    has an obligation to provide fair hearings and prompt votes to all
    nominees, no matter who controls the Senate or who controls the White
    House. By failing to allow full Senate votes on judicial nominees, a few
    Senators are standing in the way of justice. This is wrong, and the
    American people deserve better.
        I will now be glad to answer a few questions, starting with Fournier
    [Ron Fournier, Associated Press].
        Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. You are Fournier, aren't you?
        Q. Yes, sir.
        The President. I'm looking at my chart here. [Laughter] Yes.

    Nuclear Posture Review

        Q. The Pentagon is calling for the development of low-yield nuclear
    weapons that could be used against China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North
    Korea, Russia, and Syria. Can you explain why the United States is
    considering this new policy, and how it might figure into the war on
    terrorism?
        The President. I presume you're referring to the nuclear review that
    was recently in the press. Well, first of all, the nuclear review is not
    new. It's gone on for previous administrations. Secondly, the reason we
    have a nuclear arsenal that I hope is modern, upgraded, and can work, is
    to deter any attack on America. The reason one has a nuclear arsenal is
    to serve as a deterrence.
        Secondly, ours is an administration that's committed to reducing the
    amount of warheads, and we're in consultations now with the Russians on
    such a--on this matter. We've both agreed to reduce our warheads down to
    1,700 to 2,200. I talked with Sergey Ivanov yesterday, the Minister of Defense from Russia, on
    this very subject.
        I think one of the interesting points that we need to develop and
    fully explore is how best to verify what's taking place, to make sure
    that there's confidence in both countries. But I'm committed to reducing
    the amount of nuclear weaponry and reducing the number of nuclear
    warheads. I think it's the right policy for America, and I know we can
    continue to do so and still keep a deterrence.
        Q. Why a policy, though, that might go after a country like Libya or
    Syria?
        The President. First of all, we've got all options on the table,
    because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will

    [[Page 396]]

    not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction
    against us or our allies or friends.
        Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

    Situation in the Middle East

        Q. Do you agree with Kofi Annan that Israel must end the illegal
    occupation of Palestinian lands? And how is the Israeli offensive going
    to complicate General Zinni's mission?
        The President. Well, first of all, it is important to create
    conditions for peace in the Middle East. It's important for both sides
    to work hard to create the conditions of a potential settlement. Now,
    our Government has provided a security plan that has been agreed to by
    both the Israelis and the Palestinians, called the Tenet plan. And
    George Mitchell did good work providing a
    pathway for a political settlement, once conditions warrant it.
        Frankly, it's not helpful, what the Israelis have recently done, in
    order to create conditions for peace. I understand someone trying to
    defend themselves and to fight terror. But the recent actions aren't
    helpful. And so Zinni's job is to go over
    there and work to get conditions such that we can get into Tenet. And
    he's got a lot of work to do, but if I didn't think he could make
    progress, I wouldn't have asked him to go.
        During the announcement of the Zinni
    mission, I said there was--we had a lot of phone conversations with
    people in the Middle East which led us to believe that there is a chance
    to create--to get into Tenet or at least create the conditions to get
    into Tenet. And I've taken that chance, and it's the right course of
    action at this point, Steve.
        Yes, John [John Roberts, CBS News].

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

        Q. Mr. President, let me look at what happened Monday with the INS
    visa approvals for Atta and Al-Shehhi and ask the requisite three-part
    question. Let me ask you, first of all, how high did the hair on the
    back of your neck rise when you heard about that? How can the American
    people have any faith in the credibility of the INS in its antiterrorist
    efforts? And what can you do, both immediately and for the long term, to
    assure nothing like that ever happens again?
        The President. Well, it got my attention this morning when I read
    about that. I was stunned and not happy. Let me put it another way: I
    was plenty hot, and I made that clear to people in my administration. I
    don't know if the Attorney General has acted
    yet today or not. I haven't seen the wire story, but--he has. He got the
    message, and so should the INS.
        The INS needs to be reformed, and it's one of the reasons why I
    called for the separation of the paperwork side of the INS from the
    enforcement side. And obviously, the paperwork side needs a lot of work.
    It's inexcusable. So we've got to reform the INS, and we've got to push
    hard to do so. This is an interesting wake-up call for those who run the
    INS. We are modernizing our system, John, and it needs to be modernized,
    so we know who's coming in and who's going out and why they're here.
        Q. But what does this say, sir, about the credibility of the INS in
    its antiterrorism efforts?
        The President. Well, it says they've got a lot of work to do. It
    says that the information system is antiquated. And having said that,
    they are--they got the message, and hopefully, they'll reform as quickly
    as possible. But yes, it got my attention in a negative way.

    Catholic Church

        Q. Mr. President, there's a growing crisis in the Catholic Church
    right now, involving pedophilia. And the crisis is exploding in Boston
    under the watch of Cardinal Law, who you know. Do you think the
    archdiocese there is acting swiftly enough to deal with the issue of
    pedophilia among the ranks of priests?

    [[Page 397]]

        The President. Well, I know many in the hierarchy of the Catholic
    Church; I know them to be men of integrity and decency. They're
    honorable people. I was just with Cardinal Egan today. And I'm confident the church will clean up
    its business and do the right thing. As to the timing, I haven't,
    frankly--I'm not exactly aware of the--how fast or how not fast they're
    moving. I just can tell you I trust the leadership of the church.
        Q. Do you think Cardinal Law should resign?
        The President. That's up to the church. I know Cardinal Law to be a man of integrity. I respect him a
    lot.

    Iraq

        Q. Vice President Cheney is on the road now trying to build support
    for possible action against Iraq. If you don't get that, down the road
    you decide you want to take action, would you take action against Iraq
    unilaterally?
        The President. One of the things I've said to our friends is that we
    will consult, that we will share our views of how to make the world more
    safe. In regards to Iraq, we're doing just that. Every world leader that
    comes to see me, I explain our concerns about a nation which is not
    conforming to agreements that it made in the past, a nation which has
    gassed her people in the past, a nation which has weapons of mass
    destruction and apparently is not afraid to use them.
        And so one of the--what the Vice President
    is doing is he's reminding people about this danger and that we need to
    work in concert to confront this danger. Again, all options are on the
    table and--but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to
    threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction.
    They've agreed not to have those weapons. They ought to conform to their
    agreement, comply with their agreement.
        Yes, John [John Cochran, ABC News].
        Q. It seems to me--you seem to be saying, yes, you would consult
    with the allies and others, including in the Mideast, but if you had to,
    you'd go ahead and take action yourself.
        The President. Well, you're answering the question for me. If I can
    remember the exact words, I'll say it exactly the way I said it before.
    We are going to consult. I am deeply concerned about Iraq, and so should
    the American people be concerned about Iraq, and so should people who
    love freedom be concerned about Iraq.
        This is a nation run by a man who is
    willing to kill his own people by using chemical weapons, a man who
    won't let inspectors into the country, a man who's obviously got
    something to hide. And he is a problem, and we're going to deal with
    him. But the first stage is to consult with our allies and friends, and
    that's exactly what we're doing.
        Everybody here on the front row? John [John Dickerson, Time].

    Situation in the Middle East

        Q. Mr. President, on the question of Iraq, how does the increased
    violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians affect what Vice
    President Cheney is trying to do and affect the case you're trying to
    make with our Arab allies for a regime change or just unconditional
    inspections?
        The President. Well, I understand that the unrest in the Middle East
    creates unrest throughout the region, more so now than ever in the past.
    But we're concerned about the Middle East, John, because it's affecting
    the lives of the Palestinians and our friends the Israelis. I mean, it's
    a terrible period of time when a lot of people are losing their lives,
    needlessly losing life. And terrorists are holding a potential peace
    process hostage.
        And so while I understand the linkage, for us the policy stands on
    its own. The need for us to be involved in the Middle East is to help
    save lives. And we're going to stay involved in the Middle East and,

    [[Page 398]]

    at the same time, continue to talk about Iraq and Iran and other nations
    and continue to wage a war on terror, which is exactly what we're doing.
        I want to reiterate what I said the other day. Our policy is to deny
    sanctuary to terrorists anyplace in the world, and we will be very
    actively--in doing that.
        Q. But on the question of the Palestinians, Sharon has said that he
    shares your concern for those not involved in terror. Do you still think
    that's the case?
        The President. I do. But unlike our war against Al Qaida, there is a
    series of agreements in place that will lead to peace. And therefore,
    we're going to work hard to see if we can't, as they say, get into Tenet
    and eventually Mitchell. I do--I certainly hope that Prime Minister
    Sharon is concerned about the loss of innocent
    life. We certainly--I certainly am. It breaks my heart and I know it
    breaks the hearts of a lot of people around the world to see young
    children lose their life as a result of violence, young children on both
    sides of this issue.
        This is an issue that's consuming a lot of the time of my
    administration. And we have an obligation to continue to work for peace
    in the region, and we will--we will. The two are not mutually exclusive,
    however.
        Yes.

    Scope of the War on Terrorism

        Q. Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention
    Usama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if
    you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final
    part, deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find
    out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of----
        The President. Well, deep in my heart, I know the man is on the run if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's
    hiding in some cave or not? We haven't heard from him in a long time.
    And the idea of focusing on one person is--really indicates to me people
    don't understand the scope of the mission.
        Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just--he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network is--
    his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who
    found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is--as I've
    mentioned in my speeches, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow
    who is willing to commit youngsters to their death, and he himself tries
    to hide--if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
        So I don't know where he is. You know, I
    just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly [Kelly Wallace, Cable News
    Network], to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that
    our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the
    coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in
    Shahi-Kot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to
    go in and do the job, which they did.
        And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be
    other struggles like Shahi-Kot, and I'm just as confident about the
    outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahi-Kot, where our
    soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough; we're strong; they're
    well equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know
    how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
        Q. But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't
    truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
        The President. Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the
    center of any command structure. And again, I don't know where he is.
    I--I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I
    know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over
    a country. I was concerned about the fact that

    [[Page 399]]

    he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the
    Taliban.
        But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan,
    he became--we shoved him out more and more
    on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaida killers anymore.
    And if we--excuse me for a minute--and if we find a training camp, we'll
    take care of it. Either we will, or our friends will. That's one of the
    things--part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American
    people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny
    sanctuary or training or a place to hide or a place to raise money.
        And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American
    people have got to understand, that we've only been at this 6 months.
    This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know
    whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's
    going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure
    you, I am not going to blink, and I'm not going to get tired, because I
    know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am
    going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the
    world, and for freedom.
        Mike Allen [Mike Allen, Washington Post]. I'm working my way back
    there, slowly but surely. Michael.

    Relationship Between Executive and Legislative Branches

        Q. Mr. President, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has asked Governor
    Ridge to testify about the administration's domestic homeland security
    efforts. Why has the White House said that Governor Ridge will not
    testify?
        The President. Well, he's not--he doesn't have
    to testify. He's a part of my staff, and that's part of the prerogative
    of the executive branch of Government, and we hold that very dear.
        Q. Mr. President, that's another area, along with the war and the
    development of the energy policy----
        The President. This wasn't a trick question, Mike--get me to say
    that and then kind of have a quick followup? But go ahead.
        Q. No, sir. But that's an area where Congress has said--members of
    both parties have told us they're not getting enough information from
    the White House.
        The President. Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike, we consult with Congress all
    the time. I've had meaningful breakfasts with the leadership in the
    House and the Senate. I break bread with both Republicans and Democrats
    right back here in the Oval Office and have a good, honest discussion
    about plans, objectives, what's taking place, what's not taking place.
    We have members of our Cabinet briefing. Condoleezza Rice is in touch with the Members of the Congress. We
    are in touch with--we understand the role of the Congress. We must
    justify budgets to Congress. And so I don't buy that, to be frank with
    you.
        Q. Mr. President, given----
        The President. Mike, this is the third. Two followups is a record.
    Keep trying.
        Q. Given that you've not convinced everyone in your own party of
    that, to what degree are you trying to recalibrate the power between
    Congress and the Presidency?
        The President. Mike, I'm just doing my job. We'll let all the kind
    of the legal historians figure all that out, you know.
        First of all, I'm not going to let Congress erode the power of the
    executive branch. I have a duty to protect the executive branch from
    legislative encroachment. I mean, for example, when the GAO demands
    documents from us, we're not going to give them to them. These were
    privileged conversations. These were conversations when people come into
    our offices and brief us. Can you imagine having to give up every single
    transcript of what is

    [[Page 400]]

    advised me or the Vice President? Our advice
    wouldn't be good and honest and open.
        And so I viewed that as an encroachment on the power of the
    executive branch. I have an obligation to make sure that the Presidency
    remains robust and the legislative branch doesn't end up running the
    executive branch.
        On the other hand, there's plenty of consultation, Mike. I don't
    know what single Republican you're referring to. But if you'd give me
    the name afterwards, I'll be glad to have him over for another
    consultation, if you know what I mean. [Laughter]
        David [David Sanger, New York Times].

    Saudi Peace Initiative

        Q. Mr. President, when you endorsed the Saudi plan on the Middle
    East, or the Saudi vision, it called, of course, for full normalization
    of relations between Israel and the Arab states. You've seen some
    backing away from that now by some other Arab countries and, in fact, by
    the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine endorsing a plan
    that calls for anything other than full normalization, anything less
    than full normalization?
        The President. Well, I think the thing--in order for there to be a
    plan that is acceptable to all parties, it must recognize the right of
    Israel to exist. And that's what I thought was very encouraging from the
    Saudi declaration. It was the first such declaration, if I'm not
    mistaken, David--you probably know that better than me--but that the
    Crown Prince said there ought to be a
    independent state but--that recognizes Israel. That's how I interpreted
    it--Israel's right to exist. And I think that's a very important
    declaration. That's why we seized on that. I have said the same thing
    myself, but it obviously didn't have nearly the same weight as the Crown
    Prince of Saudi Arabia in saying that.
        Q. Normalization means something a little deeper than that.
        The President. Well, but first of all, there's nothing more deep
    than recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought
    of all. After all, there are some skeptics who think that nations in
    that part of the world don't want Israel to exist. The first and most
    important qualification, it seems like to me, for there to be peace is
    for people in the region to recognize Israel's right to exist. And
    therefore, policies ought to follow along those lines. I can't think of
    anything more deep than that right, that ultimate and final security.
        And when the Crown Prince indicated
    that was on his mind, we embraced that, strongly embraced that.
        Go ahead.

    Nature of the War on Terrorism

        Q. I was about to say, just a moment ago, you said that many of your
    allies are joining you in the war on terrorism. You do have a number of
    countries right now that seem to be right in the middle--Indonesia,
    Somalia--places that you've been worried about but that have not asked
    for our training, our help. Would you consider going into a country that
    did not seek your aid?
        The President. Well, that's one of those pretty cleverly worded
    hypotheticals. Let me just put it to you this way, David: We will take
    actions necessary to protect American people, and I'm going to leave it
    at that. That's a good question, however.
        Yes.

    Russia-U.S. Nuclear Agreements

        Q. Mr. President, back to nuclear issues, the Russian Defense
    Minister expressed the hope today that agreements on the new strategic
    framework could be signed by the time of your visit next May in Moscow.
    Is it realistic? And second, are you ready to sign documents in a treaty
    form? And third, have you made progress on the issue of destroying
    versus storing nuclear warheads?

    [[Page 401]]

        The President. Well, I share the Minister's optimism that we can get something done by May.
    I'd like to sign a document in Russia, when I'm there. I think it would
    be a good thing. And therefore, we've got to make sure that those who
    are interested in making sure that the cold war relationship continues
    on are kind of pushed in the background. In other words, we've got to
    work hard to establish a new relationship.
        I also agree with President Putin that
    there needs to be a document that outlives both of us. What form that
    comes in, we will discuss. There is a--I think David asked me this
    question, as a matter of fact, back in Slovenia, if I'm not mistaken,
    about storage versus destruction. We'd be glad to talk to the Russians
    about that. I think the most important thing, though, is verification,
    is to make sure that whatever decision is made, that there is open
    verification so as to develop a level of trust.
        There is a constraint as well. I mean, the destruction of nuclear
    warheads requires a lot of work and a lot of detailed work, and that, in
    itself, is going to take time, and that's got to be a part of the
    equation as well.
        But those are all issues we're discussing. I had a good--very good
    discussion with Sergey Ivanov
    yesterday. I'm confident that President Putin
    is interested in making a deal, coming up with a good arrangement that
    will codify a new relationship. The more Russia--the more we work with
    Russia, the better the world will be. And we've got a good, close
    relationship with them.
        We've got a few sticking points. We've got an issue on chickens, for
    example, that some of you have followed. We made it pretty darn clear to
    them that I think we've probably got to get this chicken issue resolved
    and get those chickens moving from the United States into the Russian
    market. [Laughter] We laugh, but nevertheless it is a problem--that we
    must honor agreements. But I believe we're going to have great relations
    with Russia, and we're going to work hard to achieve them.
        Yes, go ahead. You're next, Angle [Jim Angle, Fox News].

    Debt Ceiling

        Q. Mr. President, can I ask about the debt limit, sir? And
    specifically about the Treasury Secretary's plan to borrow cash from the
    Federal retirement funds, can you justify that to the American people,
    sir?
        The President. I'm not going to comment on the Secretary of
    Treasury's plan. I'll tell you what I think
    ought to happen. I think Congress ought to pass a clean bill that raises
    the debt ceiling, and I'll sign it. I think it's important. I hope we
    can get that kind of spirit out of Congress. If they do that, it will
    solve the problem. We don't need to be playing politics with the debt
    ceiling, particularly now that we're at war.
        And we're working with the Congress on that. I've had some pretty
    good discussions with the leadership about the need to get a clean bill
    coming. And I hope they do. I hope they listen; I hope they respond.
        Q. There are those who will say that borrowing from the Federal
    retirement funds is also a form of playing politics----
        The President. Well, if the Congress passes the bill, we're fine.
    And we've got to get that done. It's their responsibility to get the
    debt ceiling raised. I hope they do it quickly and soon, and we're going
    to work with them to get it done.
        Jim.

    Nuclear Posture Review

        Q. Mr. President, what do you make of the dust-up over the nuclear
    review? And have you made any decisions about its recommendations? In
    particular, what is your view about building smaller nuclear weapons,
    which some people believe would make them more likely to be used?
        The President. Well, first of all, I view our nuclear arsenal as a
    deterrent, as a way to say to people that would harm America, ``Don't do
    it.'' That's a deterrent,

    [[Page 402]]

    that there's a consequence. And the President must have all options
    available to make that deterrent have meaning. And that's how I view the
    review.
        Q. But what is your thinking, sir, on smaller nuclear weapons, which
    some analysts believe would be a major departure and would make them
    more likely----
        The President. My interest is--Jim, my interest is to reduce the
    threat of a nuclear war, is to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. I
    think we've got plenty of warheads to keep the peace. I'm interested
    in--and that's why I told President Putin and
    told the country, if need be, we'll just reduce unilaterally to a level
    commensurate* with keeping a deterrence and keeping the peace.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So I'm interested in having all--having an arsenal at my disposal or
    at the military's disposal that will keep the peace. We're a peaceful
    nation and moving along just right and just kind of having a time, and
    all of a sudden, we get attacked, and now we're at war, but we're at war
    to keep the peace.
        And it's very important for people in America to understand that at
    least my attitude on this is that we're not out to seek revenge. Sure,
    we're after justice, but I also view this as a really good opportunity
    to create a lasting peace.
        And so, therefore, the more firm we are and the more determined we
    are to take care of Al Qaida and deal with terrorism in all its forms,
    particularly that of global reach, that we have a very good chance of
    solving some difficult problems, including the Middle East or the
    subcontinent. But it's going to require a resolve and firmness from the
    United States of America.
        One of the things I've learned in my discussions and at least
    listening to the echo chamber out there in the world is that if the
    United States were to waver, some in the world would take a nap when it
    comes to the war on terror. And we're just not going to let them do
    that. And that's why you hear me spend a lot of time talking to the
    American people--at least, I hope I'm talking to them, through you--
    about why this is going to take a long period of time and why I'm so
    determined to remain firm in my resolve. And--anyway.

    Draft Registration/Military Readiness

        Q. Mr. President, could I----
        The President. Yes, sir? You asked the softest. [Laughter]
        Q. I'd like to ask you about the public service component of your
    initiative as it----
        The President. The what, now?
        Q. The public service initiative of yours as it relates to the war,
    which you've just said again, that could go on for quite a while. As we
    all know, 18-year-old men in this country, when they turn 18, they're
    required to register with the draft, which is now dormant but could be
    activated again. At this time--and we're looking at sort of an unlimited
    situation with this war--should the country expect the same of women in
    this country?
        The President. You mean in terms of the draft?
        Q. Yes.
        The President. Well, the country shouldn't expect there to be a
    draft. I know they're registering. But the volunteer army is working.
    Particularly when Congress passes my budget, it's going to make it more
    likely to work. There's been a pay raise, and then we'll have another
    pay raise. And the mission is clear; the training is good; the equipment
    is going to be robust. Congress needs to pass this budget.
        So I don't worry about--and people shouldn't worry about a draft. We
    do have women in the military, and I'm proud of their service. And
    they're welcome in the military; they make a great addition to the
    military.
        Q. You don't think----
        The President. Pardon me?

    [[Page 403]]

        Q. ----that the military will be stretched too thinly, as some
    people have feared?
        The President. Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angeles Times], I don't think so. I
    think we're in pretty good shape right now. It's--there's no question we
    have obligations around the world, which we will keep. If you went to--
    did you go to Korea with us?
        Q. Yes, sir.
        The President. Well, there's a major obligation there of 37,000
    troops, an obligation that is an important obligation, one that I know
    is important, and we will keep that obligation. But we've got ample
    manpower to meet our needs.
        Plus, we've got a vast coalition of nations willing to lend their
    own manpower to the war. And as I mentioned the other day in my speech
    there on the South Lawn, 17 nations are involved in this first theater
    in Afghanistan. And we had Canadians and Danish and Germans and
    Australians--I'm probably going to leave somebody out--Brits, Special
    Forces troops on the ground, boots on the ground, as they say, willing
    to risk their lives in a dangerous phase of this war, and men going cave
    to cave, looking for killers. These people don't like to surrender; they
    don't surrender. But we've been able to count on foreign troops to help
    us.
        And so, Ed, I think we're in good shape. I really do. And if not,
    we'll--I'll address the Nation, but I don't see any need to right now.

    Mexico-U.S. Relations

        Q. Will you take one on Mexico?
        The President. Si.
        Q. You are going to my country next week.
        The President. Es la verdad.
        Q. Besides what President Fox presented to you last year, you
    haven't acted in favor of the Mexican proposal by the President of
    Mexico. You haven't presented anything to Congress.
        The President. Excuse me a second, what proposal are you talking
    about?
        Q. The one the President Fox mentioned----
        The President. In specific. I don't mean to interrupt you.
        Q. The regularization of----
        The President. Oh, the immigration issue?
        Q. Yes, the immigration issue. So when are you going to present any
    concrete steps in that direction for Mexico?
        The President. Well, first of all, we are working closely with
    Mexico. We've had many of our administration officials down there. Tom
    Ridge just came back; he had a very good dialog
    with President Fox. John Ashcroft has been very much involved with the Mexican Government.
    We have had a wide-ranging discussions as to how to make the border work
    better, how to make the border more secure for both countries. We've had
    a really good dialog.
        Some of what needs to be done didn't require law. I'm glad you
    brought that up. We just got 245(i) passed in the House of
    Representatives. Hopefully, that will come out of the Senate quickly.
    That's a step toward--that's a good reform, is one that I support. I
    also cautioned President Fox at the time that
    there will be no blanket amnesty in America. I don't think the will of
    the American people is for blanket amnesty. I think he understands that.
        And so, therefore, the thing we've got to do is figure out how to
    make sure willing employers are able to match up with willing employees.
    And so we'll work--we're making progress; 245(i) is good progress.
        Yes.

    Lieutenant Commander Michael Scott Speicher

        Q. Mr. President, do you believe there is an American pilot from the
    Gulf War still alive in Iraq? And if so, how might that complicate any
    actions you consider----

    [[Page 404]]

        The President. Well, let me just say this to you. I know that the
    man has got an MIA status, and it reminds me once again about the nature
    of Saddam Hussein if, in fact, he's alive.
    And therefore, it's just another part of my thinking about him, my--I
    guess, lack of respect is a good way to define it.
        Q. Does it complicate any action you might take--you might consider
    taking against Iraq in the war against terror?
        The President. Well, that's where we're--this is the old
    hypothetical again. And let me just put it this way: It doesn't change
    my opinion about him. Matter of fact, it reinforces the fact that
    anybody who would be so cold and heartless as to hold an American flyer
    for all this period of time without notification to his family just--I
    wouldn't put it past him, given the fact that he gassed his own people.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Yes, ma'am.

    Zimbabwe Elections/Nomination of Charles W. Pickering, Sr.

        Q. Okay, thank you. Do you officially recognize the Zimbabwe
    elections? And what are your thoughts about Mugabe? And also on
    Pickering, what are your thoughts----
        The President. Wait, whoa, whoa. [Laughter] Wait a minute. This is
    all over the lot. [Laughter] Wait a minute--all over the lot.
        Q. Mr. President, when I get a chance with you, I have to take it.
        The President. You talk about somebody taking the liberty of a----
        Q. When I get a chance with you, I have to take it.
        The President. I can see that. [Laughter] Go ahead, take it.
        Q. Okay.
        The President. Is this a six-part question?
        Q. No, it's only three.
        The President. Three, okay. [Laughter] Let me start writing them
    down. First one is Zimbabwe. Go ahead.
        Q. Yes, and with Pickering----
        The President. Pickering----
        Q. What are your thoughts about many of your nominees who are
    opposed have issues with racial bias, including Pickering?
        The President. Yes, okay. That's two.
        Q. Okay.
        The President. You're going to limit it to two? Thank you very much.
        Q. Yes, you're welcome.
        The President. That's a good break.
        First on Pickering, Pickering has got a very strong record on civil
    rights. Just ask the people he lives with. I had the honor of meeting
    the attorney general of Mississippi, Moore.
    Attorney General Moore--fine Democrat, elected statewide in the State of
    Mississippi; a man who, I suspect, is a man who got elected because he
    cares deeply about the civil rights of his citizens--came up and sat in
    the Oval Office and said Judge Pickering has had a fine record on civil
    rights and should be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I hope the Senators
    hear that. I hope they listen to Moore or Al Gore's brother-in-
    law or the former Governor of Mississippi,
    Winters.
        Zimbabwe. We do not recognize the outcome of the election because we
    think it's flawed. And we are dealing with--and we are dealing with our
    friends to figure out how to deal with this flawed election.
        Q. What are the options then?
        The President. Well, we're dealing with our friends right now to
    figure out how to deal with it.

    Class Action Reform Legislation

        Q. The House is voting on class action reform this evening. Given
    the current political atmosphere, do you want to enact new legal reforms
    into law this year? And if so, which ones are you going to----
        The President. Well, here's the thing. I am for reducing the number
    of lawsuits in our society. I think everybody will have their day in
    court, but I think a society that is so kind of litigious-oriented is
    one that is bad for jobs, bad for the creation

    [[Page 405]]

    of jobs. And if any reform--I will support reforms which reduce lawsuits
    and at the same time provide--give people the opportunity to take their
    case to court.
        Q. Are there any ones you want to pursue?
        The President. Stretch [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News]. Super
    Stretch, Little Stretch. Regular Stretch. [Laughter]

    Corporate Management Reform

        Q. Last week you announced an ambitious set of changes to make it
    easier for the Government to crack down on corporate wrongdoing. Yet
    Republicans in Congress and your own SEC Chairman says, essentially, a
    lot more money than you proposed will be needed to do the job
    effectively. I'm talking about the----
        The President. You're talking about when I called on the SEC to
    enact laws to make sure that corporate CEOs take responsibility for
    their books, make sure that when somebody says they've got X amount in
    liabilities, that X equals X and not X equals Y or something less than
    X. Yes, I strongly believe that, and the SEC needs to get after it. And
    I don't use the excuse of not enough money in the budget, frankly. I
    need to know the numbers, but we need action. And we need reasonable
    action, without causing a plethora of lawsuits.
        Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder].

    Perspective on the War on Terrorism

        Q. Thank you, sir. I wanted to ask about the second phase of the
    war. As a member of the Vietnam generation, do you worry as you send
    these military advisers all over the world, typically to chaotic places,
    that they may get involved in direct conflict and the situation could
    escalate? And are you prepared to do that?
        The President. Interesting question. Hutch, let me tell you
    something, I believe this war is more akin to World War II than it is to
    Vietnam. This is a war in which we fight for the liberties and freedom
    of our country.
        Secondly, I understand there's going to be loss of life and that
    people are going to--and the reason I bring that up is because for a
    while, at least for a period, it seemed to be that the definition of
    success in war was, nobody lost their life. Nobody grieves harder than I
    do when we lose a life. I feel responsible for sending the troops into
    harm's way. It breaks my heart when I see a mom sitting on the front row
    of a speech and she's weeping, openly weeping for the loss of her son.
    It's--it just--I'm not very good about concealing my emotions, but I
    strongly believe we're doing the right thing.
        And Hutch, the idea of denying sanctuary is vital to protect
    America. And we're going to be, obviously, judicious and wise about how
    we deploy troops.
        I learned some good lessons from Vietnam. First, there must be a
    clear mission. Secondly, the politics ought to stay out of fighting a
    war. There was too much politics during the Vietnam war. There was too
    much concern in the White House about political standing. And I've got
    great confidence in General Tommy Franks and
    great confidence in how this war is being conducted. And I rely on
    Tommy, just like the Secretary of Defense
    relies upon Tommy and his judgment--whether or not we ought to deploy
    and how we ought to deploy.
        Tommy knows the lessons of Vietnam just as
    well as I do. Both of us--he was a--he graduated from high school in
    '63, and you and I graduated in '64. We're of the same vintage. We paid
    attention to what was going on. And so--I think it was '64, wasn't it?
        Q. No, sir.
        The President. Oh. [Laughter] You're not that old. You're not that
    old.
        I'll give you an interesting fact: I don't know if you all know this
    or not, speaking about Tommy, but Tommy Franks
    went to Midland Lee High School, class of '63. Laura Bush went to Midland Lee High School, class of '64.
    That's an interesting

    [[Page 406]]

    thing for the social columns. [Laughter] For those of you who allow for
    your news-gathering to slip into social items--[laughter]--or social
    gossip, which sometimes happens. It doesn't happen that much.
        Q. Did they know each other?
        The President. No. [Laughter]
        Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times].

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

        Q. Mr. President, who do you hold responsible for the failure of the
    INS this week? I see the Attorney General said he was going to hold
    individuals responsible----
        The President. Going to do--hold----
        Q. Hold individuals responsible.
        The President. Well, let's see what the Inspector General comes back with. But obviously, I named a good man
    to run it, Ziglar, and he's held
    accountable. His responsibility is to reform the INS. Let's give him
    time to do so. He hasn't been there that long, but he now has got
    another wake-up call. The first wake-up call was from me: This agency
    needs to be reformed. And secondly, he got another one with this
    embarrassing disclosure today that, as I mentioned, got the President's
    attention this morning. I could barely get my coffee down when I opened
    up my local newspaper--well, a newspaper. [Laughter]

    U.N. Security Council Resolution

        Q. Mr. President, back on the Middle East, sir, can you tell us what
    was behind the timing of pursuing a U.N. resolution at this point
    regarding a future Palestinian state?
        The President. Well, there was a--sometimes these resolutions just
    get a life of their own. And sometimes we have to veto them, and
    sometimes we can help--help the message. This time, we felt like we were
    able to make the message a clear message that we agreed with. If it was
    a message that tried to isolate or condemn our friend, I'd have vetoed
    it. In this case, it was a universal message that could lead to a more
    peaceful--a peaceful world. And so we supported it. As a matter of fact,
    we helped engineer it; we were a part of the process.
        And as to the timing, I don't know the timing. All I know is the
    things start showing up on my desk. And----
        Q. When did it start showing up on your radar screen, sir?
        The President. Well, desk or radar screen, same thing. About 24
    hours ago. And I heard from the Secretary of State and Condoleezza Rice that
    there was a little movement afoot there at the Security Council. And so
    we made a decision, a conscious decision to try to send a statement that
    it was a hopeful statement. It turned out to be a good statement, by the
    way. It was one of those statements that was embraced by all the parties
    except for one that couldn't bring themselves to vote for it, Syria.
        But again, we are working hard to create the conditions for a
    security arrangement that will then enable the Mitchell process to kick
    in. I know you all are tired of hearing me say that. But unlike other
    parts of the world, in this part of the world, Tenet and Mitchell have
    been agreed to by both parties, which means there is a hopeful process
    if we can get people into the process. And so our mission is to do that.
    And that's why Zinni is over there.
        Listen, I want to thank you very much. I've enjoyed this press
    conference. I hope you have as well. Thank you.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 4 p.m. in the James S.
    Brady Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to
    President Vladimir Putin of Russia; U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle
    East Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.); Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi,
    terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks; Edward Cardinal Egan,
    Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York; Bernard

    [[Page 407]]

    Cardinal Law, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, MA; President Saddam
    Hussein of Iraq; Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel; Usama bin Laden,
    leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; Crown Prince Abdullah and
    Minister of Foreign Affairs Saud al-Faysal al Saud of Saudi Arabia;
    President Vladimir Putin and Minister of Defense Sergey Ivanov of
    Russia; President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; Mike Moore, Mississippi
    attorney general; Frank W. Hunger, brother-in-law of former Vice
    President Al Gore; and former Governor William F. Winter of Mississippi.
    The President also referred to the Mitchell report, the Report of the
    Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, issued April 30, 2001; the Tenet
    plan, the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire and security plan of June 13,
    2001, negotiated by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet;
    and H.R. 1885, the ``Section 245(i) Extension Act of 2001.''