    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2005, Book I)]
    [March 16, 2005]
    [Pages 440-453]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    March 16, 2005

        The President. Thank you for giving me a chance to come by and say
    hello. I'm preparing for my trip out of town for Easter--the Easter
    week, and I thought I'd share some thoughts with you and answer some
    questions.
        I am looking forward to continuing my dialog with the people on
    Social Security. It's important for the American people to understand
    that I believe the Social Security system has worked well, that Franklin
    Roosevelt did a positive thing when he
    created the Social Security system, but that I am deeply concerned about
    the Social Security system for younger Americans. And I believe we're
    making progress on convincing the American people of two things: One,
    nothing will change for
    seniors, those who have retired or near
    retirement; and secondly, that we must work together to make sure the
    system works for a younger generation of
    Americans. That's progress.
        As I said--I think I told you all earlier that one of my missions in
    the Social Security debate was to set that issue before the

    [[Page 441]]

    people so that people fully understand why I was addressing it, in other
    words, why--I fully understand some in Washington are saying, ``Why
    would the President bring this up. It's a difficult issue. It may cause
    us to have to make a tough vote.'' I'm making that case to the people
    and will continue to do so in Florida on Friday, and then we'll head out
    west from Crawford and then back to Crawford for my meetings with Prime
    Minister Martin and President Fox.
        I urge the Members to go out and, when they go home, to talk to
    their constituents not only about the problem but about solutions. I
    urge Members to start talking about how we're going to permanently fix
    Social Security. The Members, I hope, would not talk about a bandaid
    solution, but I think it's important for them to talk about a permanent
    fix, something that will last forever. I think the voters will
    appreciate people who come up with constructive suggestions, not
    statements merely in opposition of some ideas.
        And so this is part of what I wanted to share with you, is that I'm
    actually enjoying myself on these trips. I hope you're enjoying
    traveling with me. I like to get out of Washington. I like to discuss
    big issues. I like to remind people that my job is to confront problems,
    and I will continue to talk about Social Security for the next period of
    time.
        Iraq had a meeting today of its Transitional National Assembly. It's
    a bright moment in what is a process toward the writing of a
    constitution, the ratification of the constitution, and elections. And I
    want to congratulate the Iraqis for their Assembly. And it's--we've
    always said this is a process, and today was a step in that process. And
    it's a hopeful moment, I thought.
        I am looking forward to seeing you down there in Crawford, those of
    you lucky enough to be able to travel with me. I wish you all a happy
    Easter. And I'll be glad to answer some questions.

    Coalition in Iraq/Transition in Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq once had 38
    countries contributing troops, and now that number has fallen to 24. And
    yesterday, Italy said that it was going to start pulling out some forces
    in September. How can you keep the coalition from crumbling? And is it
    time to think about a timetable for pulling out some U.S. troops, given
    that the Iraqi Parliament was seated today, and you're making progress
    in training some forces?
        The President. Well, actually I called Silvio Berlusconi on another matter, which may or may not come up during
    this press conference. It's--actually, I'll give you a hint. I called
    him about the World Bank, and--[laughter]--and discussed my nominee,
    and--but he brought up the issue of Italian troops in Iraq and said,
    first of all, he wanted me to know that there was no change in his
    policy, that, in fact, any withdrawals would be done in consultation
    with allies and would be done depending upon the ability of Iraqis to
    defend themselves. And I said, ``Are you sure I can say this to the
    press corps that will be wanting to know what took place in our
    conversation?'' He said, ``Absolutely.''
        So I think what you're going to find is that countries will be
    willing--or anxious to get out when Iraqis have got the capacity to
    defend themselves. And that's the position of the United States. Our
    troops will come home when Iraq is capable of defending herself, and
    that's generally what I find to be the case, Terry [Terence Hunt,
    Associated Press], when I've talked to other allies on this issue.
        And we're making progress. I've--I talk to General Casey quite frequently, and he keeps us abreast of
    the progress being made. One of the things--one of the issues in terms
    of Iraqi troops being able to defend their country is the ability to
    stand up chains of command. I think I've shared this with you before,
    and it's still an issue that they're working on. There's officer

    [[Page 442]]

    training schools, plus the ability for a command to go from a civilian
    government through a military chain of command, down to the lower ranks
    of troops. And there's positive signs that have taken place in the
    development of the Iraqi security force, and there's still work to be
    done. Our allies understand that.
        But I say ``anxious to come home,'' and every--nobody--I mean,
    people want their troops home, but they don't want their troops home if
    it affects the mission. We've gone--we've made a lot of progress. It's
    amazing how much progress has been made, thanks in large part to the
    courage of the Iraqi people. And when I talk to people, most understand
    we need to complete the mission. And completing the mission means making
    sure the Iraqis can defend themselves.
        Q. So you don't think it's crumbling, the coalition?
        The President. No, quite to the contrary, I think the coalition is--
    has been buoyed by the courage of the Iraqi people. I think they've been
    pleased and heartened by the fact that the Iraqis went to the polls and
    voted and they're now putting together a Government, and they see
    progress is being made. And I share that sense of enthusiasm about
    what's taking place in Iraq.
        Yes, Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

    Iran

        Q. Yes, sir. The Iranians have dismissed the European incentive as
    insignificant. Should more incentives be offered? How long do they have
    until you take your case to the Security Council?
        The President. Well, I--first of all, I want to thank our European
    friends for taking the lead on this issue, telling the Iranians that
    they should permanently abandon any enrichment or reprocessing, to make
    sure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon.
        Let me review the bidding on this, if I might, just kind of the
    history, right quick. Iran has concealed its--a nuclear program. That
    became discovered, not because of their compliance with the IAEA or NPT
    but because a dissident group pointed it out to the world, and--which
    raised suspicions about the intentions of the program. You can
    understand why. It's a nontransparent regime. They're run by a handful
    of people. And so suspicions were raised, and as a result of those
    suspicions, we came together with friends and allies to seek a guarantee
    that they wouldn't use any nuclear program to make weapons. A lot of
    people understand that if they did have a weapon, it would create
    incredible instability. It wouldn't be good for world peace.
        And so the best way to do that--and this is where we are in the
    talks--was to say to the Iranians that they must permanently abandon
    enrichment and reprocessing. And the EU-3 meant it. And now we're
    waiting for an Iranian response.
        Q. So how long do you--how long do you wait? When do you go to the
    Security Council?
        The President. The understanding is we go to the Security Council if
    they reject the offer, and I hope they don't. I hope they realize the
    world is clear about making sure that they don't end up with a nuclear
    weapon.
        David [David Gregory, NBC News].

    Social Security Reform

        Q. Mr. President, you say you're making progress in the Social
    Security debate. Yet private accounts, as the centerpiece of that plan,
    something you first campaigned on 5 years ago and laid before the
    American people, remains, according to every measure we have, poll after
    poll, unpopular with a majority of Americans. So the question is, do you
    feel that this is a point in the debate where it's incumbent upon you,
    and nobody else, to lay out a plan to the American people for how you
    actually keep Social Security solvent for the long term?
        The President. First of all, Dave, let me, if I might correct you,
    be so bold as to

    [[Page 443]]

    correct you. I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally. I have laid
    out principles. I've talked about putting all options on the table,
    because I fully understand the administration must work with the
    Congress to permanently solve Social Security. So one aspect of the
    debate is, will we be willing to work together to permanently solve the
    issue?
        Personal accounts do not solve the issue. But personal accounts will
    make sure that individual workers get a better deal with whatever
    emerges as a Social Security solution.
        And the reason why is because a personal account would enable a
    worker to, voluntarily, by the way--this is a voluntary program; you can
    choose to join or choose not to join. The Government is not making you
    do that. It's your option, and you can decide whether or not you want to
    put some of your own money aside in a conservative mix in stocks and
    bonds to earn a better rate of return than that which you would earn--
    your money would earn inside the Social Security system. And over time,
    that compounds. It grows, and you would end up with a nest egg you could
    call your own.
        And so I think it's an interesting idea and one that people ought to
    discuss to make sure the system works better for an individual worker.
    But it's very important for people to understand that the permanent
    solution will require Congress and the administration working together
    on a variety of different possibilities.
        Q. But sir, but Democrats have made it pretty clear that they're not
    interested in that. They want you to lay it out, and so, what I'm asking
    is, don't----
        The President. I'm sure they do. The first bill on the Hill always
    is dead on arrival. I'm interested in coming up with a permanent
    solution. I'm not interested in playing political games. [Laughter] I'm
    interested in working with members of both political parties.
        Q. Will you say if you're specifically supportive of an income test
    for the slowing of future benefits? Could that get some kind of
    bipartisan consensus going?
        The President. David, there's some interesting ideas out there. One
    of the interesting ideas was by this fellow--by a Democrat economist,
    name of Pozen. He came to visit the White
    House. He didn't see me, but came and tossed some interesting ideas out,
    talking about making sure the system was progressive. We're open for
    ideas. And I--look, I can understand why people say, ``Make--force the
    President to either negotiate with himself or lay out his own bill.'' I
    want to work with members of both political parties. And I stood up in
    front of the Congress and said, ``Bring your ideas forward.'' And I'm
    looking forward to people bringing ideas forward. That's how the process
    works, and I'm confident we'll get something done.
        See, the American people want something done. They don't like
    partisan politics. They don't like people saying, ``I'm not going to
    accept so-and-so's idea because it happens to come from a particular
    political party.'' What they want is people coming together to solve
    this problem.
        John [John Roberts, CBS News].

    Energy Prices/Energy Policy

        Q. Mr. President, the price of oil is at record levels, well above
    the $28 price point that you would prefer. The price of gasoline is
    projected to go above $2.50 this spring. How concerned are you that this
    could start to affect the American economy? Is there more you could do
    to talk with oil-producing nations to get the price at the wellhead
    down? And is there more you could do, since part of the problem is
    refining capacity, to encourage oil companies who haven't built a new
    refinery in 20 years to start increasing their capacity domestically?
        The President. No, I am concerned about the price of energy. I'm
    concerned about what it means to the average American

    [[Page 444]]

    family when they see the price of gasoline going up. I'm concerned what
    it means to small businesses. I'm worried about the price of natural
    gas, particularly given the sense that--because a lot of utilities now
    rely upon natural gas to provide electricity for their consumers. And I
    have been worried about this since 2001, when I first showed up in
    Washington, DC.
        I'm concerned about the relationship between the demand for oil--our
    growing economy's demand for oil, but more particularly, the demand for
    oil from--or energy, in general, from countries like China, fast-growing
    countries that are consuming a lot of raw materials and natural
    resources. And it is of concern, John. And that's why I went to the
    Congress and asked them to join in a comprehensive energy plan, which
    they have yet to do. I would hope that when Members go back to their
    districts and hear the complaints of people about the rising price of
    gasoline or complaints from small-business owners about the cost of
    energy, that they will come back and, in the spirit of--in a proper
    spirit, get a bill to my desk that encourages conservation and continue
    to find alternative sources of energy. The--and by the way, the
    modernization of the electricity grid is an important part of the energy
    bill.
        I, frankly, don't think we need a lot of incentives for energy
    companies in the energy bill. The incentive is price. That's plenty of
    incentive for people to go out and find additional resources. I hope
    Congress passes ANWR. There's a way to get some additional reserves here
    at home on the books.
        In terms of world supply, I think, if you look at all the
    statistics, demand is outracing supply, and supplies are getting tight.
    And that's why you're seeing the price reflected. And hopefully, there
    will be more conservation around the world, better conservation around
    the world as well as additional supplies of energy.
        One thing is for certain: We've got to use our technology to, over
    time, evolve away from reliance upon oil and gas and, at the same time,
    use our technologies to make sure we can use our plentiful resources
    like coal in an environmentally friendly way. I went to Columbus, Ohio,
    the other day and talked to the person responsible for the FutureGen
    plant, which is a innovative use of technology for there to be
    emissions-free coal-burning plants. That would not only be helpful for
    the United States, it would be helpful for the world, developing nations
    to be able to use this technology.
        This is going to be a subject, by the way--was a subject of interest
    in my trip to Europe. In the councils of the EU, we talked about how we
    can work together on technological developments to change habits and
    change supply of the energy mix for the world. And this will be a topic
    of--at the G-8 as well.
        Yes.
        Q. Mr. President, could I follow up? Everybody else has had a chance
    to follow up.
        The President. I know, I'm trying to break the habit. [Laughter]
    Sorry, it's not you, Roberts. Don't take it personally. [Laughter]
        Q. I never do, sir.
        The President. That's good. Neither do I.

    Return of Detainees to Countries of Origin

        Q. Mr. President, can you explain why you've approved of and
    expanded the practice of what's called rendition, of transferring
    individuals out of U.S. custody to countries where human rights groups
    and your own State Department say torture is common for people in
    custody?
        The President. The post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure
    we protect our people and our friends from attack. That was the charge
    we have been given. And one way to do so is to arrest people and send
    them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be
    tortured. That's the promise we receive.

    [[Page 445]]

    This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting
    ourselves. We don't believe in torture. And----
        Q. As Commander in Chief----
        The President. Sorry, let--this is going to make Roberts feel
    terrible.
        Q. That's all right.
        The President. No, no, you shouldn't make----
        Q. It doesn't bother me at all. [Laughter]
        The President. Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times].
        Q. As Commander in Chief, what is it that Uzbekistan can do in
    interrogating an individual that the United States can't?
        The President. No, we seek assurances that nobody will be tortured
    when we render a person back to their home country.
        Elisabeth.

    Candidate for World Bank President

        Q. Paul Wolfowitz, who was the--a chief architect of one of the most
    unpopular wars in our history----
        The President. [Laughter] That's an interesting start. [Laughter]
        Q. ----is your choice to be the President of the World Bank. What
    kind of signal does that send to the rest of the world?
        The President. Well, first of all, I think people--I appreciate the
    world leaders taking my phone calls as I explained to them why I think
    Paul will be a strong president of the
    World Bank. I've said he was a man of good experiences. He helped manage
    a large organization. The World Bank is a large organization. The
    Pentagon is a large organization; he's been involved in the management
    of that organization. He's a skilled diplomat, worked at the State
    Department in high positions. He was the Ambassador to Indonesia, where
    he did a very good job representing our country. And Paul is committed
    to development. He's a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job
    in the World Bank. And that's why I called leaders of countries, and
    that's why I put him up.
        I was pleased to see that Jim Wolfensohn, earlier today, made a very strong comment about
    Paul's candidacy. Jim Wolfensohn has done
    a fine job in leading the World Bank. He's represented the World Bank
    with a lot of class and a lot of dignity, and I think his comments are
    very important comments for--for people to get to know Paul better
    before the--before the vote is taken.
        Jim [Jim VandeHei, Washington Post].

    Representative Tom DeLay

        Q. Sir, Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, has been admonished
    three times by the House Ethics Committee, is currently embroiled in
    several controversies involving a lobbyist who happened to be a pretty
    big fundraiser for your two campaigns. Do you have the full confidence
    in Tom DeLay, his tactics, and his leadership role in the Republican
    Party?
        The President. I have confidence in Tom DeLay's leadership, and I
    have confidence in Tom DeLay. And I am--we've worked closely with Tom
    DeLay and the leaders in the House to get a lot done during the last 4
    years, and I'm looking forward to working with him to get a lot done
    during the next 4 years. We've got a big agenda. We've got to get an
    energy bill out of the House. We've got to get more legal reform out of
    the House. We've got to get a Social Security reform package out of the
    House, got to get a budget out of the House. There's a lot going on. And
    Speaker Hastert and Leader DeLay and Whip
    Blunt are close allies and people with whom we're
    working to get a lot done.

    Congressional Hearings on Steroid Use/Major League Baseball

        Q. Mr. President, you have spoken out about the need for owners,
    coaches, and players in all sports to stop steroid use. And you've also
    voiced reservations about Government getting too involved in that. And
    as you know, Congress is issuing subpoenas to Major League Baseball
    players

    [[Page 446]]

    during spring training. Do you think that that's an abuse of power, or
    is it appropriate, in your view?
        The President. Well, Congress generally has an independent mind of
    its own. I spoke out and was pleased to see that baseball responded, and
    they've got a testing policy in place for the first time ever, a firm
    testing policy in place. And it's very important that baseball then
    follow through and implement the testing and, obviously, deal with those
    who get caught cheating in the system.
        And the hearings will go forward, I guess. I guess that's the
    current status. But I'm wise enough not to second-guess the intentions
    of the United States Congress.
        I do appreciate the public concern about the use of steroids in
    sports, whether it be baseball or anywhere else, because I understand
    that when a professional athlete uses steroids, it sends terrible
    signals to youngsters. There's--we've had some stories in my own State.
    One of the newspapers there pointed out that they thought there was
    steroid use in high schools as a result of--in order to make sure these
    kids, at least in the kid's mind, could be a better athlete. It's a bad
    signal. It's not right.
        And so I appreciate the fact that baseball is addressing this, and I
    appreciate the fact that the Congress is paying attention to the issue.
    This first started, of course, with Senator McCain, who basically said, ``Get your house in order.'' And
    baseball responded, and my hope is the system will work.
        Q. You have no problem with the subpoenas?
        The President. No.
        Carl [Carl Cameron, FOX News].

    Judicial Nominations/Senate Rules Changes

        Q. Mr. President, your judicial nominees continue to run into
    problems on Capitol Hill. Republicans are discussing the possibility of
    ending the current Democratic filibuster practice against it. And
    Democrats yesterday, led by Minority Leader Harry Reid, went to the
    steps of the Capitol to say that if that goes forward, they will halt
    your agenda straight out. What does that say about your judicial
    nominees, the tone on Capitol Hill? And which is more important, judges
    or your agenda?
        The President. Both. I believe that I have a obligation to put forth
    good, honorable people to serve on the bench and have done so. And I
    expect them to get up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. This
    isn't a new position for me, or the--I've been saying this for the last
    several years. And they ought to get a vote. They're getting voted out
    of committee, but they're not getting a vote on the floor. And I don't
    think it's fair to the candidates, and I don't think it's fair to the
    administration for this policy to go forward. And so--and hopefully, the
    Senate will be able to conduct business and also give my nominees a
    vote, an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.
        Yes, sir. John [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].

    Social Security Reform

        Q. Sir, on Social Security, what is the timeline that you want to
    see for action by Congress on a bill? When do you start to get worried
    about not getting something done this year? And also, if I can add,
    would you be willing to drop personal accounts in order to get a bill?
        The President. Personal accounts are very important for the
    individuals. It's a--you know, it's interesting--David quoted some poll.
    There's all kinds of polls. For every poll you quote, I'll quote another
    one. It's kind of the way Washington works these days. They poll
    everything. The one I read the other day said people like the idea of
    personal accounts.
        I think people like the idea of being able to take some of their own
    money--in other words, the Government says, ``You can decide,'' as
    opposed to, ``We'll decide for you''--you get to decide if this is in
    your interest. And you get to decide whether

    [[Page 447]]

    you want to set some of your own money aside in an account that will
    earn a better rate of return than that which will be earned in the
    Social Security system. That's an important part of making sure the
    system works for the individual.
        I repeat, personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution.
    They make the solution more attractive for the individual worker. And
    that's important for people to understand, John, and that's why it's
    very important for Congress to discuss this issue.
        In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible--whatever that means.
    No, I am going to--one of the things that I think is very important for
    people to understand is that I believe that we have a duty to work on
    big problems in Washington, DC, and so I'm going to continue working on
    this. And it's, I guess--I'm not going to go away on the issue, because
    the issue is not going to go away. The longer we wait, the more
    difficult it is to solve the problem.
        And listen, I fully understand it's a difficult issue. Otherwise, it
    would have been solved a long time ago. And I understand some Members
    don't--view this as a tough vote. In other words, ``Why did you bring it
    up? It's a tough vote.'' And--but that's just not the way I think, John.
    I think we have a duty. I truly do. This is--now is the time to get this
    solved. I remember 1983, this ``We've got a 75-year solution.'' It
    wasn't a 75-year solution that they came up with. It was a--I liked the
    spirit of people coming together from both parties to sit down and see
    if they couldn't solve the immediate problem, but it wasn't a 75-year
    solution because we're talking about it now. And at 2018, the situation
    starts to get worse because more money is coming into the system--I
    mean, more money is going out of the system than coming in.
        You know, one thing about Social Security--I'm sorry to blow on
    here, but now that you asked--a lot of people in America think there is
    a trust: Your money goes in; the Government holds it; and then the
    Government gives you your money back when you retire. That's just not
    the way it works. And it's important for the American citizens to
    understand it's a pay-as-you-go system. And right now, we're paying for
    a lot of programs other than Social Security with the payroll tax coming
    in, thereby leaving a pile of IOUs. And part of why I think a personal
    account is an attractive option for a younger worker is that there will
    be real assets in the system at this point in time.
        I also will continue reminding people, when it comes to personal
    accounts, that the system oftentimes doesn't work for a widow. You know,
    if a wage-earner dies prior to 62, there are no spousal benefits
    available until 62. If the spouse--both spouses work, the spouse that
    survives will get the higher of his or her Social Security benefits or
    the death benefits but not both. In other words, somebody's contribution
    to the system just goes away. And a personal account will enable
    somebody to leave behind an asset base to whomever he or she chooses.
    And that's an important concept for people to understand.
        Peter [Peter Baker, Washington Post].

    Death Penalty

        Q. Mr. President, your administration recently called on the Texas
    courts to review some death cases--some death penalty cases down there.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. And during your State of the Union, you talked about the
    importance of DNA evidence, and you talked about the possibility that
    maybe there were inequities in the system and the lawyers that represent
    death row inmates. I'm wondering if this represents a change in your
    feelings about the death penalty since you were Governor of Texas. And
    if there are the possibilities--the possibilities exist of problems, why
    not call on--for a moratorium?
        The President. No, I still support the death penalty, and I think
    it's a deterrent

    [[Page 448]]

    to crime. But I want to make sure, obviously, that those subject to the
    death penalty are truly guilty. And that's why I talked about what I
    talked about and why I made the decisions I made. I think, regardless of
    your position on the issue, one of the things we've got to make sure is
    that we use, in this case, technology, DNA technologies, to make sure
    that we're absolutely certain about the innocence or guilt of a person
    accused.
        Yes.

    Saint Patrick's Day/Northern Ireland Peace Process

        Q. Mr. President, are you trying to send a message to the IRA by not
    inviting Gerry Adams and the other Northern Ireland politicians
    tomorrow?
        The President. I talked to Bertie Ahern
    about this and--at the EU, and he just asked who was coming to the
    events, which--I said, ``You are, for certain.'' And we wanted to make
    sure that we honored those in civil society in Ireland who are
    contributing positively to the peace process. And that's what we'll be
    doing on this particular trip.
        It's very important that people understand that the parties must
    renounce violence. There's a--the Good Friday agreement laid out the way
    forward for peace in Northern Ireland, and this administration and our
    Government strongly supports those steps. But tomorrow's message will
    be, we want to thank those in civil society who are working hard to
    achieve a peaceful resolution.
        Q. By inviting the widow--the sisters, rather, of this man who was
    killed----
        The President. That's part of the statement, a very strong part of
    the statement, and I'm looking
    forward to
    meeting these
    very brave souls. They've committed
    themselves to a peaceful solution. And hopefully, their loved one will
    not have died in vain. I mean, out of this--hopefully, some good will
    come out of the evil perpetuated on this family.
        Yes, sir.

    Hizballah/Lebanon

        Q. Mr. President, yesterday you said that Hizballah could prove it
    is not a terrorist organization by laying down arms and supporting
    peace. How willing and flexible, and under what conditions are you able
    to, as you promote democracy in the Middle East, encourage parties like
    Hizballah to discontinue the use of terrorism as a tactic?
        The President. Yes, I think--let me make sure that you put my answer
    into full context. I first said that Hizballah is on the terrorist list
    for a reason, because they have killed Americans in the past, and they--
    they're a violent organization. And the question was about Lebanon, and
    let me take a step back, if I might, on this question, because it's
    important for the American people to understand our policy.
        Our policy is this: We want there to be a thriving democracy in
    Lebanon. We believe that there will be a thriving democracy, but only
    if--but only if--Syria withdraws not only her troops completely out of
    Lebanon but also her secret service organizations, intelligence
    organizations--not secret service--intelligence organizations. I am
    concerned and the world should be concerned that the intelligence
    organizations are embedded in a lot of Government functions in Lebanon,
    and there needs to be a complete withdrawal of those services in order
    for there to be a free election. And we will--this Government will work
    with elected leaders of a free, truly free Lebanon, and looking forward
    to it.
        I like the idea of people running for office. There's a positive
    effect when you run for office. Maybe some will run for office and say,
    ``Vote for me; I look forward to blowing up America.'' I don't know; I
    don't know if that will be their platform or not. But it's--I don't
    think so. I think people who generally run for office say, ``Vote for
    me; I'm looking forward to fixing your potholes or making sure you've
    got bread on

    [[Page 449]]

    the table.'' And so--but Hizballah is on the terrorist list for a reason
    and will remain on the terrorist list for a reason. Our position has not
    changed on Hizballah.
        Judy [Judy Keen, USA Today].

    Same-Sex Marriage

        Q. President Bush, a court ruling in California this week has
    revived debate over same-sex marriage. You support a constitutional
    amendment to ban such marriages. But it's not something you talk about
    nearly as often as Social Security and many other issues. Will you put
    some muscle behind that effort this year? Or is it something you'd
    prefer not to deal with?
        The President. No, I haven't changed my position. And as a matter of
    fact, the court rulings are verifying why I took the position I took,
    and that is, I don't believe judges ought to be deciding this issue. I
    believe this is an issue of particular importance to the American people
    and should be decided by the people. And I think the best way to do so
    is through the constitutional process. I haven't changed my mind at all.
    As a matter of fact, court rulings such as this strengthen my position,
    it seems like to me. People now understand why I laid out the position I
    did.
        Q. What can you do to promote action on that amendment?
        The President. Well, I--the courts are going to promote a lot of the
    action by their very rulings. People will understand that--the logic
    behind the decision I made. And no matter what your position is on the
    issue, this is an issue that should be decided by the people, not by
    judges. And the more the judges start deciding the issue, I'm confident
    the more the people will want to be involved in the issue. This is a
    very important issue for the country and one that obviously needs to be
    conducted with a great deal of sensitivity and concern about other
    people's feelings. But this is--it's an issue I feel strongly about.
        Yes, Stretch [Bill Sammon, Washington Times].

    Democracy in the Middle East

        Q. Mr. President, you faced a lot of skepticism in the runup to the
    Iraq war and then a lot of criticism for miscalculating some of the
    challenges of postwar Iraq. Now that the Iraq elections seem to be
    triggering signs of democratization throughout the broader Middle East,
    do you feel any sense of vindication?
        The President. First of all, I fully understand that as long as I'm
    the President, I will face criticism. It's like part of the job.
    Frankly, you wouldn't be doing your job if you didn't occasionally lay
    out the gentle criticism. I welcome constructive ideas as to how we
    might do our job better, so that doesn't bother me. And therefore, since
    it doesn't bother me and I expect it, I don't then leak--seek
    vindication.
        Look, history--shall I give you my talk on history and Presidencies?
    Okay, thank you. I don't--what's interesting is George Washington is now
    getting a 2d or 3d or 5th or 10th look in history. I read the
    Ellis book, which is a really interesting
    book, and--``His Excellency,'' it's called. David McCullough is writing a book on George Washington as well. People
    are constantly evaluating somebody's standing in history, a President's
    standing in history, based upon events that took place during the
    Presidency, based upon things that happened after the Presidency, based
    upon--like in my case, hopefully, the march of freedom continues way
    after my Presidency. And so I just don't worry about vindication or
    standing.
        The other thing, it turns out, in this job you've got a lot on your
    plate on a regular basis. You don't have much time to sit around and
    kind of wander lonely in the Oval Office, kind of asking different
    portraits, ``How do you think my standing will be?'' [Laughter] I've got
    a lot to do. And I like to make decisions, and I make a lot of them.
        But no, you know, look, the people who deserve the credit in Iraq
    are the Iraqi

    [[Page 450]]

    citizens that defied the terrorists. Imagine what it would be like to
    try to go vote thinking that there could be a suicide bomber standing
    next to you in line, or somebody would lob a shell or a mortar at you.
    The courage of the Iraqi citizens was just overwhelming, I thought. It's
    easy for us to vote. The question is what it would be like to vote if
    you were fearful for your life. In parts of the country, people were
    getting messages that said, ``If you vote, we'll find somebody you love
    and take care of them.'' And yet they defied--defied these terrorists.
    It was a powerful moment in the history of freedom. People in the world
    got to see what it means to--for a group of people that have been
    downtrodden to rise up and say, ``I want to be free.''
        Now, there's a lot of work to be done, and I'm sure there will be
    some opinions about what takes place during the next 9 months, as the
    constitution is written, and whether or not the elections move forward
    as smoothly as some think they should. Obviously, there's concern now I
    read about, that--occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the
    second term--that--your stories, that is--that they haven't formed a
    Government yet. But I take a different look. First of all, obviously,
    there will be a Government formed, but I think it is interesting and--to
    watch the process of people negotiating and worrying about this and
    worrying about that and people seeking out positions as to their stands
    on issues that will be relevant to the future of Iraq. It's a wholesome
    process. And it's being done in a transparent way. I mean, you've got
    the press corps all over them, watching every move, which is a positive
    example for others in the region.
        And that's important. It's important for people in that region to
    see what is possible in a free society. And I firmly believe that the
    examples of Iraq and Afghanistan--I believe there will be a Palestinian
    state. I believe we'll be able to convince Syria to fully withdraw, or
    else she'll be isolated--fully withdraw from Lebanon, or else she'll be
    isolated. I believe those examples will serve as examples for others
    over time. And that will lead to more peace, and that's what we want.
        Yes, Carl [Carl Cannon, National Journal].

    Under Secretary of State-designate Karen Hughes

        Q. Mr. President, do you also think it will lead to America's
    reputation being restored? Earlier this week you brought Karen Hughes
    back at Ambassador rank to address the question of antipathy to America
    around the world----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. ----particularly the Muslim world. What does that entail?
        The President. Well, it entails a couple of things, Carl. It entails
    people understanding why we do things we do. You know, for example,
    there was--I think we had the image of wanting to fight Muslims--the
    United States stood squarely against a religion as opposed to a society
    which welcomes all religions. And in fact, we're fighting a handful of
    people, relative to the Muslim population, that wanted to--I used to say
    ``hijack the religion.''
        People need to understand we're a compassionate nation, and we care
    deeply about suffering, regardless of where people live. And the--you
    know, President Clinton and President
    Bush 41 did a fine job of helping the world
    see the great compassion of America when they went on their trips in the
    areas ravaged by the tsunamis.
        It is very important for us to have a message that counteracts some
    of the messages coming out of some of the Arab media--some of it coming
    out partly because of our strong and unwavering friendship with Israel.
    You know, Israel is an easy target for some of the media in the Middle
    East, and if you're a friend of Israel, you become a target. And since
    we're not going to abandon our alliance with Israel, there's a--there
    was some

    [[Page 451]]

    churning in the press, and there was some unhelpful things being said.
    And so part of that is to make sure people understand the truth. And
    that is, in this particular issue, you bet we're going to stand by
    Israel. But we also believe the Palestinians have the capability of
    self-governance in a truly democratic state that will live side by side
    with the Israelis in peace.
        And so Karen is going--one, I want to thank her for coming back from
    Austin. It's very hard, if you're a Texan, to abandon Austin for
    anywhere else, and--or Texas for anywhere else. Secondly, I applaud
    Secretary Rice's decision to include Karen
    in the process. I thought that was very wise of her to call upon Karen's
    talents. And Dina Powell from my office,
    an Egyptian American, is also going over, leaving the White House
    compound to work with Karen, because she believes deeply in the American
    experience, in American values and wants to share those values with
    people around the world.
        And you know, I think when people also see, Carl, that we do what we
    say we're going to do, for example, that we helped feed the hungry and
    that we believe all folks should be free and that women should have an
    equal say in society--I think when people see we actually mean that--and
    then when it comes to fruition, it will help people around the world
    better understand our good hearts and good nature.
        Yes, Ken [Ken Herman, Cox News].

    Federal Government News Videos

        Q. Mr. President, earlier this year, you told us you wanted your
    administration to cease and desist on payments to journalists to promote
    your agenda. You cited the need for ethical concerns and the need for a
    bright line between the press and the Government. Your administration
    continues to make the use of video news releases, which is prepackaged
    news stories sent to television stations, fully aware that some--or many
    of these stations will air them without any disclaimer that they are
    produced by the Government. The Comptroller General of the United States
    this week said that raises ethical questions. Does it raise ethical
    questions about the use of Government money to produce stories about the
    Government that wind up being aired with no disclosure that they were
    produced by the Government?
        The President. There is a Justice Department opinion that says these
    pieces are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not
    advocacy. And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling, to that
    Justice Department opinion. This has been a longstanding practice of the
    Federal Government, to use these types of videos. The Agricultural
    Department, as I understand it, has been using these videos for a long
    period of time. The Defense Department, other Departments have been
    doing so. It's important that they be based upon the guidelines set out
    by the Justice Department.
        Now, I also--I think it would be helpful if local stations then
    disclosed to their viewers that that's--that this was based upon a
    factual report, and they chose to use it. But evidently, in some cases,
    that's not the case. So, anyway.
        Q. The administration could guarantee that's happening by including
    that language in the prepackaged report.
        The President. Yes, I don't--oh, you mean a disclosure, ``I'm George
    W. Bush, and I''----
        Q. Well, some way to make sure it couldn't air without the
    disclosure that you believe is so vital.
        The President. You know, Ken, there's a procedure that we're going
    to follow, and the local stations ought to, if there's a deep concern
    about that, ought to tell their viewers what they're watching.

    Iran

        Q. Mr. President, do you think there should be regime change in
    Iran? And if so, what are you prepared to do to see that happen?

    [[Page 452]]

        The President. Richard [Richard Wolffe, Newsweek], I believe that
    the Iranian people ought to be allowed to freely discuss opinions, read
    a free press, have free votes, be able to choose amongst political
    parties. I believe Iran should adopt democracy. That's what I believe.
        Q. Mr. President----
        The President. Yes, ma'am.

    Religious Displays

        Q. Thank you, sir. Do you believe that nativity scenes and the Ten
    Commandments should continue to be displayed on Federal property or in
    schools?
        The President. We had a display of the Ten Commandments on the
    statehouse grounds in Texas, and I supported that display.

    Social Security Reform

        Q. Mr. President, back to Social Security, if I may.
        The President. Yes----
        Q. You said right at the top today that you urged Members of
    Congress to go out and talk about the problem with their constituents.
        The President. About solutions to the problem.
        Q. But also to talk about solutions, and it's that part of it I want
    to ask about. Aren't you asking them to do something that you really
    haven't been willing to do yet?
        The President. No, I'm interested in--first of all, I have laid out,
    in the State of the Union Address--I haven't looked at all previous
    State of the Union Addresses, but I think I'm the first President ever
    to say, ``All options are on the table,'' and named a series of options.
    I think. Now, maybe if somebody could go back and find out--if you've
    got some idle time on your hand, you might want to go read previous
    State of the Union Addresses and see if that's true.
        I don't believe Members should go write a bill, but I do believe a
    Member should start discussing ideas with constituencies about how to
    solve the problem, as opposed to blocking ideas--to say, ``Here are some
    ideas,'' and come back and present them. That's what's happening, by the
    way. There's a lot of Members are talking about different concepts. I've
    called a lot of them into the White House compound; I've listened to
    them. There's a variety of ideas, and that's positive. I view that as a
    positive sign that Members of Congress, one, take the problem
    seriously--I thought it was helpful yesterday when the United States
    Senate said that Social Security is a serious problem that requires a
    permanent solution.
        And now it's time for people, when they get back from Easter, having
    talked to different constituency groups, to come back and sit down and
    start sharing ideas about how to move the process forward. And my pledge
    is that I will not take somebody's idea and use it as a political weapon
    against them. That's what's changed in this debate. In other words, the
    Social Security--they used to call it the third rail of American
    politics, because when you talked about it, you got singed, at the
    minimum. And it's now time to talk about it in a serious way, to come up
    with a permanent solution.
        Yes, Jackson [David Jackson, Dallas Morning News].
        Q. Mr. President, you talked earlier about going----
        The President. I can't call on Herman and not on Jackson. [Laughter]

    Iran

        Q. Thank you. You talked about going to the Security Council if Iran
    turns down this EU-3 deal. Iran says they're not making nuclear weapons.
    Are we looking at a potential military confrontation with Iran?
        The President. You know that we've got a lot of diplomacy, you know.
    I mean, there's a lot of diplomacy in this issue. And that's why I was
    so pleased to be able to participate with our friends France and Great
    Britain and Germany to say to the

    [[Page 453]]

    Iranians, ``We speak with common voice, and we share suspicions because
    of your past behavior. And the best way to ensure that you do not
    develop a nuclear weapon is for you to have no enrichment of plutonium--
    have no highly enriched uranium program or plutonium program that could
    lead to a weapon.'' That's what we've said.
        And we've just started the process. We just had the discussion. How
    long ago was I in Europe? Maybe 10 days or so, 2 weeks? About 2 weeks? I
    mean, it takes a while for things to happen in the world, David. I mean,
    I know there's a certain impatience with a never-ending news cycle. But
    things don't happen on--necessarily overnight the way some would like
    them, you know. They just--solve this issue, and we go to the next
    issue. There's a certain patience required in order to achieve a
    diplomatic objective. And our diplomatic objective is to continue
    working with our friends to make it clear to Iran we speak with a single
    voice.
        Listen, whoever thought about modernizing this room deserves a lot
    of credit. [Laughter] It's like there's very little oxygen in here
    anymore. [Laughter] And so for the sake of a healthy press corps and a
    healthy President, I'm going to end the press conference. But I want to
    thank you for giving me a chance to come by and visit. I wish you all--
    genuinely wish you all a happy Easter holiday with you and your family.
        Thank you.
        Q. Can I get that followup now?
        The President. What?
        Q. Can I get that followup now? [Laughter]

    Note: The President's news conference began at 10:15 a.m. in the James
    S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he
    referred to Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada; President Vicente Fox
    of Mexico; Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy; Robert C. Pozen,
    chairman, MFS Investment Management; Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., USA,
    commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; Prime Minister Bertie
    Ahern of Ireland; Paula, Catherine, Donna, Claire, and Gemma McCartney,
    and Bridgeen Hagans, sisters and fiancee of Robert McCartney, who was
    murdered in Belfast, Ireland, on January 30; and authors Joseph J. Ellis
    and David McCullough. A reporter referred to Sinn Fein leader Gerry
    Adams.