Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2004, Book III)

[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2004, Book III)]
[December 20, 2004]
[Pages 3122-3135]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

The President's News Conference
December 20, 2004

The President. Good morning, and happy holidays to you all. I
thought I'd come and answer some of your questions. Before I do so, I've
got a statement I'd like to make.
We're nearing the end of a year where--of substantial progress at
home and here--and abroad. In 2004, the United States grew in
prosperity, enhanced our security, and served the cause of freedom and
peace. Our duties continue in the new year. I'm optimistic about
achieving results. America's economy is on solid footing, growth is
strong, and the Nation's entrepreneurs have generated more than 2
million jobs in this year alone.
There's more we must do to keep this economy flexible, innovative,
and competitive in the world. In a time of change, we must reform
systems that were created to meet the needs of another era. Soon I will
appoint a citizens panel to recommend ways we can transform the outdated
Tax Code. I'll work with the new Congress to make health care more
accessible and affordable, to reform the legal system, to raise
standards of achievement in public schools, especially our high schools,
and to fix the Social Security system for our children and our
grandchildren.
Early in the year, I will also submit a budget that fits the times.
We will provide every tool and resource for our military. We'll protect
the homeland, and we'll meet other priorities of the Government. My
budget will maintain strict discipline in the spending of tax dollars
and keep our commitment to cutting the deficit in half over 5 years.
All of these goals require the energy and dedication of members of
both political parties. Working in a spirit of bipartisanship, we will
build the foundation of a stronger, more prosperous country. We'll meet
our obligations to future generations as we do so.
Our duties to future generations include a sustained effort to
protect our country against new dangers. Last week I signed legislation
that continues the essential reorganization of our Government by
improving the Nation's intelligence operations. Because we acted, our
vast intelligence enterprise will be more unified, coordinated, and
effective than ever before, and the American people will be more secure
as a result.
Our country is also safer because of the historic changes that have
come around the world in places like Afghanistan. This year brought the
first Presidential election in the 5,000-year history of that country.
And the Government of President Hamid Karzai is
a steadfast ally in the war on terror. President Karzai and the Afghan
people can be certain of America's continued friendship and America's
support as they build a secure and hopeful democracy.
In Iraq, a people that endured decades of oppression are also
preparing to choose their own leaders. Next month, Iraqis will go to the
polls and express their will in free elections. Preparations are
underway for an energetic campaign, and the participation is wide and
varied. More than 80 parties and coalitions have been formed, and more
than 7,000 candidates have registered for the elections. When Iraqis
vote on January the 30th, they will elect 275 members to a transitional
National Assembly as well as local legislatures throughout the country.

[[Page 3123]]

The new National Assembly will be responsible for drafting a
constitution for a free Iraq. By next October, the constitution will be
submitted to the people for ratification. If it is approved, then, by
December, the voters of Iraq will elect a fully democratic
constitutional government. My point is, the elections in January are
just the beginning of a process, and it's important for the American
people to understand that.
As the Iraqi people take these important steps on the path to
democracy, the enemies of freedom know exactly what is at stake. They
know that a democratic Iraq will be a decisive blow to their ambitions,
because free people will never choose to live in tyranny. And so the
terrorists will attempt to delay the elections, to intimidate people in
their country, to disrupt the democratic process in any way they can. No
one can predict every turn in the months ahead, and I certainly don't
expect the process to be trouble-free. Yet, I am confident of the
result. I'm confident the terrorists will fail, the elections will go
forward, and Iraq will be a democracy that reflects the values and
traditions of its people.
America and our coalition have a strategy in place to aid the rise
of a stable democracy in Iraq. To help the Iraqi Government provide
security during the election period, we will increase U.S. troop
strength. Coalition forces will continue hunting the terrorists and the
insurgents. We will continue training Iraqi security forces so the Iraqi
people can eventually take responsibility for their own security.
We have a vital interest in the success of a free Iraq. You see,
free societies do not export terror. Free governments respect the
aspirations of their citizens and serve their hopes for a better life.
Free nations are peaceful nations. And free nations in the heart of the
Middle East will show what is possible to others who want to live in a
free society.
In Iraq and elsewhere, we've asked a great deal of the men and women
of our Armed Forces. Especially during this holiday season, those on
duty far from home will be in our thoughts and our prayers. Our people
in uniform and our military families are making many sacrifices for our
country. They have the gratitude of our whole country.
Now I will be glad to answer some questions. Hunt [Terence Hunt,
Associated Press].

Russia-U.S. Relations

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. A month ago in Chile, you asked
Vladimir Putin to explain why he has taken actions widely seen as a move
away from democracy. What do you think Mr. Putin's intentions are, and
do you think that Russia's behavior has chilled relations with the
United States?
The President. As you know, Vladimir Putin and I have got a good personal relationship,
starting with our meeting in Slovenia. I intend to keep it that way.
It's important for Russia and the United States to have the kind of
relationship where, if we disagree with decisions, we can do so in a
friendly and positive way.
When Vladimir made the decision, for
example, on the--whether to elect Governors or appoint Governors, I
issued a statement that said in a free society, in a society based upon
Western values, we believe in the proper balance of power. I think he
took that on and absorbed that in the spirit in which it was offered,
the spirit of two people who've grown to appreciate each other and
respect each other. I'll continue to work with him in a new term.
Obviously, we have some disagreements. He probably has disagreements
over some of the decisions I've made. Clearly, one such decision was in
Iraq.
But this is a vital and important relationship, and it's a
relationship where it's complicated--it's complex, rather than
complicated. It's complex because we have joint efforts when it comes to
sharing intelligence to fight terrorism. We've got work to do to secure
nuclear materials. I look

[[Page 3124]]

forward to working with the Russians to continue to expand cooperation.
I think one of the things we need to do is to give the Russians equal
access to our sites, our nuclear storage sites, to see what works and
what doesn't work, to build confidence between our two Governments.
Obviously, there's a lot of trade that's taking place between Russia
and the West and the United States. And that trade relationship is an
important relationship. I told Vladimir that we would work in a new term
for--to see if Russia could then be admitted to the WTO. I think that
would be a positive step for relations between our two countries. And
I'll continue to express my belief that balanced government, the sharing
of power amongst government will lead to a--will lead to stability in
Russia. And the relationship is an important relationship, and I would
call the relationship a good relationship.

Defense Secretary RumsfeldDSU/

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Several Republican lawmakers recently
have criticized Secretary Rumsfeld. What does he need to do to rebuild
their trust?
The President. Well, first of all, when I asked the Secretary to
stay on as Secretary of Defense, I was very pleased when he said yes.
And I asked him to stay on because I understand the nature of the job of
the Secretary of Defense, and I believe he's doing a really fine job.
The Secretary of Defense is a complex job. It's complex in times of
peace, and it's complex even more so in times of war. And the Secretary
has managed this Department during two major battles in the war on
terror, Afghanistan and Iraq. And at the same time, he's working to
transform our military so it functions better, it's lighter, it's ready
to strike on a moment's notice--in other words, that the force structure
meets the demands we face in the 21st century.
Not only is he working to transform the nature of the forces, we're
working to transform where our forces are based. As you know, we have
recently worked with the South Korean Government, for example, to
replace manpower with equipment, to keep the Peninsula secure and the
Far East secure but, at the same time, recognizing we have a different
series of threats. And he's done a fine job, and I look forward to
continuing to work with him.
And I know the Secretary understands the Hill. He's been around in
Washington a long period of time, and he will continue to reach out to
Members of the Hill, explaining the decisions he's made. And I believe
that in a new term, Members of the Senate and the House will recognize
what a good job he's doing.
Let's see here. Let's go to the TV personalities. [Laughter] Let's
start with you, Cochran [John Cochran, ABC News]. David [David Gregory,
NBC News], prepare yourself.

Kerik Nomination/Vetting Process/Director of National Intelligence

Q. Any lessons you have learned, sir, from the failed nomination of
Bernard Kerik? As you look forward now to pick a new Director of the
Homeland Security Department and also as you pick a Director of National
Intelligence, any lessons learned in terms of vetting and particularly
with the DNI? What sort of qualities are you going to be looking for in
that man or that woman that you choose?
The President. Well, first, let me say that I was disappointed that
the nomination of Bernard Kerik didn't go
forward. In retrospect, he made the right decision to pull his name
down. He made the decision. There was a--when the process gets going,
our counsel asks a lot of questions and a prospective nominee listens to
the questions and answers them and takes a look at what we feel is
necessary to be cleared before the FBI check and before the hearings
take place on the Hill, and Bernard Kerik,
after answering questions and thinking about the questions, decided to
pull

[[Page 3125]]

his name down. I think he would have done a fine job as the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and I appreciate his service to our country.
We've vetted a lot of people in this administration. We vetted
people in the first. We're vetting people in the second term, and I've
got great confidence in our vetting process. And so the lessons learned
is, continue to vet and ask good questions and get these candidates, the
prospective nominees, to understand what we expect a candidate will face
during a background check--FBI background check as well as congressional
hearings.
Now, in terms of the NDI--DNI, I'm going to find someone that knows
something about intelligence, and capable and honest and ready to do the
job. And I will let you know at the appropriate time when I find such a
person.
Gregory.

Training Iraqi Forces/Polls

Q. Mr. President, thank you. A year ago we were in this room, almost
to the day, and you were heralding the capture of Saddam Hussein and
announcing the end of Ba'athists' tyranny in Iraq. A year later, the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate said, after
returning from Iraq, that--talking about Iraqi troops--the raw material
is lacking in the willpower and commitment after they receive military
training. At the same time, here at home a higher percentage of
Americans is less confident of a successful conclusion in Iraq, 48
percent less confident to 41 percent. What's going wrong?
The President. Well, first let me talk about the Iraqi troops. The
ultimate success in Iraq is for the Iraqis to secure their country. I
recognize that; the American people recognize that. That's the strategy.
The strategy is to work to provide security for a political process to
go forward. The strategy is to help rebuild Iraq. And the strategy is to
train Iraqis so they can fight off the thugs and the killers and the
terrorists who want to destroy the progress of a free society.
Now, I would call the results mixed in terms of standing up Iraqi
units who are willing to fight. There have been some cases where when
the heat got on, they left the battlefield. That's unacceptable. Iraq
will never secure itself if they have troops that when the heat gets on,
they leave the battlefield. I fully understand that. On the other hand,
there were some really fine units in Fallujah, for example, in Najaf,
that did their duty. And so the--our military trainers, our military
leaders have analyzed what worked and what didn't work. And I met with
General Abizaid and General Casey in the White House last week. And I think it
was before the--I think it was Thursday morning, if I'm not mistaken--I
was going to say before the interminable press conference--I mean press
party. Anyway. [Laughter]
Here's what--first of all, recruiting is strong. The place where the
generals told me that we need to do better is to make sure that there is
a command structure that connects the soldier to the strategy in a
better way, I guess is the best way to describe it. In other words,
they've got some generals in place and they've got foot soldiers in
place, but the whole command structure necessary to have a viable
military is not in place. And so they're going to spend a lot of time
and effort on achieving that objective. And so the American people are
taking a look at Iraq and wondering whether the Iraqis are eventually
able--going to be able to fight off these bombers and killers. And our
objective is to give them the tools and the training necessary to do so.
Q. What about that percentage, though, 48 to 41? More Americans
losing confidence----
The President. You know, polls change, Dave. Polls go up. Polls go
down. I can understand why people--they're looking on your TV screen and
seeing indiscriminate bombing where thousands of innocent--or

[[Page 3126]]

hundreds of innocent Iraqis are getting killed, and they're saying
whether or not we're able to achieve the objective. What they don't see
are the small businesses starting; 15 of the 18 provinces are relatively
stable, where progress is being made; life is better now than it was
under Saddam Hussein. And so there is--there
are very hopeful signs.
But no question about it, the bombers are having an effect. You
know, these people are targeting innocent Iraqis. They're trying to
shake the will of the Iraqi people and, frankly, trying to shake the
will of the American people. And car bombs that destroy young children
or car bombs that indiscriminately bomb in religious sites are effective
propaganda tools. But we must meet the objective, which is to help the
Iraqis defend themselves and at the same time have a political process
to go forward. It's in our long-term interests that we succeed, and I'm
confident we will.
I saw an interesting comment today by somebody, I think in the
Karbala area or Najaf area, who said, ``Look, what they're trying to
do''--``they'' being the terrorists--``are trying to create sectarian
violence.'' He said, ``They're not going to intimidate us from voting.
People want to vote. People want to live in a free society.'' And our
job in these tough times is to work and complete our strategy.
Yes, John [John King, Cable News Network], and then John [John
Roberts, CBS News].
Q. Mr. President, thank you.
The President. I had to work my way through all the mass medias.

Syria and Iran

Q. You mentioned that meeting with General Abizaid and General
Casey. One of their complaints now and a complaint we have heard dating
back more than a year ago, even to when combat was underway in Iraq, is
what some called meddling, interference from Syria and Iran, people
coming across the border, people going back across the border, sometimes
money. Now they say meddling in the political process. What specifically
is the problem now, in your view? And there are some who watch this and
see a series of complaints from the administration, but they say, ``Will
there ever be consequences?''
The President. Well, the--yes, I spent some time talking to our
generals about whether or not there are former Saddam loyalists in Syria, for example, funneling money to
the insurgents. And my attitude is, if there's any question that they're
there, we ought to be working with the Syrian Government to prevent them
from either sending money and/or support of any kind. We have sent
messages to the Syrians in the past, and we will continue to do so. We
have tools at our disposal, a variety of tools, ranging from diplomatic
tools to economic pressure. Nothing is taken off the table. And when I
said the other day that I expect these countries to honor the political
process in Iraq without meddling, I meant it. And, hopefully, those
governments heard what I said.
John.

Second-Term Agenda/Social Security Reform

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You've made Social Security reform the
top of your domestic agenda for a second term. You've been talking
extensively about the benefits of private accounts. But by most
estimations, private accounts may leave something for young workers at
the end but wouldn't do much to solve the overall financial problem with
Social Security. And I'm just wondering, as you're promoting these
private accounts, why aren't you talking about some of the tough
measures that may have to be taken to preserve the solvency of Social
Security, such as increasing the retirement age, cutting benefits, or
means testing for Social Security?
The President. Yes, I appreciate that question. First of all, let me
put the Social Security issue in proper perspective. It is

[[Page 3127]]

a very important issue, but it's not the only issue, very important
issue we'll be dealing with. I expect the Congress to bring forth
meaningful tort reform. I want the legal system reformed in such a way
that we are competitive in the world. I'll be talking about the budget,
of course. There is a lot of concern in the financial markets about our
deficits, short-term and long-term deficits. The long-term deficit, of
course, is caused by some of the entitlement programs, the unfunded
liabilities inherent in our entitlement programs. I will continue to
push on an education agenda. There's no doubt in my mind that the No
Child Left Behind Act is meaningful, real, reform that is having real
results. And I look forward to strengthening No Child Left Behind.
Immigration reform is a very important agenda item as we move forward.
But Social Security as well is a big item. And I campaigned on it,
as you're painfully aware, since you had to suffer through many of my
speeches. I didn't duck the issue like others have done have in the
past. I said this is a vital issue, and we need to work together to
solve it. Now, the temptation is going to be, by well-meaning people
such as yourself, John, and others here, as we run up to the issue, to
get me to negotiate with myself in public, to say, you know, ``What's
this mean, Mr. President? What's that mean?'' I'm not going to do that.
I don't get to write the law. I will propose a solution at the
appropriate time, but the law will be written in the Halls of Congress.
And I will negotiate with them, with the Members of Congress, and they
will want me to start playing my hand: ``Will you accept this? Will you
not accept that? Why don't you do this hard thing? Why don't you do
that?'' I fully recognize this is going to be a decision that requires
difficult choices, John. Inherent in your question is, do I recognize
that? You bet I do. Otherwise, it would have been done.
And so I am--I just want to try to condition you. I'm not doing a
very good job, because the other day in the Oval when the press pool
came in, I was asked about this, a series of question on--a question on
Social Security with these different aspects to it. And I said, ``I'm
not going to negotiate with myself,'' and I will negotiate at the
appropriate time with the law writers. And so thank you for trying.
The principles I laid out in the course of the campaign and the
principles we laid out at the recent economic summit are still the
principles I believe in. And that is, nothing will change for those near
our Social Security; payroll--I believe you were the one who asked me
about the payroll tax, if I'm not mistaken--will not go up.
And I know there's a big definition about what that means. Well,
again, I will repeat, don't bother to ask me. Or you can ask me. I
shouldn't--I can't tell you what to ask. It's not the holiday spirit.
[Laughter] It is all part of trying to get me to set the parameters
apart from the Congress, which is not a good way to get substantive
reform done.
As to personal accounts, it is, in my judgment, essential to make
the system viable in the out years to allow younger workers to earn an
interest rate more significant than that which is being earned with
their own money now inside the Social Security trust. But the first step
in this process is for Members of Congress to realize we have a problem.
And so for a while, I think it's important for me to continue to
work with members of both parties to explain the problem. Because if
people don't think there's a problem, we can talk about this issue until
we're blue in the face, and nothing will get done. And there is a
problem. There's a problem because now it requires three workers per
retiree to keep Social Security promises. In 2040, it will require two
workers per employee to meet the promises. And when the system was set
up and designed, I think it was, like, 15 or more workers per employee.
That is a problem. The system goes into the red. In other words, there's
more

[[Page 3128]]

money going out than coming in, in 2018. There is an unfunded liability
of $11 trillion. And I understand how this works. Many times,
legislative bodies will not react unless the crisis is apparent, crisis
is upon them. I believe that crisis is.
And so for a period of time, we're going to have to explain to
Members of Congress, the crisis is here. It's a lot less painful to act
now than if we wait.
Q. Can I ask a followup?
The President. No. [Laughter] Otherwise, it will make everybody else
jealous, and I don't want that to happen.
Angle [Jim Angle, FOX News].

Personal Retirement Accounts

Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, on that point, there is already a
lot of opposition to the idea of personal accounts, some of it fairly
entrenched among the Democrats. I wonder what your strategy is to try to
convince them to your view? And specifically, they say that personal
accounts would destroy Social Security. You argue that it would help
save the system. Can you explain how?
The President. I will try to explain how without negotiating with
myself. It's a very tricky way to get me to play my cards. I understand
that. I think what you--people ought to do is to go look at the Moynihan
Commission report. The other day, in the discussions at the economic
summit, we discussed the role of a personal account, in other words,
what--how a personal account would work. And that is, the people could
set aside a negotiated amount of their own money in an account that
would be managed by that person, but under serious guidelines. As I
said, you can't use the money to go to the lottery or take it to the
track. There would be--it's like the--some of the guidelines that some
of the Thrift Savings Plans right here in the Federal Government.
And the younger worker would gain a rate of return which would be
more substantial than the rate of return of the money now being earned
in the Social Security trust. And over time, that rate of return would
enable that person to be--have an account that would make up for the
deficiencies in the current system. In other words, the current system
can't sustain that which has been promised to the workers. That's what's
important for people to understand, and the higher rate of return on the
negotiated amount of money set aside would enable that worker to more
likely get that which was promised.
Now, the benefits, as far as I'm concerned, of the personal savings
account, is, one, it encourages an ownership society. One of the
philosophies of this government is, if you own something, it is--it
makes the country a better--if more people own something, the country is
better off. You have a stake in the future of the country if you own
something. Secondly, it's capital available for--when people save, it
provides capital for entrepreneurial growth and entrepreneurial
expansion, which is positive. In other words, it enhances savings. And
thirdly, it means that people can take their own assets, their own
retirement assets, and pass them on, if they so choose, to their family
members, for example. That's positive. That's a step.
The Social Security system was designed in a--obviously, in an era
that is long gone, and it has worked in many ways. It's now in a
precarious position, and the question is whether or not our society has
got the will necessary to adjust from a defined benefit plan to a
defined contribution plan. And I believe the will will be there, but I'm
under no illusions. It's going to take hard work. It's going to take
hard work to convince a lot of people, some of whom would rather not
deal with the issue--why deal with the issue unless there is a crisis?--
and some of whom have got preconceived notions about the benefits of
what may be possible.
Okay, let's get away from the media. Yes, Carl [Carl Cannon,
National Journal], thank

[[Page 3129]]

you. I accused Carl of trying to look like Johnny Damon. [Laughter]

Timetable for Iraq/Training Iraqi Forces

Q. Mr. President, it's--140,000 Americans are spending this
Christmas in Iraq, as you know, some of them their second Christmas
there. Now, you outlined your vision for Iraq, both in your statement
and in response to David Gregory. My question is, how long do you think
it will take that vision to be realized, and how long will those troops
be there?
The President. No, it's a very legitimate question, Carl. And I get
asked that by family members I meet with, and people say, ``How long do
you think it will take?'' And my answer is, you know, we would like to
achieve our objective as quickly as possible. It is our commander--
again--I can--the best people that reflect the answer to that question
are people like Abizaid and Casey, who are right there on the ground. And they
are optimistic and positive about the gains we're making.
Again, I repeat, we're under no illusions that this Iraqi force is
not ready to fight. They're--in toto, there are units that are, and that
they believe they'll have a command structure stood up pretty quickly,
that the training is intense, that the recruitment is good, the
equipping of troops is taking place. So they're optimistic that as soon
as possible it can be achieved. But it's--I'm also wise enough not to
give you a specific moment in time because, sure enough, if we don't
achieve it, I'll spend the next press conference I have with you
answering why we didn't achieve this specific moment.
Sanger [David Sanger, New York Times].

North Korea/Iran

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You spent a good deal of time before
the Iraq war, some in this room, explaining to us why the combination of
Saddam Hussein as a dictator and the weapons that you thought at the
time he had assembled made a case for regime change. In the case of
North Korea and Iran, you have not declared yourself on the question of
regime change, though North Korea, your intelligence agencies believe,
may have added six or seven nuclear weapons in the past 2 years. And
Iran seems to have a covert program, or at least your government
believes it does. Where do you stand on regime change? And how would it
be accomplished?
The President. I'll tell you where I stand, David. I stand on the--
continuing the six-party talks with North Korea to convince Kim Chong-
il to give up his weapons systems. As you might
remember, our countries tried a strategy of bilateral relationships in
hopes that we can convince Kim Chong-il. It didn't work. As a matter of
fact, when we thought we had in good faith agreed to an agreement--I
mean, agreed to a plan that would work, he, himself, was enriching
uranium, or saw to it that the uranium was enriched. In other words, he
broke the agreement.
I think it's an important lesson for this administration to learn
and that the best way to convince him to disarm is to get others to
weigh in as well--the Iranian situation as well. We're relying upon
others, because we've sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran,
to send a message that we expect them to--in other words, we don't have
much leverage with the Iranians right now, and we expect them to listen
to those voices, and we're a part of the universal acclaim.
I believe that--and so, therefore, we're dealing--this is how we're
dealing with the issue. And it's much different between the situation in
Iraq and Iran because of this. Diplomacy had failed for 13 years in
Iraq. As you might remember--and I'm sure you do--all the U.N.
resolutions that were passed out of the United Nations, totally ignored
by Saddam Hussein.
And so diplomacy must be the first choice and always the first
choice of an administration trying to solve an issue of,

[[Page 3130]]

in this case, nuclear armament. And we'll continue to press on
diplomacy.
Now, in terms of my vision for the future of the world, I believe
everybody ought to be free. I believe the world is more peaceful as
liberty takes hold. Free societies don't fight each other. And so we'll
work to continue to send a message to reformers around the world that
America stands strong in our belief that freedom is universal, and that
we hope at some point in time, everybody is free.
Yes.

Federal Spending/Budget Process

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You talked earlier about the importance
of spending discipline in the Federal budget, but you went your entire
first term without vetoing a single spending bill, even though you had a
lot of tough talk on that issue in your first term. And I'm wondering,
this time around, what are you going to do to convince Congress you
really are serious about cutting Federal spending? Will you veto
spending bills this time?
The President. Here's what happened. I submitted a budget, and
Congress hit our number, which is a tribute to Senator Hastert and--I mean, Senator Frist
and Speaker Hastert's leadership. In other words, we worked together. We
came up with a budget, like we're doing now. We went through the process
of asking our agencies, ``Can you live with this,'' and, ``If you don't
like it, counter-propose.''
And then we came up with a budget that we thought was necessary, and
we took it to the leadership, and they accepted the budget. And they
passed bills that met our budget targets. And so how could you veto a
series of appropriations bills if the Congress has done what you've
asked them to do?
Now, I think the President ought to have a line-item veto, because
within the appropriations bills there may be some differences of opinion
on how the money is being spent. But overall, they have done a superb
job of working with the White House to meet the budget numbers we
submitted, and so the appropriations bill I just signed was one that
conformed with the budget agreement we had with the United States
Congress. And I really do appreciate the leadership not only of Speaker
Hastert and Senator Frist but also the budget committee chairman. I talked to
Senator Gregg this morning, as a matter of fact,
who's running--he'll be heading the budget committee in the United
States Senate.
And we're working very closely with Members of Congress as we
develop the budget. And it's going to be a tough budget, no question
about it, and it's a budget that I think will send the right signal to
the financial markets and to those concerned about our short-term
deficits. As well, we've got to deal with the long-term deficit issues.
That's the issue that John Roberts talked about, which is the unfunded
liabilities when it comes to some of the entitlement programs.
Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angeles Times].

Social Security Reform

Q. Good morning, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you, on Social
Security, you said that you don't like to come to the table with--having
negotiated with yourself. Yet, you have ruled out tax cuts and no cuts
in benefits for the retired and the near-retired. I wonder how you
square that statement. And also, what do you--in your mind, what is
near-retired?
The President. Yes, well, that's going to fall in the negotiating
with myself category. But look, it was very important for me in the
course of the campaign, and it's going to be very important for all of
us who feel like we have a problem that needs to be fixed, to assure
Americans who are on Social Security that nothing will change.
Part of the problem, politically, with this issue in the past, Ed,
as you know, is the minute you bring up Social Security reform,

[[Page 3131]]

people go running around the country saying, ``Really what he says is
he's going to take away your check,'' or, ``That which you have become
dependent upon will no longer be available for you to live on.'' And so,
therefore, part of setting the stage or laying the groundwork for there
to be a successful reform effort is assuring our seniors that they just
don't have to worry about anything. When they hear the debate that is
taking place on the floor of the Congress, they just need to know that
the check they're getting won't change, that promises will be met, that,
you know, if there is to be an increase in their check, they'll get
their check. In other words, the formula that has enabled them to the--
to a certain extent--the formula they're relying on won't change, let me
put it that way. I was trying to be really brilliant.
Now, what was the other part of your question?
Q. If I could just follow up. Why----
The President. Is this a followup or part of the question?
Q. You asked, though. [Laughter]
The President. Okay, yes, you're right. [Laughter]

Medicare Reform

Q. Why did you choose to take on Social Security and not Medicare,
which some people believe is a worse problem?
The President. Well, I appreciate that, Ed, but we did take on
Medicare. And it was the Medicare reform bill that really began to
change Medicare as we knew it. In other words, it introduced market
forces for the first time. It provided a prescription drug coverage for
our seniors, which I believe will be cost effective. I recognize some of
the actuaries haven't come to that conclusion yet. But the logic is
irrefutable, it seems like to me, that if the Government is willing to
pay $100,000 for heart surgery but not a dime for the prescription drug
that would prevent the heart surgery from happening in the first place,
aren't we saving money when we provide the money necessary to prevent
the surgery from being needed in the first place? I think we are. That's
one of the differences of opinion that I had with the actuaries.
I readily concede I'm out of my lane. I'm not pretending to be an
actuary. But I know that we made progress in modernizing the Medicare
system. And there's more work to be done, no question about it. But as
you know, it's a 3-year phase-in on Medicare--or 2-year phase-in from
now. And in 2006, the prescription drug coverage will become available
for our seniors. And I look forward to working with Members of Congress
to make sure the Medicare system is solvent in the long run.
Let's have somebody new. Mike [Mike Allen, Washington Post], you
want to--no, you're not new. [Laughter] That is a cheap shot. Go ahead--
that is generous.

Immigration Reform

Q. Thank you. [Laughter] Yes, Mr. President----
The President. Yes, Mike, welcome.
Q. ----since early in your first term you've talked about
immigration reform, but yet, people in your own party on the Hill seem
opposed to this idea. And you've gotten opposition even on the other
side. Do you plan to expend some of your political capital this time to
see this through?
The President. Yes, I appreciate that--well, first of all, welcome.
I'd like to welcome all the new faces--some prettier than others, I
might add. [Laughter]
Yes, I intend to work with Members of Congress to get something
done. I think this is an issue that will make it easier for us to
enforce our borders. And I believe it's an issue that is--that will show
the--if when we get it right, the compassionate heart of American
people. And no question, it's a tough issue, just like some of the other
issues we're taking on. But my job is to confront tough issues and to
ask Congress to work together to confront tough issues.

[[Page 3132]]

Now let me talk about the immigration issue. First, we want our
Border Patrol agents chasing crooks and thieves and drugrunners and
terrorists, not good-hearted people who are coming here to work. And
therefore, it makes sense to allow the good-hearted people who are
coming here to do jobs that Americans won't do a legal way to do so. And
providing that legal avenue, it takes the pressure off the border.
Now, we need to make sure the border is modern, and we need to
upgrade our Border Patrol. But if we expect the Border Patrol to be able
to enforce a long border, particularly in the south--and the north, for
that matter--we ought to have a system that recognizes people are coming
here to do jobs that Americans will not do. And there ought to be a
legal way for them to do so. To me, that is--and not only that, but once
the person is here, if he or she feels like he or she needs to go back
to see her family, to the country of origin, they should be able to do
so within a prescribed--in other words, and the card, the permit would
last for a prescribed period of time. It's a compassionate way to treat
people who come to our country. It recognizes the reality of the world
in which we live. There are some people--there are some jobs in America
that Americans won't do and others are willing to do.
Now, one of the important aspects of my vision is that this is not
automatic citizenship. The American people must understand that, that if
somebody who is here working wants to be a citizen, they can get in line
like those who have been here legally and have been working to become a
citizen in a legal manner.
And this is a very important issue, and it's a--and I look forward
to working with Members of Congress. I fully understand the politics of
immigration reform. I was the Governor of Texas, right there on the
frontlines of border politics. I know what it means to have mothers and
fathers come to my State and across the border of my State to work.
Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River, is what I used to
tell the people of my State. People are coming to put food on the table;
they're doing jobs Americans will not do.
And to me, it makes sense for us to recognize that reality and to
help those who are needing to enforce our borders; legalize the process
of people doing jobs Americans won't do; take the pressure off of
employers so they're not having to rely upon false IDs; cut out the
``coyotes'' who are the smugglers of these people, putting them in the
back of tractor trailers in the middle of August in Texas, allowing
people to suffocate in the back of the trucks; stop the process of
people feeling like they've got to walk miles across desert in Arizona
and Texas in order just to feed their family, and they find them dead
out there. I mean, this is a system that can be much better.
And I'm passionate on it because the nature of this country is one
that is good-hearted and compassionate. Our people are compassionate.
The system we have today is not a compassionate system. It's not
working. And as a result, the country is less secure than it could be
with a rational system.
Yes, sir. Let us take it overseas, across the pond.

Usama bin Laden/Guantanamo Bay Detainees

Q. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I wonder whether I could ask
you two central questions about the war on terrorism. The first one is,
do you have a sense of where Usama bin Laden is and why the trail on him
seems to have gone cold? And secondly, how concerned are you by the
reports of torture, to use your word, the interminable delays to
justice, for the detainees held in Guantanamo and how much that damages
America's reputation as a nation which stands for liberty and justice
internationally?
The President. Right, thank you. If I had to guess, I would guess
that Usama bin Laden is in a remote region on the Afghan-

[[Page 3133]]

Pakistan border. But I don't have to guess at the damage we have done to
his organization. Many of his senior operators have been killed or
detained. Pakistan Government has been aggressive in pursuit of Al Qaida
targets in Waziristan.
And I appreciate the work of President Musharraf. He came the other day, on a Saturday morning, to the
White House, and it was an opportunity to thank him once again for some
of the bold steps he's taken. And Al Qaida is dangerous, no question
about it. But we've got a good strategy, and it's a strategy that
requires cooperation with other nations, and the cooperation has been
great when it comes to sharing intelligence and cutting off finances and
arresting people or killing people. We'll stay on the hunt.
In terms of the second part of your--oh, the damage. Look, we are a
nation of laws and to the extent that people say, ``Well, America is no
longer a nation of laws,'' that does hurt our reputation. But I think
it's an unfair criticism. As you might remember, our courts have made a
ruling. They looked at the jurisdiction, the right of people in
Guantanamo to have habeas review, and so we're now complying with the
court's decisions. We want to fully vet the court decision, because I
believe I have the right to set up military tribunals. And so the law is
working to determine what Presidential powers are available and what's
not available. We're reviewing the status of the people in Guantanamo on
a regular basis. I think 200 and some-odd have been released. But you've
got to understand the dilemma we're in. These are people that got
scooped up off a battlefield, attempting to kill U.S. troops. I want to
make sure, before they're released, that they don't come back to kill
again.
I think it's important to let the world know that we fully
understand our obligations in a society that honors rule of law to do
that. But I also have an obligation to protect the American people, to
make sure we understand the nature of the people that we hold, whether
or not there's possible intelligence we can gather from them that we
could then use to protect us. So we'll continue to work the issue hard.
Let's see here, yes, Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder]. Go ahead
and yell it out, Hutch.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld

Q. Going for another new face, huh?
The President. Yes. [Laughter]
Q. I'd like to go back to Secretary Rumsfeld----
The President. It's not a pretty face. [Laughter]
Q. Thank you. [Laughter] You talked about the big picture elements
of the Secretary's job, but did you find it offensive that he didn't
take the time to personally sign condolence letters to the families of
troops killed in Iraq? And if so, why is that an offense that you're
willing to overlook?
The President. Listen, I know how--I know Secretary Rumsfeld's
heart. I know how much he cares for the troops. He and his wife go out
to Walter Reed and Bethesda all the time to provide comfort and solace.
I have seen the anguish in his--or heard the anguish in his voice and
seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that
youngsters are over there in harm's way. And he is--he's a good, decent
man. He's a caring fellow. Sometimes, perhaps, his demeanor is rough and
gruff, but beneath that rough and gruff, no-nonsense demeanor is a good
human being who cares deeply about the military and deeply about the
grief that war causes.
Deans [Bob Deans, Cox Newspapers].

Situation in the Middle East

Q. Mr. President, I want to kick forward to the elections in Gaza in
a few weeks if I could, please. As you know, Presidents back to Carter
have searched for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Your
dad

[[Page 3134]]

worked hard for it. Your predecessor said once it was like going to the
dentist without getting your gums numbed. I'm wondering what great----
The President. Guy had a way with
words. [Laughter]
Q. I'm wondering, sir, what lesson you draw, though, from their
efforts, how you think the war in Iraq may, at this point, have improved
prospects for a Mideast peace, and whether you think you might sit in
that diplomatic dental chair yourself this year?
The President. I've been in the diplomatic dental chair for 4 years.
This is an issue we talk about a lot, but it became apparent to me that
peace would never happen so long as the interlocutor in the peace
process was not really dedicated to peace or dedicated to a state.
I was at--look, I gave the speech June 24, 2002, in the Rose Garden
that laid out the vision about how to achieve--at least from my point of
view, how to achieve a peaceful solution and something that I hope
happens. But I'm realistic about how to achieve peace, and it starts
with my understanding that there will never be peace until a true
democratic state emerges in the Palestinian territory. And I'm hopeful
right now because the Palestinians will begin to have elections, have--
will have elections, which is the beginning of the process toward the
development of a state. It is not the sign that democracy has arrived.
It is the beginning of a process.
And we look forward to working with Israel to uphold her obligations
to enable a Palestinian state to emerge. But we've got a good chance to
get it done. And I just want the people--and I know the world is
wondering whether or not this is just empty rhetoric or does--do I
really believe that now is the time to move the process forward. And the
answer is, now is the time to move the process forward. But we cannot
shortcut the process by saying, you know, ``Well, the Palestinians can't
self-govern. They're not suitable for a democracy.''
I subscribe to this theory, that the only way to achieve peace is
for there to be democracies living side by side. Democracies don't fight
each other. And the last system didn't work, which was the hope that a
Palestinian Authority, run by a singular head who on some days would
say, ``We're for peace,'' and some days would say, ``Now is the time to
attack,'' hope that everything would be fine. It just didn't work.
So I look forward to working with the world, the new Secretary of
State, to work with the Palestinians to
develop the structures necessary for a democracy to emerge. And I
appreciate the fact that Prime Minister Tony Blair is willing to help that process by holding a conference
with Palestinians that will help develop the state. And if the free
world focuses on helping the Palestinians develop a state and there is
leadership willing to accept the help, it's possible to achieve peace.
And there are responsibilities for all parties. The Palestinians have
responsibilities. The Israelis have responsibilities. The Americans have
responsibilities. The EU has responsibilities. But we all have got to
keep the big vision in mind in order to achieve the objective.
Listen, thank you all very much. I wish everybody--truly wish
everybody a happy holidays. For those of you coming to Crawford, I look
forward to not seeing you down there. [Laughter]
Thank you all.

Football

Q. Are you going to the Rose Bowl?
The President. No, I won't be going to the Rose Bowl. I'll be
watching the Rose Bowl.
And by the way, in case you're not following high school football in
Texas--atta boy, Jackson [David Jackson, Dallas Morning News]--the
Crawford Pirates are the State 2A, Division II champs. And we look

[[Page 3135]]

forward--don't we--to wave the championship banner above the Crawford
High School.
All right, happy holidays.

Note: The President's news conference began at 10:32 a.m. in Room 450 of
the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building. In his remarks, he
referred to President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan; President Vladimir
Putin of Russia; former President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Gen. John P.
Abizaid, USA, combatant commander, U.S. Central Command; Gen. George W.
Casey, Jr., USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq;
professional baseball player Johnny Damon; Chairman Kim Chong-il of
North Korea; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist
organization; President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan; Joyce Rumsfeld,
wife of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; and Prime Minister Tony
Blair of the United Kingdom. He also referred to the President's
Commission to Strengthen Social Security (Moynihan Commission). The
Office of the Press Secretary also released a Spanish language
transcript of this news conference.