[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
[December 20, 2007]
[Pages 1573-1585]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
The President's News Conference
December 20, 2007
The President. Good morning. I hope you all enjoyed the holiday
reception at the White House as much as Laura and
I enjoyed it. We took an inventory of the silverware, and this year,
only a few pieces were missing. So, like, if you see Gregory [David Gregory, NBC News], tell him to bring them back.
[Laughter] I've decided to come in and visit with you because you're
heading off on the holidays, and so are we, and we wish you happy
holidays.
I think recent days have been a moment that the country can be proud
of. In the past few days, we have stopped a tax increase on the middle
class families, we improved our energy security, we delivered relief to
struggling homeowners, and we funded our troops. I want to thank the
members of both parties for their hard work in these areas. I'm pleased
that we have been able to end this year on a high note by moving beyond
our differences and achieving important results for the American people.
This week, Congress passed legislation to protect middle class
families from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax, without raising
taxes. Unfortunately, Congress passed this legislation after a lengthy
delay. It's going to--the delay is going to add time it takes to process
tens of billions of dollars in refunds. And so we will work hard--now
that the bill is passed, we will work hard to minimize the impact of the
congressional delay so that Americans can get their refund checks as
soon as possible.
Congress passed a good energy bill. The legislation I signed
yesterday will reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil by
increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources and increasing fuel
economy standards. It demonstrates America's leadership in confronting
climate change.
[[Page 1574]]
Congress also passed legislation to help homeowners struggling to
make their mortgage payments. The bill I'm going to sign this afternoon
increases the incentives for borrowers and lenders to work together to
refinance loans. It will allow American families to secure lower
mortgage payments without facing higher taxes. This is a tax reform
bill. It takes away the penalty that a homeowner--a tax penalty a
homeowner will receive if he or she renegotiates the loan to a lower
rate, to a lower value for the house.
Finally, Congress reached agreement on a spending bill to fund the
day-to-day operations of the Federal Government. They passed this bill
without raising taxes. They eliminated many of the worst policy riders
that would have never been approved through the ordinary legislative
process. I appreciate that they included a down payment on the funding
request for our troops on the frontlines in Afghanistan and Iraq without
an artificial timetable of withdrawal. These brave men and women are
risking their lives to protect us, and they deserve the full support of
the U.S. Government.
I'm disappointed that Congress resorted to passing all this spending
in one massive, more than 1,400-page omnibus bill, rather than
considering and passing individual spending bills in the normal process.
The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly 3 months after
the end of the fiscal year. When Congress wastes so much time and leaves
its work to the final days before Christmas, it is not a responsible way
to run this Government.
Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks that
Congress included in a massive spending bill. Earmarks are special
interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one,
often at the last hour, without discussion or debate. Congressional
leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb
earmarks. And they made some progress, and there's more transparency in
the process, but they have not made enough progress. The bill they just
passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously
passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about
11,900 earmarks this year. And so I'm instructing Budget Director Jim
Nussle to review options for dealing with
the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill.
I'm also disappointed that Congress failed to pass legislation to
ensure that our intelligence professionals can continue to effectively
monitor terrorist communications. Those of us in public office have no
greater responsibility than stopping new attacks on our country. And
this summer, Congress passed a bill that--called the Protect America
Act, which strengthened our ability to collect foreign intelligence on
terrorists overseas. The bill closed dangerous gaps in our intelligence;
it was a good piece of legislation. It wasn't perfect, but it was good.
Unfortunately, Congress made this law effective until February 1st of
2008, as if the terrorist threat is going to go away on February the
1st, 2008.
The first priority of Congress when it returns in the new year must
be to pass a good bill and get it to my desk promptly. They have a duty
to give our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American
people. The bill should include liability protection for companies that
are facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits, only because they are believed
to have assisted in the efforts to defend our Nation following the 9/11
attacks. And it must ensure that our intelligence professionals have all
the tools they need to keep us safe.
I hope the Members of Congress enjoy their holiday break; I intend
to enjoy mine. We have a great deal of work in the months ahead. Next
year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our
responsibility to carry out the people's business. The American people
did not elect us to govern in odd years and campaign in even years. They
expect us to get things done. That's what we've accomplished over
[[Page 1575]]
the past few weeks, and we need to carry this momentum into next year.
I'm going to do my part, and I call upon the leaders of both parties on
Capitol Hill to do their part.
And now I'll be glad to answer some of your questions, starting with
AP man [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].
Central Intelligence Agency Interrogation Tapes
Q. Mr. President, there's ambiguity in the statement that you have
no recollection about the existence and destruction of the CIA
interrogation tapes. Why can't you say yes or no about the tapes and
their destruction? And regardless, do you think the destruction of the
tapes was a responsible thing to do?
The President. It sounds pretty clear to me when I say I have--the
first recollection is when Mike Hayden
briefed me. That's pretty clear. Secondly, I am confident that the
preliminary inquiry conducted by the AG and the IG of the CIA, coupled
with the oversight provided by the Congress, will end up enabling us all
to find out what exactly happened. And therefore, over the course of
these inquiries and oversight hearings, I'm going to reserve judgment
until I find out the full facts.
I know I'm going to be asked about this question a lot as time goes
on. I'm just going to prepare you--until these inquiries are complete,
until the oversights are finished, then I will be rendering no opinion
from the podium.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia/
Russian Elections
Q. Vladimir Putin has just been named Time magazine's ``person of
the year.''
The President. Yes.
Q. And he has signaled that he intends to become Prime Minister. You
said once that he had been wily about his intentions, but now that he's
made those clear, what does it say about the state of democracy in
Russia?
The President. You know, I'm looking forward to seeing him at the
alumni meeting of the ``men of the year,'' or the ``persons of the
year.'' I don't know when it's going to be, but--look, I presume--I
haven't read the article, but I presume they put him on there because he
was a consequential leader. And the fundamental question is,
consequential to what end? What will the country look like 10 years from
now?
My hope, of course, is that Russia is a country which understands
there needs to be checks and balances and free and fair elections and a
vibrant press; that they understand Western values based upon human
rights and human dignity are values that will lead to a better country.
That's my hopes.
Now, your speculation as to whether or not he'll be the Prime
Minister, I don't know if he is; I haven't talked to him about it. And
until that happens, I think we better just watch and see. What will be
interesting next year is how the Russian President carries on his
business--the new Russian President. In other words, we'll be together
probably a couple of times next year, and it will be interesting to see
how foreign policy is conducted and what the role of President Putin may
be or not be. I just don't know yet, so we'll just wait and see how it--
what happens.
John [John Yang, NBC News].
Cooperation With Congress/Legislative Agenda
Q. Mr. President, a year ago when you were--had your year-end press
conference, the Democrats had just taken control of Congress. They said
that one of their main goals was to end the war in Iraq. They were
talking a lot about very contentious times ahead. As you just said, the
Congress has now passed again, without strings, money for the war, and
you've achieved a lot of your goals and have gotten a lot of things you
wanted from Congress without a lot of give-and-take with them by
[[Page 1576]]
talking tough with firm veto threats. What does this stay--say about the
Democratic leadership, the way they're running Congress, and your
relations with the leaders?
The President. You know, I don't view--I just don't view life as
zero-sum. I think there--all of us deserve credit for getting some
things done. The President constantly has to make sure that the
executive branch is involved in the process, and one way is to use the
veto. And the veto wouldn't have been effective without close
coordination and consultation with Republican leaders in the House and
the Senate. And in that, we made the veto effective. It then meant that
negotiations could proceed with the President involved.
And so I really don't sit here and say, ``Well, you know, he won,
they lost,'' or ``They won, he lost''--it's just not my nature--because
I think what ended up happening was good for the country. I think it's
good that we ended up with a spending bill that met 933, but also dealt
with some emergencies. I think it's good that we funded our troops
without an artificial timetable for withdrawal. I think it's good for
the country that that happened.
I know it's good that we passed an important piece of energy
legislation. I proposed that in my State of the Union, but it required a
Congress willing to work with the executive branch and to work among
themselves to get the bill passed. So there's plenty of credit to go
around.
I know we live in an environment here in Washington where--I'm not
saying you try to stir this up, but sometimes it's beneficial to
constantly harp on, well, they don't get along here, or maybe they can't
agree here. It's so-and-so versus so-and-so; it's an antagonistic world
from some people's point of view. I try to make it less that way and to
focus on high priorities.
And we got a lot of priorities for next year. And one of my
priorities--this is--I understand this is a bone of contention, but one
of the priorities is to make sure they don't run up the taxes on people.
And my attitude is, if you run them up on one area, it'll become a habit
that will be hard to break, and then they'll try to run them up on other
areas. And the reason I feel strongly about that is I don't want to
undermine the economy by raising taxes.
There's some areas where we can work together, like reauthorization
of No Child Left Behind, although I will warn Congress that--in that the
current bill doesn't expire, if they try to weaken the current bill,
I'll veto any attempt to weaken it. But I believe we can strengthen it.
I spoke to Senator Kennedy on this issue
and Congressman Miller and Senator Enzi and Congressman Boehner about how to strengthen No Child.
I mean, there's a lot of things we can do together, I guess what I'm
saying, John. And so I leave the year feeling good about our capacity to
get some important things done. And of course, I'm grateful that the
troops got funded. One of the--one of my concerns from the last year was
that Congress initially spent a lot of time on passing resolutions and
sentiment and trying to put--trying to tell our commanders how to
conduct the war. And it just didn't work. But they spent a lot of time
on the subject, which meant when we came down to the end of the year,
there was a lot of unfinished business. But we got it done.
Yes, Bill [Bill Plante, CBS News].
Progress in Iraq
Q. Mr. President, despite the military success of the surge, there's
no evidence that one of its intended benefits, making it easier for the
Iraqis to form a unity government, has had any effect. Refugees won't
come home from Syria. There was an opinion poll this week which said
that most of the Iraqis surveyed blamed us, said things would be better
when the U.S. leaves. What benchmarks can the Iraqi Government meet that
would change this? What do you want them to do?
[[Page 1577]]
The President. Well, first of all, I don't agree with your premise
that there's no politics taking place in Iraq. There is a functioning
Government. They did pass a budget last year, and they're in the process
of passing their budget this year. I am pleased to report that there's
been two readings of a de-Ba'athification law to the Council of
Assemblies.
Well, Bill, I mean, if your standard is--if you're trying to judge
the Iraqi parliament based upon our own Congress's ability to get bills
done--is that what you're saying--I'd be a little careful. It took our
Congress till the last minute to get things done. I mean, the
legislative process is not all that smooth at times. And they've got a
lot of work to do; don't get me wrong. I mean, I am not suggesting that
we shouldn't, as a Government, continue to press them. What I am
suggesting, though, there is a functioning Government. Your statement
was, security didn't provide room for a government to stand up and
function. Well, it's happening. And so therefore--and therefore, we will
continue to press them on de-Ba'ath law, Provincial election laws, power
sharing with the central Government and the Provinces, and oil law.
But as I've reminded you from this podium, they are distributing oil
revenues to the Provinces. There is revenue sharing, and there's local
reconciliation taking place. And a lot of times, it's local politics
that will drive national politics. Are we satisfied with the progress in
Baghdad? No. But to say nothing is happening is just simply not the
case.
2008 Presidential Election
Q. I understand you do not want to discuss the Presidential
campaign----
The President. That's true----
Q. ----let me ask you a question about----
The President. ----so therefore, why don't you ask me about the
Presidential campaign. I'll confirm it.
Q. All right, let me ask you about all Presidential campaigns----
The President. Sure. [Laughter]
Q. You've been in office for 7 years now. You must have some pretty
strong opinions about what it takes to sit in the Oval Office. What is
important to you? Is experience in government important? Are a
candidate's religious views important to you?
The President. It's a good attempt to get me in the race. [Laughter]
What's important to me will be this: the principles by which people will
make decisions. People develop principles all different kinds of ways.
But you can't be the President unless you have a firm set of principles
to guide you as you sort through all the problems the world faces. And I
would be very hesitant to support somebody who relied upon opinion polls
and focus groups to define a way forward for a President.
And so my question to--if I were asking questions to people running
for office, I'd say, what are the principles that you will stand on, in
good times and bad times? What will be the underpinning of your
decisions? What will it be? Because a President needs to be consistent,
and a President needs to understand that what may look like a nonissue
today could be a big issue tomorrow.
And secondly I would say, how do you intend to get advice from
people you surround yourself--who are you going to surround yourself?
And what process will you have in place to ensure that you get the
unvarnished opinion of advisers? Because whoever sits in that Oval
Office is going to find this is a complex world, with a lot of issues
coming into the Oval Office--a lot--and a great expectation in the world
that the United States take the lead. And so my question would be, how
do you intend to set up your Oval Office so that people will come in and
give you their advice?
And so those would be the two questions I'd ask. And----
[[Page 1578]]
Q. It sounds like you think the principles are more important than
experience or specific religious views.
The President. No, sometimes you develop your principles as a result
of experience. Sometimes you develop your principles based upon your--
how you were raised or your religious experiences. I just want to know
whether or not somebody has got a sound set of principles from which
they will not deviate as they make decisions that will affect the peace
and security of our country.
Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News].
Progress in Afghanistan
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. You've announced a review
of the situation in Afghanistan. The last time the American people heard
about a review of the war, it ended up in a surge of U.S. troops in
Iraq. Can the U.S. expect a surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan? And do
you agree with many analysts who say that the real problem in
Afghanistan--or a major problem is that the NATO allies are not getting
it done or avoiding the fight there?
The President. Part of the review is to assess how best to make sure
our coalition partners realize there is a coherent strategy of which
they are an integral part, all aiming to make sure that there is a
presence that will assure the Afghan Government and the Afghan people
that people will be trying to help them with their security.
It is--it makes sense for us to constantly review our strategies in
a variety of theaters. That's what good governance is: You analyze the
situation a year after the previous strategy to determine whether or
not--what worked and what didn't work. What did work was the--you might
remember last year; I guess there was a lot of talk about the Taliban
surge or the Taliban offensive. And General McNeill informed us that the only team that's going to be on the
offense is American and NATO allies and other allies.
And we were on the offense. And the Taliban got hit hard last year.
The question, of course, is--just like in Iraq--is there a followup to
the security gains? In other words, is life changing better for the
average citizen? That's the question that we all got to be looking at.
Unity governments are important, but does the average citizen realize
that a free society is in his or her interest.
And I visited with President Karzai on the
SVTS the other day, and it's a question I basically asked him. I said,
we were successful militarily; what's happened in your country that you
can point to that indicates that you're taking advantage of better
security in certain places?
And he pointed out some interesting things.
He talked about the--I think it's 5 million children now going to
school. It was an interesting measurement for him. He says, ``I believe
we're taking advantage of the security because more of our children are
getting educated.'' He told us a story--I can't remember the exact
Province--about when he was part of the struggle against the Taliban.
Somebody got wounded; he took them to the hospital--there was nothing
there. You know, it was like they called it a hospital. It was just kind
of a rundown place where a person couldn't get much good health care.
And now, all of a sudden, he talks about an expanding health care system
and the infant mortality rate dropping. He talks about the roads that
are being built so that the average citizen there can get their crops to
market. And we checked into his assertions, and they're true. So this is
a society where--that is evolving.
Now, it takes a while for societies that have been brutalized by
tyranny and wracked by war to meet expectations. So the questions I ask
on Iraq and Afghanistan are: Is there progress? Are people feeling
better about life? And of course, we press their governments to work to
come together and get budgets passed, or in Iraq's case, de-
Ba'athification law or oil laws. And
[[Page 1579]]
those are all important. But also what's important is the human
condition. And I believe we're making progress on both fronts.
Yes, sir.
NATO Alliance Role in Afghanistan
Q. One more, I'm sorry. On the NATO allies, do you believe that
they're avoiding the fight, or at least some of them are?
The President. Well, I would like to praise the Brits, the
Canadians, the Dutch, the Danes, and other countries for their
contribution--the Aussies--for their contribution of shooters, fighters,
people that are willing to be on the frontline of this battle. These are
brave souls. They're working side by side with the Afghan forces and
U.S. forces to deal the Taliban a blow. And I've only got praise for
them.
I understand that some countries are in a position where they can't
commit combat troops. And so the question is, are we able to leverage
their position in Iraq in such a way that enables us to stay on the
offense against the Taliban, help the Afghans to do so?
And my biggest concern is that people say, ``Well, we're kind of
tired of Afghanistan; therefore, we think we're going to leave.'' That
would be my biggest concern. And so our objective is to help people meet
a mission that they're comfortable with achieving, and convince them
that this is going to take a while. It's going to take time for this
democratic experiment there in Afghanistan to work. And I believe it
will.
As you all know, I've said this many times from the podium: I do
believe in the universality of freedom. I believe if people are given a
chance to be free, they will do so. Now, I understand some don't believe
that. It's kind of like we're the only ones that can be free. It's kind
of the ultimate isolationism, isn't it? And the question then is, is it
in our Nation's interest to help others realize the blessings of
liberty? And I--clearly, the Bush foreign policy says it is, because I
believe it's going to yield peace, and particularly important given the
fact that we're in an ideological struggle against people who use murder
to achieve political objectives.
And we've faced these kind of people before in our past. And the
question is, does it make sense to confront them? And if we forget the
lessons of September the 11th as a nation, we will be naive or blind to
the realities of the world. And the best way to confront these folks in
the long term is to defeat their ideology with one based upon hope, and
that's one based upon liberty. And that's what you're watching unfold.
It's necessary work, and it's hard work, and it requires determination
and effort and commitment. And so part of our efforts is to convince
others, one, the nature of the world in which we live; two, that we're
in an ideological struggle; and three, we will prevail because we've got
the ultimate weapon against those who can't see anything but terror and
murder as a way forward. And that is freedom.
Yes, Holly [Holly Rosenkrantz, Bloomberg News].
National Economy/Home Loan Industry
Q. Mr. President, prominent Republican economists, including Alan
Greenspan and Marty Feldstein, are saying the Government should do more
to head off a recession. Greenspan is suggesting you need Government
money to prevent home foreclosures, and Feldstein is suggesting more tax
cuts. Should the Government do more, and if so, what?
The President. Well, we're constantly analyzing options available to
us. My view of the economy is that the fundamentals are strong, that
we've had strong growth for a reason: that we're competitive; we got
flexible workplace; that we kept taxes low; exports are up.
Like many Americans, I'm concerned, and I'm concerned about the fact
that Americans see their costs going up. I know Americans are concerned
about whether or
[[Page 1580]]
not their neighbor may stay in their house. And so we're dealing with
these issues.
On the housing front, I made it clear we're not going to bail out
lenders, and we're not going to help speculators. But we will help
creditworthy people stay in their homes. And that's what Secretary
Paulson has done, along with Secretary
Jackson, in putting together what's
called the HOPE NOW coalition, which has got lenders and financiers and
consumer advocates all working together to develop standards to make it
more likely a creditworthy person can refinance their home.
See, the difficulty we face in the housing market is that the
lender, the person who actually made the note, oftentimes doesn't end up
owning the note. That note could be--in the recent past has been bundled
and sold as an asset. And so there's no telling who owns the mortgage of
the person who wants to renegotiate. And so we're helping deal with the
new realities in a way that we believe is going to be effective.
Secondly, the Congress can really help by passing a FHA
modernization bill. The House passed a bill. The Senate passed a bill.
They need to get together when they get back, quickly, and get it to my
desk so that it makes it easier for the Federal Government, in this
case, to help people refinance their homes.
In terms of further stimulation, we'll consider all options. And so
we're watching carefully.
Let's see here. Baker [Peter Baker, Washington Post].
Environment/Fuel Efficiency Standards/Alternative Fuel Sources
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday you joined together with
House Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to sign the energy legislation and
talk about the importance of the bill in curbing greenhouse gases, among
other goals. However, your administration then told California that it
couldn't implement its own plan to restrict tailpipe emissions. How
important is fighting greenhouse gases to you? Why can't the States try
to do more? And can you tell me anything about your conversation with
Vice President Gore about climate change a few weeks ago?
The President. Remind me about that here. Let me finish the first
part of the question, and remind me you asked that.
The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more
effective to let each State make a decision as to how to proceed in
curbing greenhouse gases, or is it more effective to have a national
strategy? Director Johnson made a
decision based upon the fact that we passed a piece of legislation that
enables us to have a national strategy, which is the increasing CAFE
standards to 35 miles an hour by 2020 and a substantial increase of
alternative fuels, 36 billion gallons by 2022.
And so the Director, in assessing
this law, and assessing what would be more effective for the country,
says, we now have a national plan. It's one of the benefits of Congress
passing this piece of legislation.
I told Vice President Gore that I take the issue
seriously. And we're developing a strategy that will deal with it--and
an effective strategy. Yesterday's bill is a part of that strategy. When
you replace as much gasoline on a mandatory basis as we're suggesting,
it's going to do a lot to improve the greenhouse gases. And by the way,
the bill I signed was a little weaker than the one I suggested, but
nevertheless was happy to sign it.
And one of the key components, by the way, to be successful on
reformulated fuel standards is to spend research and development money
on cellulosic ethanol, new ways to manufacture ethanol. We can't rely
only on corn in order to meet these standards. And I understand a lot of
people in the farm belt are getting concerned, unless, of course, you're
a corn grower. But if you're feeding cattle or feeding hogs, the cost of
business has gone up. And that's one of the tradeoffs you have to make.
So what I want to assure people out there
[[Page 1581]]
is that we're spending a lot of taxpayers' money in a way to figure out
how to use wood chips or switchgrass in order to make ethanol. But this
is a real national plan.
Secondly, in order to be effective on a global basis, countries that
emit greenhouse gases need to be at the table. One of the main reasons I
was against Kyoto was that China wasn't at the table. I mean, we could
do all we wanted to do, but it wouldn't affect greenhouse gases over the
long run unless a country like China had agreed to participate in a
strategy.
And so we went to the Bali Conference with that in mind and worked
out a compromise that said, we're committed to a process that's going to
unfold over the next 2 years. But we've also got a parallel process
working to make sure major emitters sit at the table and come together,
hopefully, on a goal that we all agree to. And it's a strategy that I
laid out at the G-8 in Germany, it's a strategy that was explained to
everybody there in Bali, and it's a strategy we think will be effective.
And so, absolutely, I take the issue seriously. But I want to make
sure that we're effective in what we do, and secondly, do not wreck our
economy in whatever we do. See, it is hard to develop the technologies
necessary to be able to make sure our standard of living remains strong
and deal with greenhouse gases if you're broke. If you don't have any
money, it is really hard to develop new technologies. And so we need to
be prosperous for a lot of reasons, primarily so our citizens can have a
good life, but also so that we're wealthy enough to make the investments
necessary to deal with greenhouse gases.
Finally, if you're truly serious about dealing with greenhouse
gases, then it seems like to me you ought to be a strong supporter of
nuclear power. Nuclear power enables us to generate electricity without
emitting one unit of greenhouse gases. I am--to me, I am amazed that our
country isn't more robust in supporting the advent of nuclear power. I
certainly am, and applaud those efforts by Members of the Congress to
provide incentives for the construction of new plants.
But if you're somebody that says, ``Greenhouse gases are of vital
national interest,'' then you ought to be saying, ``I'm for the
development of nuclear powerplants.'' It is by far the best solution to
making sure we have economic growth and, at the same time, be good
stewards of the environment.
And so when you couple increasing CAFE standards with using
alternative fuels--which deals with the automobile area--as well as a
good strategy on electricity, then all of a sudden, you begin to see a
strategy unfold. And by the way, the final thing is, is that we do have
250 years of coal. And I believe we can develop technologies that will
enable us to use that coal in an environmentally friendly way.
So what I'm suggesting to you is, is that we do have a strategy. Our
strategy is to bring others to the table. Our strategy is to develop our
own plan to meet the national goals--the international goals that I hope
we'll be able to set later on this summer. And you've just heard some of
the components of it.
Yes, sir.
U.S. Image Abroad
Q. Mr. President, thank you. If I could return a minute to the CIA
tapes. I realize you don't want to discuss it at this point, but given
your remarks about the struggle against ideology, how concerned are you
that your administration once again faces criticism, questions from
people around the world about the handling of a terrorist suspect?
The President. You know, you're trying to get me to prejudge the
outcome of this inquiry. And let's wait and see what happens. Let's wait
and see what the facts are. And look, we get criticized a lot for a
variety of reasons. We're asking people to do hard things, for starters,
which is intercept and find terrorists and to spread freedom.
[[Page 1582]]
And there's isolationist tendencies in this world. People would rather
stay at home. People would rather not aggressively pursue people
overseas and aggressively pursue freedom. I understand that. We got
people like that in our own country. That's why, in my State of the
Union Address a couple of years ago, I talked about the perils of
isolationism and protectionism. And the fundamental question facing
whoever sits in the Oval Office is, will you use the influence of the
United States to advance a freedom agenda to help others realize the
blessings of liberty and yield peace?
So I don't want people to get the wrong impression of our country,
but I'm not surprised we get criticized on a variety of fronts. And on
the other hand, most people like to come to our country, and most people
love what America stands for. And so it's like I say about the
Presidency: People in America like the Presidency, and sometime they
like the President. Get it? [Laughter]
Yes, ma'am.
Syria/Lebanese Presidential Election/President's Visit to the Middle
East
Q. Mr. President, on the Middle East, will your trip to the Middle
East--I know you're not going to Lebanon--will it help to stabilize
Lebanon? As you know, President Sarkozy said that he spoke to President
Asad, and he said his patience is running
out.
The President. Yes.
Q. Was this coordinated with you? And are you willing to speak to
President Asad to end the crisis in Lebanon?
The President. No, it wasn't coordinated with me, and my patience
ran out on President Asad a long time ago. And the reason why is, is
because he houses Hamas; he facilitates Hizballah; suiciders go from his
country into Iraq; and he destabilizes Lebanon. And so if he's
listening, he doesn't need a phone call. He knows exactly what my
position is.
We are--our view on Lebanon--first of all, it's very important that
Lebanon--Lebanon's democracy succeed. Secondly, as you know, we did work
with the French on 1559 to get Syria out of Lebanon, and Syria needs to
stay out of Lebanon. Syria needs to let the process in Lebanon work. And
if they can't come to an agreement--I appreciate the sides trying to
work on a common ground for a President, but if they can't come for
agreement, then the world ought to say this: that the March 14th
coalition can run their candidate and their Parliament; majority plus
one ought to determine who the President is. And when that happens, the
world ought to embrace the President.
I'm looking forward to going to the Middle East. I've got a couple
of objectives. One is to advance the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.
Secondly is to continue to work with our Arab friends on reconciliation
with Israel. And finally is to assure people in the Middle East that we
understand--or we'll show a strong commitment to the security of the
region and a commitment to the security of our friends.
And it's going to be a great trip. I hope you're going with me.
Q. I am, actually.
The President. Good. [Laughter] So therefore, you use that as an
opportunity to ask a followup. [Laughter]
Q. Absolutely.
The President. Didn't work. [Laughter]
Mike [Mike Allen, Politico].
U.S. Foreign Policy/Freedom Agenda
Q. Mr. President, you maybe saw that President Clinton said recently
that one of the first actions of a new Clinton administration would be
to send Presidents 41 and 42 on a worldwide good will mission to restore
the country's good name abroad.
The President. Yes----
Q. I wonder if you think such a thing is necessary----
[[Page 1583]]
The President. Well, 41 didn't think it's necessary. It sounds like
it's going to be a one-man trip. [Laughter]
Yes, Michael, do you want to try----
Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would consider doing such a thing
during your Presidency, and do you think that you might have----
The President. That's what I do during my Presidency. I go around
spreading good will and talking about the importance of spreading
freedom and peace. Go ahead. I don't know what I'm going to do after I'm
President. Michael, I've got an exciting 13 months ahead, and I know
you're just waiting for me to say ``sprint to the finish line,'' so I
won't. [Laughter] But it's--go ahead, Michael, try one more time.
Q. Mr. President, you maybe saw that your former colleague from the
National Governors Association, Mike Huckabee----
The President. Okay. You're trying to get me in the race, Mike.
Q. No, sir.
The President. You're trying to drag me in the race, I know. What's
your advice? Should I do it?
Q. Do it.
The President. Do it?
Q. Go for it. [Laughter]
The President. I plan on having some press conferences next year,
and I suspect next year the questions will be even more plentiful about
getting me to be the opiner in chief.
Yes, go ahead, Mike.
2008 Presidential Election
Q. Mr. President, this is a question about your foreign policy. You
maybe saw that your foreign policy was described as arrogant, go-it-
alone. I wonder why you disagree with that, and if there's any danger in
having----
The President. That's a clever way of getting me in the race. Look,
during the primaries and during the general election, I suspect my name
may come up a lot, and what the American people need to do is to sort
through the rhetoric and reality.
And so this is a subtle attempt to get me to start commenting about
the primaries, and I'm not going to do so. I will wait, reserve
judgment, be patient, and after the primaries are over, will help my
party unify, because I believe we will keep the White House. I believe
ours is the party that understands the nature of the world in which we
live and that the Government's primary responsibility is to protect the
American citizens from harm. And I will continue to remind the American
people that our professionals need to have the tools necessary to make
sure that we find out who's thinking about attacking us, and if they
are, do something about it. That's what we're going to do.
We're also the party that understands that you can spend your money,
Michael; all that money they pay you, you can spend it better than the
Government can spend it. And therefore, we're going to keep taxes low.
And we've got an economic--a plan that will keep this economy strong.
And I'm looking forward to doing my bit. In the meantime, I'm out
raising money for the Republican Party, trying to make sure that once
the primaries are over--that you're trying to drag me into--that we're
united and ready to go. And I'm confident we'll hold the White House,
and I'm confident we can pick up seats in the--both the Senate and the
Congress.
Yes, sir.
National Economy
Q. So far, Republicans haven't mentioned your name.
Q. Yes, just a quick----
The President. No, not you. This guy right here. USA Today. Wolf
[Richard Wolf].
Q. On keeping taxes----
The President. ----yelled his name out--Wolf.
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. On keeping taxes low, part of the way
you seem
[[Page 1584]]
to be doing it is by not paying for some of the things that passed in
the last couple days: emergency spending on Iraq, the AMT fix. Can you
tell us why it's not irresponsible to pass these costs along to our
kids? And I'm also tempted to ask, at the top of this, you talked about
the wasteful spending and an initiative that you were going to--with
Director Nussle. Can you give us a little bit of a hint on how you're
going to go after----
The President. No, I think we better--that will be an interesting
nugget for next year. And secondly, we have been reducing the deficit.
Progrowth economic policies work. By cutting taxes, the economy grows,
which yields more revenues for the Treasury. And then the fundamental
question is, can we bring fiscal discipline on the spending side? The
argument that you've got to raise taxes to make sure your children don't
pay debt only works if the Government doesn't follow suit and spend that
money you raised on new programs.
My view is, is that given more money, the Government will find new
ways to spend it. And secondly, by raising taxes, we'll slow down the
economic growth of this country, which will increase deficits over time.
And so we're on a plan to reduce the deficit, and at the same time,
fund our troops, and at the same time, keep taxes low. Progrowth
economic policies has worked. And maybe somebody else thinks you can
raise taxes and keep the economy growing; I don't. I think a sure way to
hurt the economy is to run up taxes on people.
This other thing that's interesting--and you hear these people in
the campaigns--even though I'm not going to opine about the primary--but
they do talk about taxing the rich. I just want people to remember that
many small businesses pay tax at the individual income tax level because
they're organized not as C corps, but as limited liability partnerships
and S corps, which means that they pay individual tax rates. And when
you say you're going to tax the rich, you're taxing a lot of people that
are hard-working people, and you're taxing small businesses. Small
businesses create most of the growth in our economy, most of the job
growth. And a sure way to stop that from happening is to take money out
of their Treasury.
And so I'm a strong believer that tax cuts work, and we need to keep
taxes low.
Yes, sir. Dow Jones man [Henry ``Jay'' Pulizzi, Dow Jones
Newsletter]. How's the market?
Q. I don't know. I'll check.
The President. Okay. Good. Thanks.
U.S. Financial Markets/Foreign Investors
Q. The mortgage crisis is leading some of the Nation's biggest
financial institutions to seek investments from funds that are
controlled by foreign governments. Is that something that concerns you?
The President. No, I like to get our money back. I think the world
that is open for investment and trade is a world that will lead to
overall prosperity. It's interesting that they're going to have to do
that. My attitude is, is that Wall Street needs to put all their--put it
all out there for everybody to see. They need to have the--off-balance
sheet this and put out there for investors to take a look at. And if
there's some write-downs to be done, they need to do it now.
And so I'm fine with capital coming in from overseas to help bolster
financial institutions. I don't think it's a problem. I think what will
be a problem is to say, we're not going to accept foreign capital, or
we're not going to open markets, or we become protectionists.
Protectionism would be a huge mistake for this country. And what's going
to be an interesting test next year on whether or not we're going to be
a country that trades with others and opens up markets is these free
trade votes. I applaud the Congress for passing the Peruvian free trade
deal. But we got some votes coming up with Colombia. That's going to
[[Page 1585]]
be an interesting test to determine whether or not we remain--that we
remain an open economy and that we expect others to treat us the way we
treat them.
And I spoke this morning to the President-elect of South Korea. And the people there are going to be
watching very carefully as to whether or not our Congress understands
the importance of the relationship and that they pass that free trade
agreement with Korea. It's in our interests we do so.
But no, I understand that people are--when they write down their
assets, they may need to get a little extra capital on their balance
sheets. And it doesn't trouble me at all; it doesn't. What troubles me
is the fact that they--is that some of this paper isn't worth what
people thought it was, and it's going to have to work through the
system.
Listen, thank you all. Have a wonderful holiday season. Appreciate
it.
Note: The President's news conference began at 10:01 a.m. in the James
S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he
referred to Gen. Dan K. McNeill, USA, commander, NATO International
Security Assistance Force, Afghanistan; President Hamid Karzai of
Afghanistan; President Bashar al-Asad of Syria; and President-elect Lee
Myung-bak of South Korea. A reporter referred to President Nicolas
Sarkozy of France. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a
Spanish language transcript of this news conference.