    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2002, Book II)]
    [November 7, 2002]
    [Pages 2039-2051]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    November 7, 2002

        The President. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for coming. This is
    an important week for our country and for the world. The United Nations
    will vote tomorrow on a resolution bringing the civilized world together
    to disarm Saddam Hussein. Here at home, our
    citizens have voted in an election that I believe will strengthen our
    ability to make progress for all the American people.
        I congratulate the men and women, Republicans and Democrats, who
    were elected this week to public office all across America. I appreciate
    their willingness to leave their private lives and to serve their
    communities and to serve our Nation.

    [[Page 2040]]

        I also commend the millions of voters across America and across the
    political spectrum who went to the polls. At a time when our freedoms
    are under attack, it is more important than ever that our citizens
    exercise the rights and responsibilities of our democracy.
        Now that the voters have spoken, I urge the members of both
    political parties to come together to get things done for the American
    people. I've talked to leaders of both parties and assured them I want
    to work with them. I talked to Senator Daschle yesterday and said that, although the Republican Party now
    leads the Senate, I still want to work with him to get things done for
    the American people. I talked to Leader Gephardt as well.
        I look forward to working with Members of the Congress and the newly
    elected Governors to make America's families safer in their homes and
    their communities, to make our economy stronger so people can find work,
    to make our country a better and more compassionate place. Members of
    the new Congress will take office in January, and they'll have a full
    agenda. The current Congress, however, will return in just a few days to
    take up some unfinished business.
        We have a responsibility to protect the American people against
    threats from any source. I'm grateful to the Members of the Congress,
    both Republicans and Democrats, that came together to support the war
    against terror and authorize, if need be, the use of force to disarm
    Iraq. We must bring the same spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the
    urgent task of protecting our country from the ongoing threat of
    terrorist attack.
        The single most important item of unfinished business on Capitol
    Hill is to create a unified Department of Homeland Security that will
    vastly improve our ability to protect our coasts and our borders and our
    communities. The election may be over, but a terrorist threat is still
    real. The Senate must pass a bill that will strengthen our ability to
    protect the American people. And they must pass a bill that preserves
    the authority every President since John Kennedy has had to act in the
    interest of national security. It's imperative that the Congress send me
    a bill that I can sign before the 107th Congress ends.
        We have a responsibility to strengthen the economy so people can
    find work. We're working to keep this economy moving. And one immediate
    thing Congress should do to help people put--back to work is to pass
    legislation so that construction projects can get insurance against
    terrorism. This will spur construction and create thousands of good
    hardhat jobs that are currently on hold because projects without
    insurance cannot be built.
        Although it's late in the process, Congress must show fiscal
    discipline. At a time when we're at war and a time when we need to
    strengthen our economy, Congress must be wise with the people's money,
    fund the Nation's priorities, and control wasteful spending. The workers
    of America deserve our action on these important issues which have been
    stalled, yet when approved, will strengthen our economy.
        Many of the fundamental economic indicators are good. Interest rates
    are low, so Americans can buy more homes. Inflation is low, so paychecks
    go further in buying groceries and gas. The productivity of our workers
    is high. The economy has come out of a recession and is growing, but I'm
    not satisfied because I know we can do better. We must have an economy
    to grow at a faster and stronger pace so Americans can find a job. And
    so I'll work with new Congress to pass new growth and jobs packages
    early next year.
        I look forward to welcoming a new Congress, and I look forward to
    working with the current Congress to finish some very important work.
        And now it's my privilege to take some of your questions, starting
    with Sandra [Sandra Sobieraj, Associated Press].

    [[Page 2041]]

    2002 Elections

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Do you believe that Tuesday's election
    gave you, personally, a mandate? And now that you have the Republican
    Congress, what will you do specifically, beyond terrorism insurance and
    Government spending restraints, to address the real anxieties--
    [inaudible]--of everyday Americans--[inaudible]?
        The President. Yes. First, I think candidates win elections because
    they're good candidates, not because they may happen to have the
    President as a friend--or a foe, for that matter. Races that were won
    were won because people were able to convince the voters they could
    trust their judgment, convince the voters they care deeply about their
    circumstances. I believe if there is a mandate in any election, at least
    in this one, it's that people want something to get done. They want
    people to work together in Washington, DC, to pass meaningful
    legislation which will improve their lives.
        The best way to win an election is to--is to earn the trust of the
    voters, and that's what happened in State after State after State. We
    had some really good candidates who overcame some pretty tough odds.
    They were running against incumbents in a lot of cases, and they ran
    great races. And they were reassuring people. And I really attribute the
    successes to the nature of their candidacies and the hard-working people
    that turned out the vote. There were some really effective voter turnout
    organizations around the country.
        And I think the way to look at this election is to say, the people
    want something done. They see the risks are high, the risk of being able
    to find a job or the risk of keeping the homeland secure. And they want
    people to come together to work on it, and that's what I intend to do.
        Holland [Steve Holland, Reuters].

    Legislative Agenda

        Q. The specifics of your----
        The President. Oh, sorry, yes. Well, I'll let you know at the right
    time. For right now, we've got to get through a lameduck session. A
    lameduck session, for people who don't know what that means, it means
    the Senate is coming and the House is coming back between now and
    Christmas, and they've got a few days to get some big things done. And
    the most important thing to get done, I want to emphasize, is get a
    Department of Homeland Security finished.
        Some rumor is moving around that we may not be too keen on getting
    that done. I want it done. It is a priority. We got a good bill out of
    the House, and they need to get a bill out of the Senate and to
    conference and to my desk. I don't know how much time that's going to
    take, but having watched the debate prior to the election, it may take
    some time. But it doesn't matter how long it takes, they need to get it
    done.
        Secondly, they need to get a budget done. We need to get the bills,
    the appropriation bills, done. And I mentioned, they've got to get the
    terrorism insurance bill done.
        Now, given the amount of time they're likely to be here, that's a
    pretty big agenda. And in terms of afterwards, I'll let you know. But
    there are some issues, of course, that I intend to work with the
    Congress on, and one of them is to get prescription drug benefits to our
    seniors. That's an important issue. It's an issue that I talked about at
    every speech. The candidates, I'm sure both political parties, talked
    about it. And that's something that we need to get done.
        But let's get this--get out of this lameduck session first.
        Steve.

    United Nations Resolution on Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, how confident are you that the Security Council
    will approve the tough new resolution on Iraq? And if that

    [[Page 2042]]

    happens, what happens next? What's the next step? Is war inevitable?
        The President. Well, first of all, the resolution we put down is a
    tough new resolution. It talks about material breach and inspections and
    serious consequences if Saddam Hussein
    continues to defy the world and not disarm. So, one, I'm pleased with
    the resolution we put down. Otherwise, we wouldn't have put it down.
        I just talked to Jacques Chirac, and
    earlier today I talked to Vladimir Putin. I
    characterize our conversation--I'm loathe to put words in somebody
    else's mouth. That's, evidently, not the case with a lot of people in
    Washington, but nevertheless, I am. And I'm optimistic we'll get the
    resolution vote tomorrow, let me put it to you that way.
        And Steve, the resolution is a disarmament resolution; that's what
    it is. It's a statement of intent to, once and for all, disarm Saddam
    Hussein. He's a threat. He's a threat to the
    country. He's a threat to people in his neighborhood. He's a real
    threat, and it's now time for the world to come together and disarm him.
    And when this resolution passes, I will--we'll be able to say that the
    United Nations has recognized the threat, and now we're going to work
    together to disarm him.
        And he must be cooperative in the
    disarmament. So the job of inspectors is to determine his level of
    cooperation, see. He has got to be the agent of disarming. He's got to
    agree that what we're doing is what he said he would do, and--just like
    the United Nations has agreed that it is important to disarm him, for
    the sake of peace. And so the next step will be to put an inspection
    regime in there to--after all the declarations and after all the
    preamble to inspections, that he's got to show the world he's disarming.
    And that's where we'll be next.
        Let's see here. Helen [Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers].
        Q. I have a followup----
        The President. Yes, I have a list. [Laughter] I don't want to be so
    discriminatory that people will say that I haven't thought this through.
    After all, the new arrangement--and by the way, we're here in honor of
    Ari Fleischer. Otherwise, we'd be in his
    house. But since he's getting married this weekend, I thought it
    appropriate to leave the podium that he occupies empty, in honor of the
    fact that he's getting married. I hope you all have sent your gifts to
    him. [Laughter]
        Ari, I did what you asked me to do.
    [Laughter] I'm sure he's on C-SPAN right now.
        Helen.

    Iraq and North Korea

        Q. Mr. President, what is the logic of your insistence on invading
    Iraq at some point, which may someday have nuclear weapons, and not
    laying a glove on North Korea, which may have them or may produce them--
    both of which, of course, would be against international law. And I have
    a followup. [Laughter]
        The President. Well, I may decide to let you have that followup or
    not, depending upon--[laughter]--depending on whether I like my answer.
    [Laughter]
        I am insistent upon one thing about Iraq, and that is that Saddam
    Hussein disarm. That's what I'm insistent on.
    He agreed to do that, by the way. Saddam Hussein said he would disarm,
    and he hasn't. And for the----
        Q. And you don't----
        The President. Is that the followup? [Laughter] Okay, that is the
    followup. I do care about North Korea. And as I said from the beginning
    of this new war in the 21st century, we'll deal with each threat
    differently. Each threat requires a different type of response. You've
    heard my strategy on dealing with Iraq. I've been very clear on the
    strategy all along, and tomorrow it looks like part of that strategy is
    coming to fruition.

    [[Page 2043]]

        With North Korea, we're taking a different strategy, initially, and
    it's this, that we're going to work with countries in the neighborhood
    to convince North Korea that it is not in the world's interests that
    they develop a nuclear weapon through highly enriched uranium.
        We know they've got the capacity through plutonium. We have IAEA
    inspectors there watching carefully their plutonium stockpile. And then
    we discovered that, contrary to an agreement they had with the United
    States, they're enriching uranium, with the desire of developing a
    weapon. They admitted to this. And so, therefore, we have worked with
    our Japanese friends and South Korean friends, with the leadership in
    China--I will talk with Vladimir Putin about
    this after my trip to the NATO summit--to remind North Korea that if
    they expect to be a--welcomed into this family of peaceful nations, that
    they should not enrich uranium.
        I thought it was a very interesting statement that Jiang
    Zemin made in Crawford, where he declared very
    clearly that he wants a nuclear-weapons-free Korean Peninsula. That was,
    in my judgment, an important clarification of Chinese policy that I hope
    the North Koreans listen to. I believe we can achieve this objective,
    Helen, by working closely with this consortium of nations which have got
    a valid interest in seeing to it that North Korea does not have nuclear
    weapons.
        Terry [Terry Moran, ABC News].
        Q. Mr. President, can I have a followup----
        The President. Of course, you can. Yes, it's fine. [Laughter] If the
    elections had gone a different way, I might not be so generous.
    [Laughter]
        Q. You are leaving the impression that Iraqi lives, the human cost,
    doesn't mean anything----
        The President. Say that again?
        Q. You are leaving the impression that you wouldn't mind if you go
    to war against Iraq, but you deal with another nation which may have
    weapons in a different way. But there are two other impressions around:
    one, that you have an obsession with going after Saddam Hussein at any
    cost; and also that you covet the oil fields.
        The President. Yes. Well, I'm--some people have the right
    impressions and some people have the wrong impressions.
        Q. Can you----
        The President. Well, those are the wrong impressions.
        Q. Okay.
        The President. I have a deep desire for peace. That's what I have a
    desire for, and freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don't like a system
    where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a
    dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must
    hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to
    conquer anybody. That's not the intention of the American people or our
    Government. We believe in freedom, and we believe in peace. And we
    believe the Iraqi dictator is a threat to peace. And so that's why I
    made the decisions I made, in terms of Iraq.
        Now, Terry Moran.

    Risk Assessment Regarding Iraq

        Q. Thank you, sir. On Iraq, you've said many times that if Saddam
    Hussein does not disarm, he will be disarmed militarily, if necessary,
    by the U.N. or the U.S. and others. There's a school of thought that
    says that going to war against Iraq would be a dangerous and misguided
    idea because it would generate a tremendous amount of anger and hatred
    at the United States, and out of that you'd essentially be creating many
    new terrorists who would want to kill Americans. What's wrong with that
    analysis?
        The President. Well, that's like saying we should not go after Al
    Qaida because we might irritate somebody, and that would create a danger
    to Americans. My attitude is, you've got to deal with terrorism in a

    [[Page 2044]]

    firm way. And if they see threats, you deal with them in all different
    kinds of ways.
        The only way, in my judgment, to deal with Saddam Hussein is to bring the international community together to
    convince him to disarm. But if he's not going
    to disarm, we'll disarm him, in order to make the world a more peaceful
    place. And some people aren't going to like that--I understand. But some
    people won't like it if he ends up with a nuclear weapon and uses it. We
    have an obligation to lead. And I intend to assume that obligation to
    make the world more peaceful.
        Terry, listen, there's risk in all action we take, but the risk of
    inaction is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned. The inaction creates
    more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful. And
    obviously, I weighed all the consequences about all the differences.
    Hopefully, we can do this peacefully--don't get me wrong. And if the
    world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure
    on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm,
    there's a chance he may decide to do that.
        And war is not my first choice, don't--it's my last choice. But
    nevertheless, it is a--it is an option in order to make the world a more
    peaceful place.
        Let's see here. King. John King [Cable News Network], that is.

    Legislative Agenda

        Q. Sir, in response to the elections, you're being quite humble
    about the results and your role. But many conservative lawmakers and
    many more conservative groups are saying, ``Seize the moment.'' They say
    early in the new Congress, you should push your plan to partially
    privatize Social Security; you should push for new restrictions on
    abortion; you should push and renominate the judges that were rejected
    by the Senate; and that you should push a total overhaul of the Tax
    Code. What are your views on that?
        The President. Well, I appreciate all the advice I'm getting.
    [Laughter] One of the things about this job, if you listen carefully,
    you get a lot of advice. And I--it's important for a President to set
    priorities, and the two biggest priorities are the protection of the
    American people--that's why I wanted to get this Homeland Security
    Department done--and the other one is people being able to find jobs.
    And we'll work on those. And tax relief or tax reform, however you want
    to describe it, is part of, in my judgment, of creating economic
    vitality.
        But there are other things we can work on. Obviously, I'd like to
    see some of my judges get a good--a fair hearing and get approved. And
    Medicare, prescription drugs is a very important issue, needs to get
    done. Terrorism insurance is an important issue. Energy bill is an
    important issue. I mean, there's a lot of things we can do and should do
    when they come back. And I can't remember the litany of things. Listen,
    there's going to be a huge laundry list of things people want to get
    done, and my job is to set priorities and get them done. And job
    creation and economic security--job creation and economic security, as
    well as homeland security, are the two most important priorities we
    face.
        Q. Social Security and any new restrictions----
        The President. No, I think the Social Security debate is an
    incredibly important debate. And we call them personal savings accounts,
    John, so that people have the option, at their choice, to manage their
    own money. That would be younger workers. Obviously, we've got to assure
    older workers that the promises we have made will be kept.
        And the danger, really, is for young workers. That's the threat, as
    to whether Social Security will be around for young workers without some
    massive tax increase. And I still strongly believe that the best way to
    achieve security in Social Security for younger workers is to give them
    the option of managing their own money

    [[Page 2045]]

    through a personal savings account. Yes, it's an important issue as
    well.
        Listen, there's a lot of important issues. The budget is an
    important issue. The budget is an important issue coming out of the
    lameduck session. And the budget, as you know--you're an old hand around
    here--is always an important issue in the next session. So that's always
    an issue, too. There are some practical matters as well that will occupy
    time here in Washington, DC.
        Roberts. John Roberts [CBS News], that is.

    Securities and Exchange Commission/Economic Team

        Q. I'm wondering, sir, is Harvey Pitt, the Chairman of the SEC, just
    the first member of your economic team to go? And a separate question:
    Will you ask William Webster to resign?
        The President. Well, let's see, let me start with Pitt. Harvey Pitt did some very good things at the SEC, and
    it's important for the American people to know that. Right after 9/11,
    he did a lot to get the markets opened. He really was--he played a major
    role in that and received good credit for that. And I want to thank
    Harvey Pitt for that, and the American people should as well.
        He has done a lot to make it clear to
    corporate Americans that think they can--don't have to be responsible in
    their positions--a lot of enforcement, more so than ever in the history.
    He's enforced the corporate responsibility ethos. He has disbarred more
    people; more money has been disgorged, as a result of illegal activity.
    And that's positive, that Harvey has done as well. And under his watch, CEOs now must verify their returns, and that's
    good. All that's positive.
        He made the decision himself that he thought that he couldn't be as
    effective as he needed to be. I received his letter. I appreciate his
    service.
        William Webster, the--there's a IG
    investigation going on there at the SEC. We'll see what that says. But I
    will tell you, William Webster is a fine man. He is a decent, honorable
    public servant who has served our country well.
        Q. ----with respect to----
        The President. Is this a three-part question?
        Q. No. I'm just kind of reiterating the first. He is just the first
    member of your economic team to go? The implication is--do you have----
        The President. Listen, my economic team came in during very
    difficult times. There was a recession; there was a terrorist attack;
    there were corporate scandals. We have done a lot to return confidence
    and to provide a--provide stimulus through tax cuts. My economic team
    developed a tax cut package, sold the tax cut package, is implementing
    the tax cut package. And for that, they deserve a lot of credit. They
    made good--we're making good progress on the economy. There's still work
    to do. And I appreciate the hard work of the economic team.
        Campbell [Campbell Brown, NBC News].

    2002 Elections

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You were very gracious earlier, giving
    credit in this last election to the individual candidates. But a lot of
    those candidates say they have you to thank. Given the fact that your
    own election for President was so close it had to be decided by the
    Supreme Court, do you now feel personally reassured that these midterm
    elections validated your Presidency?
        The President. Thank you for that loaded question. [Laughter] Look,
    sometimes you win them, and sometimes you lose elections. That's just
    the way it is. And I was pleased with the results. I was more
    particularly pleased for the candidates who worked so hard, and their
    families and their

    [[Page 2046]]

    workers. That's how I feel about it. I really don't put this in personal
    terms.
        I know people in Washington like to do that. You know, ``George Bush
    won.'' ``George Bush lost.'' That's the way they do it here. It's zero
    sum in Washington, and I know that. But if you're really interested in
    what I think, I think the fact that Norm Coleman ran a very difficult race in difficult circumstances and
    won speaks volumes about Norm Coleman. The fact that John Thune ran a difficult race against difficult circumstances,
    and at this point is still short, nevertheless speaks volumes about his
    desire and his intention to serve the country.
        There's case after case of people who have put their reputations on
    the line, who spent a lot of time away from their homes and their
    families, shaking a lot of hands and putting their hearts and souls--in
    both parties. They deserve the credit. Thank you for trying to give it
    to me, but they deserve the credit.
        I know what it's like to run for office. I know the strains it puts
    on families. I know the tired--the endless hours you spend campaigning
    and all the wonderful questions you have to answer as part of a
    campaign. I know all that, and these candidates deserve all the credit.
        And I was proud to help some of them the best I could. But the way
    you win a race is, you convince the people of your State or your
    district that they can trust your judgment and they can trust your
    character and they can trust your values. And it takes a lot of work to
    do that, and these candidates get the credit. And I--I appreciate you
    pointing out that some people have given me credit. The credit belongs
    to people in the field.
        Yes, sir, Wendell [Wendell Goler, Fox News].

    Iraqi Compliance With U.N. Resolution

        Q. Mr. President, thank you very much. You have put a lot of effort
    toward getting the United Nations to rally the world to disarm Saddam
    Hussein. And yet you and your aides have expressed a great deal of
    skepticism about whether Saddam Hussein will actually comply. Can you
    give us an idea, sir, how long you think it might take for the world to
    know whether Saddam Hussein actually intends to go along with the call
    of the world to disarm? Will it be a matter of days or weeks, months, or
    perhaps a year, sir?
        The President. Well, Wendell, this much we know: It's so far taken
    him 11 years and 16 resolutions to do
    nothing. And so we've got some kind of history as to the man's behavior.
    We know he likes to try to deceive and deny, and that's why this
    inspection regime has got to be new and tough and different. The status
    quo is unacceptable--you know, kind of send a few people in there and
    hope maybe he's nice to them and open up the baby milk factory--it's
    unacceptable.
        And so that's why you'll see us with a different inspection regime,
    one that works to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms. It's his responsibility to disarm. I don't
    put timetables on anything. But for the sake of peace--sooner, better.
    And we'll see. But you must know that I am serious--so are a lot of
    other countries--serious about holding the man to account.
        I was serious about holding the U.N. to account. And when they pass
    this resolution, which I hope they do tomorrow, it shows that the U.N.
    is beginning to assume its responsibilities to make sure that 11 years
    of defiance does not go unanswered. It's very important that the U.N. be
    a successful international body because the threats that we face now
    require more cooperation than ever. And we're still cooperating with a
    lot of nations. We're still sharing intelligence and cutting off money
    the best we can. And there's still law enforcement efforts taking place
    all around the world. And that's why the international--this
    international body called the U.N. is an important body for keeping the
    peace.

    [[Page 2047]]

    And it's very important that they're effective. And we'll see tomorrow--
    starting tomorrow.
        And then the key on the resolution, I want to remind you, is that
    there are serious consequences. And that's one of the key elements to
    make sure that everybody gets the picture that we are serious about a
    process of disarming him in the name of peace. Hopefully, he'll choose to do so himself.
        Sammons, Super Stretch [Bill Sammon, Washington Times].
        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. [Laughter]
        The President. You and I are eye-to-eye. Well, actually--[laughter]

    2004 Election

        Q. Now that the 2004 Presidential campaign has unofficially begun,
    can you tell us whether Vice President Cheney will be your running mate
    again? Or will you, instead, choose someone who might harbor greater
    Presidential ambitions to, perhaps, succeed you one day?
        The President. Well, first of all, I'm still recovering from the '02
    elections. [Laughter] And we got plenty of time to deal with this issue.
    But should I decide to run, Vice President Cheney will be my running mate. He's done an excellent job. I
    appreciate his advice. I appreciate his counsel. I appreciate his
    friendship. He is a superb Vice President, and there's no reason for me
    to change.
        I also want to thank him for all his hard
    work during the campaign. He was out there toiling along, working hard
    and turning out the vote, and I want to thank him for the hours he put
    out there as well.
        Please, yes.
        Q. If I may follow? Last time you had----
        The President. Thank you for not standing up. You block the cameras.
    [Laughter]
        Q. Last time you had to kind of convince him to take the job. Have
    you talked to him this time, whether he is interested in serving another
    term?
        The President. I'm confident that he will serve another term.
        Judy [Judy Keen, USA Today].

    United Nations Resolution on Iraq

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You said this afternoon that the U.N.
    Security Council vote tomorrow would bring the civilized world together
    against Iraq. But broad opposition remains all over the world to your
    policy. Will you continue to try to build support? If so, how will you
    do that? Or do you think that a Security Council vote would be all the
    mandate you need?
        The President. First of all, broad opposition around the world not
    in support of my policy on Iraq?
        Q. Yes, sir.
        The President. Well, I think most people around the world realize
    that Saddam Hussein is a threat. And they--no
    one likes war, but they also don't like the idea of Saddam Hussein
    having a nuclear weapon. Imagine what would happen. And by the way, we
    don't know how close he is to a nuclear weapon right now. We know he
    wants one. But we don't know. We know he was close to one at one point
    in time. We have no idea today. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear
    weapon. Imagine how the Israeli citizens would feel. Imagine how the
    citizens in Saudi Arabia would feel. Imagine how the world would change,
    how he could alter diplomacy by the very presence of a nuclear weapon.
        And so a lot of people--serious people around the world are
    beginning to think about that consideration. I think about it a lot. I
    think about it particularly in the regard of making the world a more
    peaceful place.
        And so it's very important for people to realize the consequences of
    us not taking the case to the U.N. Security Council. People need to
    think about what would happen if the United States had remained silent
    on this issue and just hoped for a change of his attitude or maybe hoped
    that he would not invade somebody again or
    just

    [[Page 2048]]

    hoped that he wouldn't use gas on his own people when pressure at home
    began to mount.
        I'm not willing to take those kind of risks. People understand that.
    I think a lot of people are saying, you know, ``Gosh, we hope we don't
    have war.'' I feel the same way. I hope we don't have war. I hope this
    can be done peacefully. It's up to Saddam Hussein, however, to make that choice.
        I also want to remind you that, should we have to use troops, should
    it become a necessity in order to disarm him, the United States, with
    friends, will move swiftly with force to do the job. You don't have to
    worry about that. We will do--we will do--we will do what it takes
    militarily to succeed.
        I also want to say something else to people of Iraq, that the
    generals in Iraq must understand clearly there will be consequences for
    their behavior. Should they choose, if force is necessary, to behave in
    a way that endangers the lives of their own citizens, as well as
    citizens in the neighborhood, there will be a consequence. They will be
    held to account.
        And as to the Iraqi people, what I said before--the Iraqi people can
    have a better life than the one they have now. They can have a--there
    are other alternatives to somebody who is
    willing to rape and mutilate and murder in order to stay in power.
    There's just a better life than the one they have to live now.
        I think the people of the world understand that too, Judy. I don't
    take--I don't take--I don't spend a lot of time taking polls around the
    world to tell me what I think is the right way to act. I've just got to
    know how I feel. I feel strongly about freedom. I feel strongly about
    liberty. And I feel strongly about the obligation to make the world a
    more peaceful place. And I take those responsibilities really seriously.
        Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times].

    President's Leadership

        Q. Thank you, sir. You just said you've reached out to Democrats.
    Does this mean that you will be governing more from the center and
    taking fewer cues from the conservative arm of your party?
        The President. I don't take cues from anybody. I just do what I
    think is right. That's just the way I lead. And what's right is to work
    to stimulate the economy. I strongly believe the tax relief was the
    right thing to do. If people are really interested in job creation, they
    ought to join me in my call to make the tax cuts permanent. It's an
    important part of sending a signal that there is certainty in the Tax
    Code, that all the benefits from tax relief don't go away after 10
    years.
        As I like to say--you might have heard me once or 10 times or 100
    times--the Senate giveth, and the Senate taketh away. That means there's
    uncertainty when that happens. And you've got to have certainty in a
    system that requires risk. And making the tax cuts permanent is an
    essential part. I mean--and so that is a commonsense drive to create
    jobs.
        I will just tell people what I think about how to solve the problems
    we face. And I ran on a political philosophy; I'm not changing my
    political philosophy. I am who I am prior--the same guy after the
    election that I was prior to the election. That's just who I am and how
    I intend to lead this country.
        Jean Cummings [Wall Street Journal]. I'm having such a good time.
    [Laughter] Jean Cummings--there she is, yes.

    Securities and Exchange Commission

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the question of Harvey
    Pitt.
        The President. Pitt, yes.
        Q. What kind of person are you looking for to fill that position
    now? And how quickly do you want to move on that? And then also, as much
    as you said that Mr. Webster is a well-respected and quality person, do
    you think that the Chairman,

    [[Page 2049]]

    whoever that new Chairman is, should have a chance to select their own
    person and have a fresh start?
        The President. Well, I think--that's kind of the double-whammy
    hypothetical there, Jean. I think that the--on Webster, first, let's find out what the facts are so that everybody
    knows. That's why they're doing this investigation. And it's--one fact
    is irrefutable: He's a decent man; he's served the country well. And I
    know he can do that job.
        Secondly, as soon as possible, for the SEC nominee and somebody who
    is going to continue to fulfill the obligation that--of holding people
    to account. In other words, holding wrongdoers to account and making
    sure the numbers are fair and open and transparent and everybody
    understands the facts when it comes to--to accounting, so that we
    continue to regain confidence in our system; that people, when they
    invest based upon the numbers of a particular stock, are confident in
    that which they read. And that's an essential part of the SEC job, and
    I'm confident we can find somebody soon to be able to do that.
        Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder].

    Risk Assessment Regarding Iraq

        Q. Thank you. I wanted to go back to your earlier point about the
    risk of an action versus the risk of inaction.
        The President. Where would that be, in the Congress or at the U.N.?
        Q. With Iraq.
        The President. Oh, okay.
        Q. Your CIA Director told Congress just last month that it appears
    that Saddam Hussein ``now appears to be drawing a line short of
    conducting terrorist attacks against the United States.'' But if we
    attacked him he would ``probably become much less constrained.'' Is he
    wrong about that?
        The President. No. I think that--I think that if you would read the
    full--I'm sure he said other sentences. Let me just put it to you: I
    know George Tenet well; I meet with him
    every single day; he sees Saddam Hussein as a
    threat. I don't know what the context of that quote is. I'm telling you,
    the guy knows what I know, that he is a problem and we must deal with
    him.
        And you know, it's like people say, ``Oh, we must leave
    Saddam alone. Otherwise, if we did something
    against him, he might attack us.'' Well, if we don't do something, he
    might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The
    man is a threat, Hutch, I'm telling you. He's a threat not only with
    what he has; he's a threat with what he's done. He's a threat because he
    is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech, I reminded the
    American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-
    type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave
    not one fingerprint. That is a threat. And we're going to deal with it.
        The debate about whether we're going to deal with Saddam
    Hussein is over. And now the question is, how
    do we deal with him? I made the decision to go to the United Nations
    because I want to try to do this peacefully. I want Saddam to disarm.
    The best way to convince him to disarm is to get the nations to come
    together through the U.N. and try to convince him to disarm.
        We're going to work on that. We've been spending a lot of time--I
    wouldn't exactly call it gnashing of teeth, but working hard on the U.N.
    resolution. It took a while, but we've been grinding it out, trying to
    bring a consensus, trying to get people together, so that we can say to
    the world the international community has spoken through the Security
    Council of the United Nations, and now, once again, we expect
    Saddam to disarm.
        This would be the 17th time that we expect Saddam to disarm. This time we mean it. See, that's the
    difference--I guess. This time it's for real. And I say it must not have
    been for real the last 16 times because nothing happened when he didn't.

    [[Page 2050]]

    This time something happens. He knows--he's got to understand that. The
    members of the U.N. Security Council understand that. Saddam has got to
    understand it so he--so in the name of peace, for a peaceful resolution
    of this, we hope he disarms.
        Jackson [David Jackson, Dallas Morning News], from Texas. You got
    anything--a Texas question?

    Judicial Confirmation Process

        Q. As a matter of fact, I do. [Laughter]
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. Do you intend to resuscitate the nomination of Priscilla Owen and
    Charles Pickering? And also, how bloody do you think the next Supreme
    Court nomination will be?
        The President. Well, first, I want the new chairman of the Senate
    Judiciary Committee to understand that I am very serious about the
    reforms that I suggested in the East Room, about how to get this process
    of nominating judges and approving judges on the right course, not only
    for this administration but future administrations, not only for this
    Senate but future Senates. And so step one on the judiciary process, I
    believe there needs to be reform. I would be glad to reprise the reforms
    if you can't remember them.
        Q. Owen and Pickering, are they going to----
        The President. I'll be there in a minute. [Laughter] I'm using this
    as an opportunity to make a point on judicial reform. And that is that
    if a judge thinks he's going to retire, give us a year's notice, if
    possible. And then we will act--``we,'' the administrative branch, will
    nominate somebody and clear them within 180 days. And then the Senate
    judiciary has got 90 days to go through the process and then get the
    person's name to the floor and 180 days for an up-or-down vote. To me,
    that would be a needed and necessary reform.
        So step one on the nomination process is to work with Senator Hatch--and Senator
    Leahy--to put these reforms in place, is to convince Members of the
    Senate we're serious about a process that will get rid of the old
    bitterness of the judicial process.
        This is probably not to your liking, by the way. You love those
    court fights. I'm confident it makes great covering and great stories.
        I also said at the time of Priscilla Owen's being--not being put to the floor of the Senate
    that I would hope that the Judiciary Committee would let her name out to
    the Senate floor at some point in time. We don't have to recommit them.
    They never--they're there. Pickering and Owen are still there at the committee level. They
    just weren't ever--their names were never let to the floor for a vote.
        By the way, if they had been let to the floor for a vote, we believe
    they would have won the vote--perhaps the reason why they were never let
    to the floor for a vote. But--so, I hope that judiciary committee will
    let their names out and they get a fair hearing.
        I thought you were going to talk about the Texas elections. But
    that's okay. [Laughter]
        April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks], last question.
        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.

    Ryan Tyler James

        The President. How's your child, April?
        Q. She's wonderful.
        The President. Georgia W? [Laughter]
        Q. My husband is watching, and the name is Ryan Tyler James.
    [Laughter]
        The President. You might as well turn to the camera when you say
    that. [Laughter]

    Haitian Immigrants/Immigration Policy

        Q. Well, Mr. President, some critics contend there is a racial
    disparity in how immigrants are handled here, and speaking of the
    Haitians versus immigrants, the other immigrants. Do you support the
    current law on the books about Haiti, and why, either way?

    [[Page 2051]]

        The President. April, first of all, the immigration laws ought to be
    the same for Haitians and everybody else, except for Cubans. And the
    difference, of course, is that we don't send people back to Cuba because
    they're going to be persecuted. And that's why we've got the special law
    on the books as regards to Cubans. But Haitians and everybody else ought
    to be treated the same way. And we're in the process of making sure that
    happens.
        It's been an enjoyable experience.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 2 p.m. in Room 450 of the
    Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building. In his remarks, he
    referred to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; President Jacques Chirac
    of France; President Vladimir Putin of Russia; President Jiang Zemin of
    China; William H. Webster, Chairman, Commission for the Review of FBI
    Security Programs; Norm Coleman, Senator-elect from Minnesota; and
    Representative John R. Thune, defeated senatorial candidate from South
    Dakota. The President also referred to Texas Supreme Court Justice
    Priscilla Owen and Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr., whose nominations to
    be U.S. Circuit Judges for the Fifth Circuit failed.