    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
    [January 26, 2006]
    [Pages 128-141]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    January 26, 2006

        The President. Sorry to interrupt. [Laughter] Thank you all very
    much. I look forward to answering some of your questions here in a
    minute. I'm also looking forward to going up to Capitol Hill next
    Tuesday to give my State of the Union Address. I thought it probably
    best not to practice my speech in front of you here, so you'll pay
    attention to it when I deliver it. But I do want to give you some
    thoughts about what I'm thinking about.
        First, I recognize we live in a momentous time----

    [At this point, there was technical difficulty with a camera attached to
    the ceiling.]

        For those of you watching, we seem to have a mechanical flaw.
    [Laughter]
        Q. That was an accident, right?
        The President. Are you wearing your helmets?
        Q. It's that renovation project.
        The President. Exactly. [Laughter] I'll take it up with the First
    Lady. [Laughter]
        I'm going to remind people we're living in historic times and that
    we have a chance to make decisions today that will help shape the
    direction of events for years to come. I'm going to continue to talk
    about an optimistic agenda that will keep--that will remind folks we've
    got a responsibility to lead. We've got a responsibility to lead to
    promote freedom and a responsibility to continue to put policies in
    place that will let us be a leader when it comes to the economy in the
    world.
        I recognize this is an election year, but I believe that we can work
    together to achieve results. In other words, I think we can set aside
    the partisanship that inevitably will come with an election year and get
    some stuff done. And that's what I'm going to call Congress to do.
        We've got--must work together to protect our Nation's security. I'm
    going to continue to do everything within my authority to protect the
    American people. We're going to stay on the offense in the war against
    terror. We'll hunt down the enemies

    [[Page 129]]

    in Afghanistan and in Iraq and elsewhere. We'll continue our terrorist
    surveillance program against Al Qaida. Congress must reauthorize the
    PATRIOT Act so that our law enforcement and intelligence and homeland
    security officers have the tools they need to rout out the terrorists--
    terrorists who could be planning and plotting within our borders. And
    we'll do all this and, at the same time, protect the civil liberties of
    our people.
        We're going to continue to lead the cause of freedom in the world.
    The only way to defeat a dark ideology is through the hopeful vision of
    human liberty.
        Here at home, we're also--we've got great opportunities. And to
    seize those opportunities, we have got to lead. Our economy is growing;
    it is strong. This economy has created millions of new jobs, yet it's an
    economy that is changing rapidly. And we live in a competitive world.
    And so policies must be put in place to recognize the competition of the
    global economy and prepare our people to be able to continue to compete
    so America can continue to lead.
        Of course, we'll talk about fiscal policy in my State of the Union,
    talking about the Congress to be wise about how we spend the people's
    money and to make the tax cuts permanent.
        I will talk about initiatives to make sure our health care and
    education and energy is--recognizes the realities of the world in which
    we live today and anticipates the problems of the world tomorrow so that
    we can remain competitive.
        I will talk about the values that are important for our country. I'm
    going to remind people we show the character and compassion of America
    by taking focused action to confront disease and to help devastated
    areas of our country that have been--areas that have been devastated by
    natural disasters, and ensure that medical research is conducted in a
    manner that recognizes the dignity of every human life.
        I look forward to the speech; I really do. As you can imagine, it's
    an interesting experience to walk out there and not only talk to Members
    of Congress but, as importantly, talk to the American people.
        I'm also looking forward to the Senate finishing its business on the
    confirmation of Sam Alito. He's a man
    of character, and he's a man of integrity. He understands that the role
    of a judge is to interpret the law. He understands the role of a judge
    is not to advance a personal or political agenda. Yesterday I had an
    interesting experience standing with his law clerks, and I could--
    started reading the notes that, of course, were adequately prepared for
    me, and the first person said he's a Democrat who supports Alito; the
    second person was a person who voted Green that supported Alito; the
    third, a left-leaning woman Democrat who supported Alito; the fourth
    person I talked about was somebody who worked in the John Kerry campaign who supported Alito. I was wondering, where are
    all those Republican clerks? [Laughter]
        My point is, is that he has broad
    support from people who know him, people from both political parties,
    because he's a decent man who's got a lot of experience, and he deserves
    an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. I was interested in Ed
    Rendell's comments--he's the Governor of
    Pennsylvania. He was the former chairman of the Democrat National
    Committee. He did not like the way the debate was headed. He believed
    that Sam Alito should be confirmed, and so do I. The Senate needs to
    give him an up-or-down vote as quickly as possible.
        Listen, thank you all for giving me a chance to share some thoughts
    with you. I'd be glad to answer some questions, starting with you, Terry
    [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

    Palestinian Elections/Hamas

        Q. Mr. President, is Mideast peacemaking dead with Hamas's big
    election victory? And do you rule out dealing with

    [[Page 130]]

    the Palestinians if Hamas is the majority party?
        The President. Peace is never dead because people want peace. I
    believe--and that's why I articulated a two-state solution early in my
    administration, so that--as a vision for people to work toward, a
    solution that recognized that democracy yields peace. And the best hope
    for peace in the Middle East is two democracies living side by side.
        So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, and the results of
    which remind me about the power of democracy. You see, when you give
    people the vote, you give people a chance to express themselves at the
    polls. And if they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know.
    That's the great thing about democracy; it provides a look into society.
        And yesterday the turnout was significant, as I understand it. And
    there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that's
    positive. But what was also positive is, is that it's a wake-up call to
    the leadership. Obviously, people were not happy with the status quo.
    The people are demanding honest government. The people want services.
    They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which
    they can get a decent education and they can find health care.
        And so the elections should open the eyes of the old guard there in
    the Palestinian Territories. I like the competition of ideas. I like
    people who have to go out and say, ``Vote for me, and here's what I'm
    going to do.'' There's something healthy and--about a system that does
    that. And so the elections yesterday were very interesting.
        On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if
    you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And
    I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a--if your party has
    got an armed wing. And so the elections just took place. We will watch
    very carefully about the formation of the Government. But I will
    continue to remind people about what I just said, that if your platform
    is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace.
    And we're interested in peace.
        I talked to Condi twice this morning.
    She called President Abbas.Abu
    Mazen She also is going to have a conference call
    today about the Quartet--with the Quartet, about how to keep the process
    on the road to peace.
        Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

    Palestinian Democracy

        Q. If I can follow up, sir.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. Are you cautioning Prime Minister Abbas not to resign? And----
        The President. We'd like him to stay in power. I mean, we'd like to
    stay in office. HeAbu
    Mazen is in power; we'd like him to stay in
    office. Sorry to interrupt. I knew this was a two-part question, so I
    tried to head it off.
        Q. Will this affect aid to the Palestinians? Will you be able to
    work with Hamas if they're--assuming they take on a large share of the
    Government?
        The President. Well, I made it very clear that the United States
    does not support political parties that want to destroy our ally Israel
    and that people must renounce that part of their platform. But the
    Government hasn't formed yet. They're beginning to talk about how to
    form the Government. And your question on AbbasAbu Mazen was a good one. And our
    message to him was, we would hope he would stay in office and work to
    move the process forward.
        Again, I remind people, the elections--democracy is--can open up the
    world's eyes to reality by listening to people. And the elections--the
    election process is healthy for society, in my judgment. In other words,
    it's--one way to figure out how to address the needs of the people is to
    let them express themselves at the ballot box. And that's exactly what
    happened yesterday. And you'll hear a lot of

    [[Page 131]]

    people saying, ``Well, aren't we surprised at the outcome,'' or this,
    that, or the other.
        If there is corruption, I'm not surprised that people say, ``Let's
    get rid of corruption.'' If government hadn't been responsive, I'm not
    the least bit surprised that people said, ``I want government to be
    responsive.''
        And so that was an interesting day yesterday in the--as we're
    watching liberty begin to spread across the Middle East.
        Let's see here. Yes, David [David Gregory, NBC News].
        Q. Mr. President, good morning. I have a different question, but I'd
    like to pin you down on this point about Hamas because I don't think
    you've completely answered it. Are you ruling out dealing with a
    Palestinian Government comprised, in part, of Hamas?
        The President. Dave, they don't have a Government yet, so you're
    asking me to speculate on what the Government will look like. I have
    made it very clear, however, that a political party that articulates the
    destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we
    will not deal.
        Q. Okay, can I----
        The President. No, it's----
        Q. But, sir, I'm sorry----
        The President. Well, it's unfair to the other people.
        Q. No, I'm just following up----
        The President. You're trying to hoard. [Laughter]
        Q. I'm not trying--I have a question about New Orleans, sir.
        The President. This is--I agree with you. I can see the expressions
    on your colleagues' faces that it's----
        Q. Well, I hope it will be worth your time. [Laughter]
        The President. They don't think so. [Laughter]

    Gulf Coast Relief Efforts

        Q. The administration has rejected a local plan to rebuild New
    Orleans, and your administrator down there, Don Powell, said that the
    focus for Federal money should be to rebuild for those 20,000 homeowners
    who were outside the flood plain. Critics, local officials say that that
    ignores so many people in New Orleans, the poorest of the poor, the
    hardest hit areas, people who didn't have flood insurance or didn't
    expect the levees to break. And they feel, sir, that this is a certain
    betrayal of your promise that New Orleans would rise again. So why did
    you reject it? And do you think that the people of New Orleans have to
    expect that there is a limit for the extent to which the city can be
    rebuilt?
        The President. The Congress has appropriated $85 billion to help
    rebuild the gulf coast. And that is a good start; it's a strong start;
    it's a significant commitment to the people whose lives were turned
    upside down by that--by those--by that hurricane.
        Secondly, we have said that we look forward to the time when each
    State develops its recovery plan. I, early on in the process, said it's
    important for the folks in Mississippi to come forward with a recovery
    plan. And it's important for New Orleans and the State of Louisiana to
    work together to develop a State recovery plan. And the reason I said
    that is because I was aware that folks in Congress will want to spend
    money based upon a specific strategy. In other words, we've got to get
    comfortable with how to proceed. Those plans haven't--the plan for
    Louisiana hasn't come forward yet, and I urge the officials, both State
    and city, to work together so we can get a sense for how they're going
    to proceed.
        Now, having said that, I recognize there were some early things we
    needed to do to instill confidence. One of them was to say that we will
    make the levees stronger and better than before and study further
    strengthening of the levees. In other words, I recognize that people
    needed to be able to say, ``Well, gosh, we can't even get started until
    we got a commitment from the Federal Government on the levees.''

    [[Page 132]]

        A lot of the money we're spending is prescribed by law, but we also
    went a step further and proposed to Congress, and they accepted, the
    CDGB money so that monies can actually go directly to individual
    families that need help. We'll continue to work with the folks down
    there. But I want to remind the people in that part of the world, $85
    billion is a lot, and secondly, we were concerned about creating
    additional Federal bureaucracies, which might make it harder to get
    money to the people.
        Q. But is there a limit, sir?
        The President. John [John Roberts, CBS News].
        Q. I have five questions, sir. I hope you'll indulge me. [Laughter]
        The President. That's only two-and-a-half times more----

    Terrorist Surveillance Program

        Q. On the NSA eavesdropping program, there seems to be growing
    momentum in Congress to either modify the existing law or write some new
    law that would give you the latitude to do this and, at the same time,
    ensure that people's civil liberties are protected. Would you be
    resistant to the notion of new laws if Congress were to give you what
    you need to conduct these operations?
        The President. The terrorist surveillance program is necessary to
    protect America from attack. I asked the very questions you asked, John,
    when we first got going. Let me tell you exactly how this happened.
    Right after September the 11th, I said to the people, what can we do--
    can we do more--``the people'' being the operators, a guy like Mike
    Hayden--can we do more to protect the
    people? There's going to be a lot of investigation and a lot of
    discussion about connecting dots, and we have a responsibility to
    protect the people, so let's make sure we connect the dots. And so he
    came forward with this program. In other words, it wasn't designed in
    the White House; it was designed where youexpect it to be designed, in
    the NSA.

        Secondly, I said, before we do anything, I want to make sure it's
    legal. And so we had our lawyers look at it--and as part of the debate,
    the discussion with the American people as to the legality of the
    program, there's no doubt in my mind it is legal.

        And thirdly, will there be safeguards for the--to safeguard the
    civil liberties of the American people? There's no doubt in my mind
    there are safeguards in place to make sure the program focuses on calls
    coming from outside the United States in, with an Al Qaida--from a--with
    a belief that there's an Al Qaida person making the call to somebody
    here in the States, or vice versa--but not domestic calls.
        So as I stand here right now, I can tell the American people the
    program's legal; it's designed to protect civil liberties; and it's
    necessary. Now, my concern has always been that in an attempt to try to
    pass a law on something that's already legal, we'll show the enemy what
    we're doing. And we've briefed Congress--Members of Congress. We'll
    continue to do that, but it's important for people to understand that
    this program is so sensitive and so important, that if information gets
    out to how it's--how we do it, how we run it, or how we operate, it will
    help the enemy.
        And so, of course, we'll listen to ideas. But, John, I want to make
    sure that people understand that if it--if the attempt to write law
    makes this program--is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll
    resist it. And I think the American people understand that. Why tell the
    enemy what we're doing if the program is necessary to protect us from
    the enemy? And it is. And it's legal. And we'll continue to brief
    Congress. And we review it a lot, and we review it not only at the
    Justice Department but with a good legal staff inside NSA.
        Yes.

    [[Page 133]]

    Lobbying Reform/Jack Abramoff Investigation

        Q. What do you hear or your staff hear about releasing of
    photographs of Jack Abramoff with you, Mr. President? If you say you
    don't fear anything, tell us why you won't release them?
        The President. She's asking about a person who admitted to
    wrongdoing and who needs to be prosecuted for that. There is a serious
    investigation going on, as there should be. The American people have got
    to have confidence in the ethics of all branches of Government. You're
    asking about pictures. I had my picture taken with him, evidently. I've
    had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with
    someone doesn't mean that, you know, I'm a friend with them or know them
    very well. I've had my picture taken with you--[laughter]--at holiday
    parties.
        My point is, I mean, there's thousands of people that come through
    and get their pictures taken. I'm also mindful that we live in a world
    in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes, and
    they're not relevant to the investigation.
        Q. Do you know how many?
        The President. I don't have any idea.
        I'm coming your way. Carl [Carl Cameron, FOX News].

    Iran

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. On the subject of Iran,
    what parameters might the U.S. be willing to accept Iran having a
    nuclear power program? And to the extent that you've said in the past
    that the United States supports the Iranian people, would you support
    expedited legislation or a move that would send resources to such groups
    in Iran that might hasten regime change or democratic reform?
        The President. I have made it clear that I believe that the Iranians
    should have a civilian nuclear program--power program under these
    conditions: that the material used to power the plant would be
    manufactured in Russia, delivered under IEEE--IAEA inspections--
    inspectors to Iran to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be
    picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia. I think that is a good
    plan. The Russians came up with the idea, and I support it.
        And the reason why I think it makes sense is because I do believe
    people ought to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power. However, I
    don't believe nontransparent regimes that threaten the security of the
    world should be allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a
    weapon. And the Iranians have said, ``We want a weapon.''
        And it's not in the world's interest that they have a weapon. And so
    we are working hard to continue the diplomacy necessary to send a
    focused message to the Iranian Government, and that is, your desires for
    a weapon are unacceptable. Part of that is--part of that diplomacy was
    to provide an acceptable alternative to the Iranian desire to have a
    civilian nuclear power industry.
        Secondly, we will support freedom movements all around the world. I
    constantly talked about today's reformers will be tomorrow's leaders,
    and therefore, we will work with groups that demand for people to be
    given the natural rights of men and women, and that right is to live in
    a free society.
        Dana [Dana Bash, Cable News Network].

    Lobbying Reform/Jack Abramoff Investigation

        Q. Mr. President, you talked about Jack Abramoff in the context of
    pictures, but it may not necessarily just be about pictures. He also had
    some meetings with some of your staff. So you remember, you ran on the
    idea of restoring honesty and integrity to the White House. So why are
    you letting your critics, perhaps, attack you

    [[Page 134]]

    and paint you with, maybe, a guilt by association? Why not just throw
    open your books and say, look, here is----
        The President. There is a serious investigation going on by Federal
    prosecutors, and that's their job. And they will--if they believe
    something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and
    look, and they're welcome to do so. There's a serious investigation
    that's going on.
        Q. But, sir, don't you want to tell the American people look, as I
    promised, this White House isn't for sale, and I'm not for sale?
        The President. It's hard for me to say I didn't have pictures with
    the guy when I did. But I have also had pictures with thousands and
    thousands of people. I mean, people--it's part of the job of the
    President to shake hands and--with people and smile. [Laughter] And I
    do. And the man contributed to my campaigns, but he contributed, either
    directly or through his clients, to a lot of people in Washington. And
    this needs to be cleared up so the people have confidence in the system.
        Yes, Peter [Peter Baker, Washington Post].

    Palestinian Elections

        Q. Mr. President, the U.S. Government has spent about $2 million to
    help promote the Palestinian Authority in the lead-up to this week's
    elections. I wonder, sir, whether you feel like it's consistent with
    your push to spread democracy around the world if the U.S. puts its
    thumb on the scale? Or are there moments when it's okay to compromise
    that because you want to keep organizations with a terrorist threat out
    of government?
        The President. I talked to Secretary Rice about the story that you're referring to, and
    what she told me was, is that this money was part of a USAID package
    that had been in the pipeline for a while. The--kind of the allegation
    or the insinuation that we were funding a political effort just simply
    isn't the case, as far as I can tell.
        Q. It was designed to promote the image of the Palestinian Authority
    among its own people----
        The President. As I say, this money was part of a USAID package. We
    had--I proclaimed, I made it very clear that Jim Wolfensohn was going to be in the region with an economic aid
    package to help the Palestinian people. Our programs are aimed to help
    the people. And----
        Q. I'm talking about who gets credit. Part of the thing was there
    would be no----
        The President. Well, obviously--obviously----
        Q. Credit would go to the Authority.
        The President. Yes, well, our attempt was to help the Palestinian
    people through a active USAID program. And you saw the results of the
    election.
        Q. Why, then, not disclose the USAID involvement?
        The President. It is disclosed; you just disclosed it. [Laughter]
        Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times]. Thank you. Are you
    trying to help the man out there?
        Q. He's my colleague.
        The President. Okay, good.

    Terrorist Surveillance Program

        Q. Members of your administration have said that the secret
    eavesdropping program might have prevented the September 11th attacks.
    But the people who hijacked the planes on September 11th had been in
    this country for years, having domestic phone calls and e-mails. So how,
    specifically, can you say that?
        The President. Well, Michael Hayden
    said that, because he believes that had we had the capacity to listen to
    the phone calls from those from San Diego elsewhere, we might have
    gotten information necessary to prevent the attack. And that's what he
    was referring to.
        Q. They were domestic calls----
        The President. No, domestic outside--we will not listen inside this
    country. It is a

    [[Page 135]]

    call from Al Qaida, Al Qaida affiliates, either from inside the country
    out or outside the country in, but not domestically.

    Jack Abramoff Investigation

        Q. Can I ask you again, why won't you release the photos of yourself
    with Jack Abramoff?
        The President. I just answered the question.
        Yes.

    Terrorist Surveillance Program

        Q. Your explanation on the monitoring program seems to say that when
    the Nation is at war, the President, by definition, can order measures
    that might not be acceptable or even, perhaps, legal in peacetime. And
    this seems to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was,
    ``When the President does it, then that means it is not illegal,'' in
    the areas involving national security. So how do the two differ?
        The President. Well, I said yesterday that other Presidents have
    used the same authority I've had, to use technology to protect the
    American people. Other Presidents--most Presidents believe that during a
    time of war, that we can use our authorities under the Constitution to
    make decisions necessary to protect us.
        Secondly, in this case, there is an act passed by Congress in 2001
    which said that I must have the power to conduct this war using the
    incidents of war. In other words, we believe there's a constitutional
    power granted to Presidents as well as, this case, a statutory power.
    And I'm intending to use that power--Congress says, ``Go ahead and
    conduct the war; we're not going to tell you how to do it.'' And part of
    winning this war on terror is to understand the nature of the enemy and
    to find out where they are so we can protect the American people.
        There's going to be--there will be a constitution--there will be a
    legal debate about whether or not I have the authority to do this; I'm
    absolutely convinced I do. Our Attorney General has been out describing why. And I'm going to continue
    using my authority. That's what the American people expect.
        Yes, Mark [Mark Smith, Associated Press Radio].

    U.S. Armed Forces

        Q. Mr. President, the Pentagon recently studied U.S. forces overseas
    and concluded that between Iraq and Afghanistan, that the military was
    very seriously overextended. Then Secretary Rumsfeld told us yesterday,
    well, that's really not what the study concluded. But this morning
    General Casey told us, in Iraq, U.S. forces there are stretched. Who's
    right here?
        The President. I haven't seen General Casey's comments, his specific comments. I will tell you this,
    that after 5 years of war, there is a need to make sure that our troops
    are balanced properly, that threats are met with capability. And that's
    why we're transforming our military. The things I look for are the
    following: morale, retention, and recruitment. And retention is high;
    recruitment is meeting goals; and people are feeling strong about the
    mission, Mark. But I also recognize that we've got to make sure that our
    military is transformed. And that's what's taking place right now. We're
    transforming the United States Army so that capabilities and the threats
    are better aligned.
        And I'll give--go ahead.
        Q. It's not overextended then?
        The President. The question is whether or not we can win victory in
    Iraq. Our troops will have what they--I mean, our commanders will have
    the troops necessary to do that. The question is, can we help keep the
    peace in a place like the Far East? Absolutely.
        And let me use the Far East as an example of what I'm talking about.
    There was some 30,000 troops on the South Korean Peninsula. As you might
    remember, we reduced the amount of manpower, replaced

    [[Page 136]]

    it with technology. A lot of people--some people at the time said,
    ``Well, wait a minute. They're lessening their commitment to peace and
    security in the Far East by moving people out.'' I made the case that,
    no, what we're doing is replacing manpower--we're transforming our
    military presence in South Korea to be able to meet the threats of the
    21st century. And that's what you're seeing all throughout our military.
        And so this is a time where we've been in theater for--been in this
    war against terror for 5 years and, at the same time, transforming. And
    I think if you look at what our commanders are saying and what are
    people like Pete Schoomaker are saying
    is that this transformation is going to make it more likely America will
    be able to continue in the out years of doing what we need to do to keep
    the peace.
        Yes, Holly [Holly Rosenkrantz, Bloomberg News].

    Federal Budget

        Q. Mr. President, do you think you need to be more aggressive with
    vetoing or at least threatening to veto more spending bills this year? I
    mean, every year you say, ``I want Congress to show spending restraint;
    this is important for our budget and our economy.'' But do you think
    they're doing enough? Do you need to be more aggressive----
        The President. Yes, I do think they are when they meet our budget
    targets. And here's the way--hold on, let me finish, please. Here's the
    way it works. We sit down and say, ``Here's what we'd like you to do.
    We'd like you to reduce nonsecurity discretionary spending.'' Or we
    present a budget target, and they meet them. They have met those
    targets.
        And I am pleased that I've got a working relationship with the
    Speaker and Leader Frist and other Members of Congress to help meet those
    targets.
        Go ahead; you've got a followup?
        Q. So essentially, then, you think everything is going fine with the
    budget, and there's no need to use a veto or anything like that?
        The President. Well, I'm fully prepared to use the veto if they
    overspend. They've got a chance now to continue to show the American
    people that they're willing to be--have fiscal discipline by voting on
    the reconciliation package in the House of Representatives. We've still
    got a lot of work to do, don't get me wrong. And I'll present a--in the
    process of laying out a budget that will continue to eliminate programs
    that don't work or that are duplicative in nature, one that says we can
    cut our deficit in half by 2009 and make sure the American people still
    get their tax relief.
        We don't need to be running up the taxes right now, in my judgment.
    And I think it is--you know, people say, ``Well, let's raise the taxes
    and balance the budget.'' That's not how it works. They're going to
    raise your taxes, and they're going to continue to expand the
    Government. And I understand that.
        Now, in terms of how they spend the money once they meet the budget
    targets, that's going to be an interesting discussion on Capitol Hill.
    That's about this business about earmarks and people making special
    deals in the budget. And they need to--there needs to be earmark reform.
    And we look forward to working with responsible Members on the Hill
    about earmark reform.
        Yes.

    North Korea

        Q. Mr. President, last year, your administration imposed a package
    of economic sanctions on North Korea. Now North Korea says it will not
    come back to the table in the nuclear talks unless those sanctions go.
    South Korea is warning of a dispute on the issue. Would you consider
    removing them, suspending them, making some gesture to get North Korea
    back to the negotiation table?

    [[Page 137]]

        The President. Actually, I think what you're referring to is the
    fact that we're trying--that we are cutting off the transfer of monies
    generated by illicit activities. When somebody is counterfeiting our
    money, we want to stop them from doing that. And so we are aggressively
    saying to the North Koreans, ``Just--don't counterfeit our money.'' And
    we are working with others to prevent them from illicit activities.
    That's different from economic sanctions.
        Q. Fair enough.
        The President. And no, we think it's very important for the North
    Koreans to come back to the table. There's a six-party talk framework
    that is hopeful and positive for them. It requires them to make some
    difficult decisions, and, of course, one of them is to get rid of their
    nuclear arsenal. But we're more than willing to--and want the six-party
    talks to continue forward. I think the framework is a framework that can
    eventually yield to a peaceful settlement of the issue. But the other
    issue is one that I just wanted to make sure I clarify for you why we're
    doing what we're doing.
        Jonathan* [Joseph Curl, Washington Times]----
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *The President mistakenly referred to Joseph Curl as ``Jonathan.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Q. You see this as completely separate then, sir?
        The President. I think----
        Q. There's no room to suspend them or----
        The President. Well, if somebody is cheating on us, we need to stop
    it. I mean, the American people--if we know people are counterfeiting
    our money, they expect the Government to act. And there is no compromise
    when it comes to, you know, ``Hey, come back to the table so you can
    counterfeit our money; just counterfeit 20s and not 100s, or whatever it
    is.'' I mean, no. We are going to uphold the law and protect the
    currency of the American people.
        Jonathan.

    Terrorist Surveillance Program

        Q. Stepping back from the immediate NSA debate that's going on right
    now, Vice President Cheney recently said that the White House is
    reasserting its executive power. Is the NSA program part of that effort?
    And what do you say to Democrats who charge that you are abusing your
    constitutional authority?
        The President. I would say that there has been a historical debate
    between the executive branch and the legislative branch as who's got
    what power. And I don't view it as a contest with the legislative
    branch. Maybe they view it as a contest with the executive; I just
    don't. I view it--I view the decisions I've made, particularly when it
    comes to national security, as necessary decisions to protect the
    American people. That's how--that's the lens on which I analyze things,
    Jonathan. And I understand we're at war with an enemy that wants to hit
    us again. Usama bin Laden made that clear
    the other day, and I take his words very seriously. And I also take my
    responsibility to protect the American people very seriously.
        And so we're going to do what is necessary, within the Constitution
    and within the law and, at the same time, guaranteeing people's civil
    liberties, to protect the people. And that's how I look at this debate.
    Now, there's all kinds of people taking a step back and saying, well,
    this is this, this is that. And I recognize throughout history, people--
    there have been a debate about legislative power and executive power.
    Part of the questions asked here today kind of reflect that debate.
        And I'm going to leave that to the lawyers. I believe I've been
    hired by the people to do my job, and that's to protect the people, and
    that's what I'm going to do, mindful of my authorities within the
    Constitution, mindful of our need to make sure that we stay within the
    law, and mindful of the need to protect the civil liberties of the
    people.

    [[Page 138]]

        Q. Mr. President, though--this is a direct followup to that--the
    FISA law was implemented in 1978, in part because of revelations that
    the National Security Agency was spying domestically. What is wrong with
    that law that you feel you have to circumvent it and, as you just
    admitted, expand Presidential power?
        The President. May I--if I might, you said that I have to circumvent
    it. There--wait a minute. That's a--there's something--it's like saying,
    you know, ``You're breaking the law.'' I'm not. See, that's what you've
    got to understand. I am upholding my duty and, at the same time, doing
    so under the law and with the Constitution behind me. That's just very
    important for you to understand.
        Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this
    discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an
    important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But
    also--and we--look--I said, ``Look, is it possible to conduct this
    program under the old law?'' And people said, ``It doesn't work, in
    order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.''
        And so that's why I made the decision I made. And you know,
    ``circumventing'' is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it, because I
    believe what I'm doing is legally right.
        Bob [Bob Deans, Cox Newspapers]----
        Q. There are going to be hearings on Capitol Hill starting February
    6th regarding----
        The President. Regarding that point, right. And Al
    Gonzales has recently given a speech
    laying out the administrative position, and I'm sure you analyzed it
    carefully.
        Deans.

    U.S. Policy on Detainees in the War on Terror

        Q. Sir, you said a few minutes ago the United States needs to
    continue to lead in the cause of freedom around the world, and yet in
    recent weeks, a couple of groups--Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
    International--have criticized the U.S. handling of terrorist suspects.
    They say that has undermined the U.S. voice as a champion of human
    rights and even, perhaps, undercut a generation of progress in human
    rights. And my question, sir, is, how do you respond to that?
        The President. I haven't seen the report, but if they're saying we
    tortured people, they're wrong--period.
        Q. Could you call on your Texas straight talk and make a clear and
    unambiguous statement today that no American will be allowed to torture
    another human being anywhere in the world at any time----
        The President. Yes. No American will be allowed to torture another
    human being anywhere in the world. And I signed the appropriations bill
    with the McCain amendment attached on because
    that's the way it is. I know some have said, ``Well, why did he put a
    qualifier in there?'' And one reason why Presidents put qualifiers in is
    to protect the prerogative of the executive branch. You see, what we're
    always doing is making sure that we make it clear that the executive
    branch has got certain responsibilities. Conducting war is a
    responsibility in the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
        But make no mistake about it, the McCain
    amendment is an amendment we strongly support and will make sure it's
    fully effective.
        Let's see, Richard [Richard Benedetto, USA Today].

    2006 Elections

        Q. Mr. President, you mentioned earlier that this is an election
    year. Republicans are expressing great confidence that they're going to
    be able to take back the Congress.
        The President. Who are?
        Q. The Democrats, I mean, they're expressing----
        The President. We already have the Congress. [Laughter]

    [[Page 139]]

        Q. They say that they can use issues such as corruption and the war
    in Iraq and high energy prices against Republicans and against you. How
    much do you plan to go out and campaign----
        The President. I'm looking forward on the campaign, but I'm also
    looking forward to reminding people we have a responsibility to get some
    things done. And that's part of what the State of the Union is going to
    be about, but, no, I'm looking forward to getting out there. I've got
    one more off-year campaign in me as a sitting President, and I'm looking
    forward to it, Richard. As you know, I like to get out and tell people
    what's on my mind, explain to people we're a party with ideas, we know
    how to lead, that--remind people of the stakes in the world in which we
    live, and that we have a plan to deal with them.
        And we've got a good record here in Washington, DC, and I'm looking
    forward to talking about the economy, for example. That seems like a
    debate worthwhile having--not only what we have done to make sure that
    we've overcome a lot of hurdles but how to make sure policies are put in
    place that this economic growth continues, and remind people we've added
    a lot of jobs since April of 2003, that the economy is pretty strong
    this year given the fact--in spite of the fact there was high energy
    prices and storms. I look forward to debating people whether or not we
    ought to raise their taxes. I don't believe we should. Matter of fact, I
    think raising taxes will hurt the economy. And that's a debate I look
    forward to having with the people as we get closer to the 2006
    elections.
        And so, look, I don't blame people for saying, ``I'm confident about
    the elections.'' Can you imagine right here at the election year saying,
    ``I'm not very confident about the elections''? [Laughter] No wonder the
    Democrats are saying that.
        But we've got a record--and a good one. And that's what I intend to
    campaign on, and explain to people why I've made the decisions I've
    made, and why they're necessary to protect the American people, and why
    they've been necessary to keep this economy strong, and why the policies
    we've got will keep this economy strong in the future. And this election
    is about peace and prosperity. And I intend to get out there and
    campaign.
        Abril--April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks].
        Q. Yes, Mr. President. Good morning.
        The President. You're going to have to speak loudly because somebody
    took your seat. Your name was on my seating chart, and you're not
    sitting down.
        Q. Isn't that a shame.
        The President. Well, I mean, look, you're probably going to blame it
    on me. [Laughter]
        Q. I'm going to let you pass that time.
        The President. Just trying to rattle you before you get going.

    Gulf Coast Response Investigation

        Q. I know. Mr. President, as you're saying Hurricane Katrina and the
    aftermath is one of your top priorities----
        The President. Yes.
        Q. Why is it that this administration is not allowing the senior--
    your senior staff that you conversated with prior to Hurricane Katrina,
    during, and after to testify, to interview, or talk with congressional
    leaders? And why not push Michael Brown, who is now a private citizen,
    to go before them, as he is what many are calling a linchpin to the
    whole issue?
        The President. Well, let me make sure you have the facts. We have
    given 15,000 pages of White House documents to the investigators,
    congressional investigators; some--I think it's 600,000 pages,
    administrative documents. We have sent a fellow named Rapuano to talk about--he's a White House staffer--to talk to
    the committee. There have been a lot of interviews. There have been
    public testimony.
        As a matter of fact, we are so concerned about this that we've
    started our own investigation to make sure that lessons--that we

    [[Page 140]]

    understand the lessons learned from this. This is a problem we want to
    investigate thoroughly so we know how to better respond on behalf of the
    American people.
        And so we're fully cooperative with the Members of the House in--of
    the Senate, and we'll do so without giving away my ability to get sound
    advice from people on my staff. You see, April, here's--and this is an
    issue that comes up all the time, and you might--we've had several
    discussions like this since I've been the President. If people give me
    advice and they're forced to disclose that advice, it means the next
    time an issue comes up, I might not be able to get unvarnished advice
    from my advisers. And that's just the way it works. But we've given
    thousands of pages of documents over for people to analyze.
        Q. Does that include Michael Brown?
        The President. Pardon me?
        Q. Does that include Michael Brown?
        The President. People who give me advice--it will have a chilling
    effect on future advisers if the precedent is such that when they give
    me advice that it's going to be subject to scrutiny.
        Now, we've analyzed--we've given out all kinds of pages of documents
    for people, and we're cooperating with the investigators. And that's
    important for the American people to know. What's also important is we
    want to know how we can do a better job. And so we're having a lessons-
    learned investigation, led by Fran Townsend. And--anyway, we need to know.
        Let's see here--yes, Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

    Lobbying Reform/Jack Abramoff Investigation

        Q. Sir, back on lobbying--never mind about the photographs, but can
    you say whether--
        The President. It's easy for a radio guy to say. [Laughter]
        Q. Can you say, sir, whether you were lobbied by Jack Abramoff or
    other lobbyists, and what your policy is about lobbyists meeting with
    senior staff?
        The President. You know, I, frankly, don't even remember having my
    picture taken with the guy. I don't know him. And this investigation
    will--needs to look into all aspects of his influence on Capitol Hill,
    and if there's some in the White House, I'm sure they're going to come
    and knock on the door. But I--I can't say I didn't ever meet him, but I
    meet a lot of people. And evidently, he was just like you were the other
    day, at a holiday party--came in, put--the grip-and-grin. They click the
    picture, and off he goes. And that's just--I take thousands of--I mean,
    somebody told me I maybe take over 9,000 pictures this holiday season.
    And he obviously went to fundraisers, but I've never sat down with him
    and had a discussion with the guy.
        Q. Do you meet with lobbyists?
        The President. I try not to. Have I ever met with one? Never having
    met with one is a--if I ever say that, sure enough, you'll go find
    somebody. But, no, I don't have them come in.
        Now, when, for example, people are helping on issues, like on
    promoting trade, you bet we bring them in, and I say, ``Thank you for
    promoting CAFTA,'' or, ``Thanks for working on the vote,'' or, ``Thanks
    for helping on tax relief.'' That may be--if you consider that a
    meeting, the answer is, yes, I'm sure I have, in a roomful of people, as
    we either thank people for success in policy or thank people for going
    out of their way to get a piece of legislation passed on the Hill.
        Listen, thank you all very much. Looking forward to Tuesday evening.
    I hope you are as well. Thank you.

    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 President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) of the Palestinian
    Authority; James D. Wolfensohn,

    [[Page 141]]

    Quartet Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement; Gen. George W. Casey, Jr.,
    USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq.; Usama bin Laden,
    leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; and Deputy Assistant to
    the President for Homeland Security Kenneth Rapuano. Reporters referred
    to Donald E. Powell, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in
    his capacity as coordinator of Federal gulf coast relief efforts; and
    Mike Brown, former Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency.