[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 38, Number 11 (Monday, March 18, 2002)]
[Pages 407-418]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

March 13, 2002

    The President. Good afternoon. Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary 
Committee will vote

[[Page 408]]

on the nomination of Charles Pickering to serve on the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Pickering is a respected 
and well-qualified nominee who was unanimously confirmed 12 years ago to 
the district bench. His nomination deserves a full vote, a vote in a 
full Senate. I strongly urge his confirmation.
    While tomorrow's vote is about one man, a much larger principle is 
also at stake. Under our Constitution, the President has the right and 
responsibility to nominate qualified judges, and the legislative branch 
has the responsibility to vote on them in a fair and timely manner. This 
process determines the quality of justice in America, and it demands 
that both the President and Senate act with care and integrity, with 
wisdom and deep respect for the Constitution. Unfortunately, we are 
seeing a disturbing pattern where, too often, judicial confirmations are 
being turned into ideological battles that delay justice and hurt our 
democracy.
    We now face a situation in which a handful of United States Senators 
on one committee have made it clear that they will block nominees, even 
highly qualified, well-respected nominees, who do not share the 
Senators' view of the bench, of the Federal courts. They seek to 
undermine the nominations of candidates who agree with my philosophy 
that judges should interpret the law, not try to make law from the 
bench. And because these Senators fear the outcome of a fair vote in the 
full Senate, they're using tactics of delay.
    As a result, America is facing a vacancy crisis in the Federal 
judiciary. Working with both Republicans and Democrats, I have nominated 
92 highly qualified, highly respected individuals to serve as Federal 
judges. These are men and women who will respect and follow the law. Yet 
the Senate has confirmed only 40 of these 92 nominees, and only 7 of the 
29 nominees to the circuit courts, the courts of last resort in a vast 
majority of cases.
    This is unacceptable. It is a bad record for the Senate. The Senate 
has an obligation to provide fair hearings and prompt votes to all 
nominees, no matter who controls the Senate or who controls the White 
House. By failing to allow full Senate votes on judicial nominees, a few 
Senators are standing in the way of justice. This is wrong, and the 
American people deserve better.
    I will now be glad to answer a few questions, starting with Fournier 
[Ron Fournier, Associated Press].
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
    The President. You are Fournier, aren't you?
    Q. Yes, sir.
    The President. I'm looking at my chart here. [Laughter] Yes.

Nuclear Posture Review

    Q. The Pentagon is calling for the development of low-yield nuclear 
weapons that could be used against China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North 
Korea, Russia, and Syria. Can you explain why the United States is 
considering this new policy, and how it might figure into the war on 
terrorism?
    The President. I presume you're referring to the nuclear review that 
was recently in the press. Well, first of all, the nuclear review is not 
new. It's gone on for previous administrations. Secondly, the reason we 
have a nuclear arsenal that I hope is modern, upgraded, and can work, is 
to deter any attack on America. The reason one has a nuclear arsenal is 
to serve as a deterrence.
    Secondly, ours is an administration that's committed to reducing the 
amount of warheads, and we're in consultations now with the Russians on 
such a--on this matter. We've both agreed to reduce our warheads down to 
1,700 to 2,200. I talked with Sergey Ivanov yesterday, the Minister of 
Defense from Russia, on this very subject.
    I think one of the interesting points that we need to develop and 
fully explore is how best to verify what's taking place, to make sure 
that there's confidence in both countries. But I'm committed to reducing 
the amount of nuclear weaponry and reducing the number of nuclear 
warheads. I think it's the right policy for America, and I know we can 
continue to do so and still keep a deterrence.
    Q. Why a policy, though, that might go after a country like Libya or 
Syria?
    The President. First of all, we've got all options on the table, 
because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will

[[Page 409]]

not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction 
against us or our allies or friends.
    Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

Situation in the Middle East

    Q. Do you agree with Kofi Annan that Israel must end the illegal 
occupation of Palestinian lands? And how is the Israeli offensive going 
to complicate General Zinni's mission?
    The President. Well, first of all, it is important to create 
conditions for peace in the Middle East. It's important for both sides 
to work hard to create the conditions of a potential settlement. Now, 
our Government has provided a security plan that has been agreed to by 
both the Israelis and the Palestinians, called the Tenet plan. And 
George Mitchell did good work providing a pathway for a political 
settlement, once conditions warrant it.
    Frankly, it's not helpful, what the Israelis have recently done, in 
order to create conditions for peace. I understand someone trying to 
defend themselves and to fight terror. But the recent actions aren't 
helpful. And so Zinni's job is to go over there and work to get 
conditions such that we can get into Tenet. And he's got a lot of work 
to do, but if I didn't think he could make progress, I wouldn't have 
asked him to go.
    During the announcement of the Zinni mission, I said there was--we 
had a lot of phone conversations with people in the Middle East which 
led us to believe that there is a chance to create--to get into Tenet or 
at least create the conditions to get into Tenet. And I've taken that 
chance, and it's the right course of action at this point, Steve.
    Yes, John [John Roberts, CBS News].

Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Q. Mr. President, let me look at what happened Monday with the INS 
visa approvals for Atta and Al-Shehhi and ask the requisite three-part 
question. Let me ask you, first of all, how high did the hair on the 
back of your neck rise when you heard about that? How can the American 
people have any faith in the credibility of the INS in its antiterrorist 
efforts? And what can you do, both immediately and for the long term, to 
assure nothing like that ever happens again?
    The President. Well, it got my attention this morning when I read 
about that. I was stunned and not happy. Let me put it another way: I 
was plenty hot, and I made that clear to people in my administration. I 
don't know if the Attorney General has acted yet today or not. I haven't 
seen the wire story, but--he has. He got the message, and so should the 
INS.
    The INS needs to be reformed, and it's one of the reasons why I 
called for the separation of the paperwork side of the INS from the 
enforcement side. And obviously, the paperwork side needs a lot of work. 
It's inexcusable. So we've got to reform the INS, and we've got to push 
hard to do so. This is an interesting wake-up call for those who run the 
INS. We are modernizing our system, John, and it needs to be modernized, 
so we know who's coming in and who's going out and why they're here.
    Q. But what does this say, sir, about the credibility of the INS in 
its antiterrorism efforts?
    The President. Well, it says they've got a lot of work to do. It 
says that the information system is antiquated. And having said that, 
they are--they got the message, and hopefully, they'll reform as quickly 
as possible. But yes, it got my attention in a negative way.

Catholic Church

    Q. Mr. President, there's a growing crisis in the Catholic Church 
right now, involving pedophilia. And the crisis is exploding in Boston, 
under the watch of Cardinal Law, who you know. Do you think the 
archdiocese there is acting swiftly enough to deal with the issue of 
pedophilia among the ranks of priests?
    The President. Well, I know many in the hierarchy of the Catholic 
Church; I know them to be men of integrity and decency. They're 
honorable people. I was just with Cardinal Egan today. And I'm confident 
the church will clean up its business and do the right thing. As to the 
timing, I haven't, frankly--I'm not exactly aware of the--how fast or 
how not fast they're moving. I just can tell you I trust the leadership 
of the church.
    Q. Do you think Cardinal Law should resign?

[[Page 410]]

    The President. That's up to the church. I know Cardinal Law to be a 
man of integrity. I respect him a lot.

Iraq

    Q. Vice President Cheney is on the road now trying to build support 
for possible action against Iraq. If you don't get that, down the road 
you decide you want to take action, would you take action against Iraq 
unilaterally?
    The President. One of the things I've said to our friends is that we 
will consult, that we will share our views of how to make the world more 
safe. In regards to Iraq, we're doing just that. Every world leader that 
comes to see me, I explain our concerns about a nation which is not 
conforming to agreements that it made in the past, a nation which has 
gassed her people in the past, a nation which has weapons of mass 
destruction and apparently is not afraid to use them.
    And so one of the--what the Vice President is doing is he's 
reminding people about this danger and that we need to work in concert 
to confront this danger. Again, all options are on the table, and--but 
one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very 
future by developing weapons of mass destruction. They've agreed not to 
have those weapons; they ought to conform to their agreement, comply 
with their agreement.
    Yes, John [John Cochran, ABC News].
    Q. It seems to me--you seem to be saying, yes, you would consult 
with the allies and others, including in the Mideast, but if you had to, 
you'd go ahead and take action yourself.
    The President. Well, you're answering the question for me. If I can 
remember the exact words, I'll say it exactly the way I said it before. 
We are going to consult. I am deeply concerned about Iraq, and so should 
the American people be concerned about Iraq, and so should people who 
love freedom be concerned about Iraq.
    This is a nation run by a man who is willing to kill his own people 
by using chemical weapons, a man who won't let inspectors into the 
country, a man who's obviously got something to hide. And he is a 
problem, and we're going to deal with him. But the first stage is to 
consult with our allies and friends, and that's exactly what we're 
doing.
    Everybody here on the front row? John [John Dickerson, Time]?

Situation in the Middle East

    Q. Mr. President, on the question of Iraq, how does the increased 
violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians affect what Vice 
President Cheney is trying to do and affect the case you're trying to 
make with our Arab allies for a regime change or just unconditional 
inspections?
    The President. Well, I understand that the unrest in the Middle East 
creates unrest throughout the region, more so now than ever in the past. 
But we're concerned about the Middle East, John, because it's affecting 
the lives of the Palestinians and our friends the Israelis. I mean, it's 
a terrible period of time when a lot of people are losing their lives, 
needlessly losing life. And terrorists are holding a potential peace 
process hostage.
    And so while I understand the linkage, for us the policy stands on 
its own. The need for us to be involved in the Middle East is to help 
save lives. And we're going to stay involved in the Middle East and, at 
the same time, continue to talk about Iraq and Iran and other nations 
and continue to wage a war on terror, which is exactly what we're doing.
    I want to reiterate what I said the other day. Our policy is to deny 
sanctuary to terrorists anyplace in the world, and we will be very 
actively--in doing that.
    Q. But on the question of the Palestinians, Sharon has said that he 
shares your concern for those not involved in terror. Do you still think 
that's the case?
    The President. I do. But unlike our war against Al Qaida, there is a 
series of agreements in place that will lead to peace. And therefore, 
we're going to work hard to see if we can't, as they say, get into Tenet 
and eventually Mitchell. I do--I certainly hope that Prime Minister 
Sharon is concerned about the loss of innocent life. We certainly--I 
certainly am. It breaks my heart and I know it breaks the hearts of a 
lot of people around the world to see young children lose their life as 
a result of violence, young children on both sides of this issue.

[[Page 411]]

    This is an issue that's consuming a lot of the time of my 
administration. And we have an obligation to continue to work for peace 
in the region, and we will--we will. The two are not mutually exclusive, 
however.
    Yes.

Scope of the War on Terrorism

    Q. Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention 
Usama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if 
you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final 
part, deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find 
out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of----
    The President. Well, deep in my heart, I know the man is on the run 
if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We 
haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one 
person is--really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of 
the mission.
    Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just--he's a person who's 
now been marginalized. His network is--his host government has been 
destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, 
and met his match. He is--as I've mentioned in my speeches, I do mention 
the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to 
their death, and he himself tries to hide--if, in fact, he's hiding at 
all.
    So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much 
time on him, Kelly [Kelly Wallace, Cable News Network], to be honest 
with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well 
supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that 
when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahi-Kot Mountains, that 
the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which 
they did.
    And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be 
other struggles like Shahi-Kot, and I'm just as confident about the 
outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahi-Kot, where our 
soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough; we're strong; they're 
well equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know 
how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
    Q. But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't 
truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
    The President. Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I 
wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. 
And again, I don't know where he is. I--I'll repeat what I said. I truly 
am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was 
concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned 
about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the 
shots for the Taliban.
    But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he 
became--we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place 
to train his Al Qaida killers anymore. And if we--excuse me for a 
minute--and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we 
will, or our friends will. That's one of the things--part of the new 
phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're 
working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary or training or 
a place to hide or a place to raise money.
    And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American 
people have got to understand, that we've only been at this 6 months. 
This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know 
whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's 
going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure 
you, I am not going to blink, and I'm not going to get tired, because I 
know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am 
going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the 
world, and for freedom.
    Mike Allen [Mike Allen, Washington Post]. I'm working my way back 
there, slowly but surely. Michael.

Executive-Legislative Branch Relationship

    Q. Mr. President, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has asked Governor 
Ridge to testify about the administration's domestic homeland security 
efforts. Why has the

[[Page 412]]

White House said that Governor Ridge will not testify?
    The President. Well, he's not--he doesn't have to testify. He's a 
part of my staff, and that's part of the prerogative of the executive 
branch of Government, and we hold that very dear.
    Q. Mr. President, that's another area, along with the war and the 
development of the energy policy----
    The President. This wasn't a trick question, Mike--get me to say 
that and then kind of have a quick followup? But go ahead.
    Q. No, sir. But that's an area where Congress has said--members of 
both parties have told us they're not getting enough information from 
the White House.
    The President. Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike, we consult with Congress all 
the time. I've had meaningful breakfasts with the leadership in the 
House and the Senate. I break bread with both Republicans and Democrats 
right back here in the Oval Office and have a good, honest discussion 
about plans, objectives, what's taking place, what's not taking place. 
We have members of our Cabinet briefing. Condoleezza Rice is in touch 
with the Members of the Congress. We are in touch with--we understand 
the role of the Congress. We must justify budgets to Congress. And so I 
don't buy that, to be frank with you.
    Q. Mr. President, given----
    The President. Mike, this is the third. Two followups is a record. 
Keep trying.
    Q. Given that you've not convinced everyone in your own party of 
that, to what degree are you trying to recalibrate the power between 
Congress and the Presidency?
    The President. Mike, I'm just doing my job. We'll let all the kind 
of the legal historians figure all that out, you know.
    First of all, I'm not going to let Congress erode the power of the 
executive branch. I have a duty to protect the executive branch from 
legislative encroachment. I mean, for example, when the GAO demands 
documents from us, we're not going to give them to them. These were 
privileged conversations. These were conversations when people come into 
our offices and brief us. Can you imagine having to give up every single 
transcript of what is advised me or the Vice President? Our advice 
wouldn't be good and honest and open.
    And so I viewed that as an encroachment on the power of the 
executive branch. I have an obligation to make sure that the Presidency 
remains robust and the legislative branch doesn't end up running the 
executive branch.
    On the other hand, there's plenty of consultation, Mike. I don't 
know what single Republican you're referring to. But if you'd give me 
the name afterwards, I'll be glad to have him over for another 
consultation, if you know what I mean. [Laughter]
    David [David Sanger, New York Times].

Saudi Peace Initiative

    Q. Mr. President, when you endorsed the Saudi plan on the Middle 
East, or the Saudi vision, it called, of course, for full normalization 
of relations between Israel and the Arab States. You've seen some 
backing away from that now by some other Arab countries and, in fact, by 
the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. Can you imagine endorsing a plan 
that calls for anything other than full normalization, anything less 
than full normalization?
    The President. Well, I think the thing--in order for there to be a 
plan that is acceptable to all parties, it must recognize the right of 
Israel to exist. And that's what I thought was very encouraging from the 
Saudi declaration. It was the first such declaration, if I'm not 
mistaken, David--you probably know that better than me--but that the 
Crown Prince said there ought to be a independent state but--that 
recognizes Israel. That's how I interpreted it--Israel's right to exist. 
And I think that's a very important declaration. That's why we seized on 
that. I have said the same thing myself, but it obviously didn't have 
nearly the same weight as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia in saying 
that.
    Q. Normalization means something a little deeper than that.
    The President. Well, but first of all, there's nothing more deep 
than recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought 
of all. After all, there are some skeptics who think that nations in 
that part of the world don't want Israel to exist. The first and most 
important qualification, it seems like to me, for there to be peace is 
for people

[[Page 413]]

in the region to recognize Israel's right to exist. And therefore, 
policies ought to follow along those lines. I can't think of anything 
more deep than that right, that ultimate and final security.
    And when the Crown Prince indicated that was on his mind, we 
embraced that, strongly embraced that.
    Go ahead.

Nature of the War on Terrorism

    Q. I was about to say, just a moment ago, you said that many of your 
allies are joining you in the war on terrorism. You do have a number of 
countries right now that seem to be right in the middle--Indonesia, 
Somalia--places that you've been worried about but that have not asked 
for our training, our help. Would you consider going into a country that 
did not seek your aid?
    The President. Well, that's one of those pretty cleverly worded 
hypotheticals. Let me just put it to you this way, David: We will take 
actions necessary to protect American people, and I'm going to leave it 
at that. That's a good question, however.
    Yes?

Russia-U.S. Nuclear Agreements

    Q. Mr. President, back to nuclear issues, the Russian Defense 
Minister expressed the hope today that agreements on the new strategic 
framework could be signed by the time of your visit next May in Moscow. 
Is it realistic? And second, are you ready to sign documents in a treaty 
form? And third, have you made progress on the issue of destroying 
versus storing nuclear warheads?
    The President. Well, I share the Minister's optimism that we can get 
something done by May. I'd like to sign a document in Russia, when I'm 
there. I think it would be a good thing. And therefore, we've got to 
make sure that those who are interested in making sure that the cold war 
relationship continues on are kind of pushed in the background. In other 
words, we've got to work hard to establish a new relationship.
    I also agree with President Putin that there needs to be a document 
that outlives both of us. What form that comes in, we will discuss. 
There is a--I think David asked me this question, as a matter of fact, 
back in Slovenia, if I'm not mistaken, about storage versus destruction. 
We'd be glad to talk to the Russians about that. I think the most 
important thing, though, is verification, is to make sure that whatever 
decision is made, that there is open verification so as to develop a 
level of trust.
    There is a constraint as well. I mean, the destruction of nuclear 
warheads requires a lot of work and a lot of detailed work, and that, in 
itself, is going to take time, and that's got to be a part of the 
equation as well.
    But those are all issues we're discussing. I had a good--very good 
discussion with Sergey Ivanov yesterday. I'm confident that President 
Putin is interested in making a deal, coming up with a good arrangement 
that will codify a new relationship. The more Russia--the more we work 
with Russia, the better the world will be. And we've got a good, close 
relationship with them.
    We've got a few sticking points. We've got an issue on chickens, for 
example, that some of you have followed. We made it pretty darn clear to 
them that I think we've probably got to get this chicken issue resolved 
and get those chickens moving from the United States into the Russian 
market. [Laughter] We laugh, but nevertheless it is a problem--that we 
must honor agreements. But I believe we're going to have great relations 
with Russia, and we're going to work hard to achieve them.
    Yes, go ahead. You're next, Angle [Jim Angle, Fox News].

Debt Ceiling

    Q. Mr. President, can I ask about the debt limit, sir? And 
specifically about the Treasury Secretary's plan to borrow cash from the 
Federal retirement funds, can you justify that to the American people, 
sir?
    The President. I'm not going to comment on the Secretary of 
Treasury's plan. I'll tell you what I think ought to happen. I think 
Congress ought to pass a clean bill that raises the debt ceiling, and 
I'll sign it. I think it's important. I hope we can get that kind of 
spirit out of Congress. If they do that, it will solve the problem. We 
don't need to be playing politics with the debt ceiling, particularly 
now that we're at war.

[[Page 414]]

    And we're working with the Congress on that. I've had some pretty 
good discussions with the leadership about the need to get a clean bill 
coming. And I hope they do. I hope they listen; I hope they respond.
    Q. There are those who will say that borrowing from the Federal 
retirement funds is also a form of playing politics----
    The President. Well, if the Congress passes the bill, we're fine. 
And we've got to get that done. It's their responsibility to get the 
debt ceiling raised. I hope they do it quickly and soon, and we're going 
to work with them to get it done.
    Jim.

Nuclear Posture Review

    Q. Mr. President, what do you make of the dust-up over the nuclear 
review? And have you made any decisions about its recommendations? In 
particular, what is your view about building smaller nuclear weapons, 
which some people believe would make them more likely to be used?
    The President. Well, first of all, I view our nuclear arsenal as a 
deterrent, as a way to say to people that would harm America, ``Don't do 
it.'' That's a deterrent, that there's a consequence. And the President 
must have all options available to make that deterrent have meaning. And 
that's how I view the review.
    Q. But what is your thinking, sir, on smaller nuclear weapons, which 
some analysts believe would be a major departure and would make them 
more likely----
    The President. My interest is--Jim, my interest is to reduce the 
threat of a nuclear war, is to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. I 
think we've got plenty of warheads to keep the peace. I'm interested 
in--and that's why I told President Putin and told the country, if need 
be, we'll just reduce unilaterally to a level commensurate * with 
keeping a deterrence and keeping the peace.
    * White House correction.
    So I'm interested in having all--having an arsenal at my disposal or 
at the military's disposal that will keep the peace. We're a peaceful 
nation and moving along just right and just kind of having a time, and 
all of a sudden, we get attacked, and now we're at war, but we're at war 
to keep the peace.
    And it's very important for people in America to understand that at 
least my attitude on this is that we're not out to seek revenge. Sure, 
we're after justice, but I also view this as a really good opportunity 
to create a lasting peace.
    And so, therefore, the more firm we are and the more determined we 
are to take care of Al Qaida and deal with terrorism in all its forms, 
particularly that of global reach, that we have a very good chance of 
solving some difficult problems, including the Middle East or the 
subcontinent. But it's going to require a resolve and firmness from the 
United States of America.
    One of the things I've learned in my discussions and at least 
listening to the echo chamber out there in the world is that if the 
United States were to waver, some in the world would take a nap when it 
comes to the war on terror. And we're just not going to let them do 
that. And that's why you hear me spend a lot of time talking to the 
American people--at least, I hope I'm talking to them, through you--
about why this is going to take a long period of time and why I'm so 
determined to remain firm in my resolve. And--anyway.

Draft Registration/Military Readiness

    Q. Mr. President, could I----
    The President. Yes, sir? You asked the softest. [Laughter]
    Q. I'd like to ask you about the public service component of your 
initiative as it----
    The President. The what, now?
    Q. The public service initiative of yours as it relates to the war, 
which you've just said again, that could go on for quite a while. As we 
all know, 18-year-old men in this country, when they turn 18, they're 
required to register with the draft, which is now dormant but could be 
activated again. At this time--and we're looking at sort of an unlimited 
situation with this war--should the country expect the same of women in 
this country?
    The President. You mean in terms of the draft?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. Well, the country shouldn't expect there to be a 
draft. I know

[[Page 415]]

they're registering. But the volunteer army is working. Particularly 
when Congress passes my budget, it's going to make it more likely to 
work. There's been a pay raise, and then we'll have another pay raise. 
And the mission is clear; the training is good; the equipment is going 
to be robust. Congress needs to pass this budget.
    So I don't worry about--and people shouldn't worry about a draft. We 
do have women in the military, and I'm proud of their service. And 
they're welcome in the military; they make a great addition to the 
military.
    Q. You don't think----
    The President. Pardon me?
    Q. ----that the military will be stretched too thinly, as some 
people have feared?
    The President. Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angeles Times], I don't think so. I 
think we're in pretty good shape right now. It's--there's no question we 
have obligations around the world, which we will keep. If you went to--
did you go to Korea with us?
    Q. Yes, sir.
    The President. Well, there's a major obligation there of 37,000 
troops, an obligation that is an important obligation, one that I know 
is important, and we will keep that obligation. But we've got ample 
manpower to meet our needs.
    Plus, we've got a vast coalition of nations willing to lend their 
own manpower to the war. And as I mentioned the other day in my speech 
there on the South Lawn, 17 nations are involved in this first theater 
in Afghanistan. And we had Canadians and Danish and Germans and 
Australians--I'm probably going to leave somebody out--Brits, Special 
Forces troops on the ground, boots on the ground, as they say, willing 
to risk their lives in a dangerous phase of this war, and men going cave 
to cave, looking for killers. These people don't like to surrender; they 
don't surrender. But we've been able to count on foreign troops to help 
us.
    And so, Ed, I think we're in good shape, I really do. And if not, 
we'll--I'll address the Nation, but I don't see any need to right now.

Mexico-U.S. Relations

    Q. Will you take one on Mexico?
    The President. Si.
    Q. You are going to my country next week.
    The President. Es la verdad.
    Q. Besides what President Fox presented to you last year, you 
haven't acted in favor of the Mexican proposal by the President of 
Mexico. You haven't presented anything to Congress.
    The President. Excuse me a second, what proposal are you talking 
about?
    Q. The one the President Fox mentioned----
    The President. In specific. I don't mean to interrupt you.
    Q. The regularization of----
    The President. Oh, the immigration issue?
    Q. Yes, the immigration issue. So when are you going to present any 
concrete steps in that direction for Mexico?
    The President. Well, first of all, we are working closely with 
Mexico. We've had many of our administration officials down there. Tom 
Ridge just came back; he had a very good dialog with President Fox. John 
Ashcroft has been very much involved with the Mexican Government. We 
have had a wide-ranging discussions as to how to make the border work 
better, how to make the border more secure for both countries. We've had 
a really good dialog.
    Some of what needs to be done didn't require law. I'm glad you 
brought that up. We just got 245(i) passed in the House of 
Representatives. Hopefully, that will come out of the Senate quickly. 
That's a step toward--that's a good reform, is one that I support. I 
also cautioned President Fox at the time that there will be no blanket 
amnesty in America. I don't think the will of the American people is for 
blanket amnesty. I think he understands that.
    And so, therefore, the thing we've got to do is figure out how to 
make sure willing employers are able to match up with willing employees. 
And so we'll work--we're making progress; 245(i) is good progress.
    Yes.

Lieutenant Commander Michael Scott Speicher

    Q. Mr. President, do you believe there is an American pilot from the 
Gulf War still alive in Iraq? And if so, how might that complicate any 
actions you consider----

[[Page 416]]

    The President. Well, let me just say this to you. I know that the 
man has got an MIA status, and it reminds me once again about the nature 
of Saddam Hussein if, in fact, he's alive. And therefore, it's just 
another part of my thinking about him, my--I guess, lack of respect is a 
good way to define it.
    Q. Does it complicate any action you might take--you might consider 
taking against Iraq in the war against terror?
    The President. Well, that's where we're--this is the old 
hypothetical again. And let me just put it this way: It doesn't change 
my opinion about him. Matter of fact, it reinforces the fact that 
anybody who would be so cold and heartless as to hold an American flyer 
for all this period of time without notification to his family just--I 
wouldn't put it past him, given the fact that he gassed his own people.
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Yes, ma'am?

Zimbabwe Elections/Nomination of Charles W. Pickering, Sr.

    Q. Okay, thank you. Do you officially recognize the Zimbabwe 
elections? And what are your thoughts about Mugabe? And also on 
Pickering, what are your thoughts----
    The President. Wait, whoa, whoa. [Laughter] Wait a minute. This is 
all over the lot. [Laughter] Wait a minute--all over the lot.
    Q. Mr. President, when I get a chance with you, I have to take it.
    The President. You talk about somebody taking the liberty of a----
    Q. When I get a chance with you, I have to take it.
    The President. I can see that. [Laughter] Go ahead, take it.
    Q. Okay.
    The President. Is this a six-part question?
    Q. No, it's only three.
    The President. Three, okay. [Laughter] Let me start writing them 
down. First one is Zimbabwe. Go ahead.
    Q. Yes, and with Pickering----
    The President. Pickering----
    Q. What are your thoughts about many of your nominees who are 
opposed have issues with racial bias, including Pickering?
    The President. Yes, okay. That's two.
    Q. Okay.
    The President. You're going to limit it to two? Thank you very much.
    Q. Yes, you're welcome.
    The President. That's a good break.
    First on Pickering, Pickering has got a very strong record on civil 
rights. Just ask the people he lives with. I had the honor of meeting 
the attorney general of Mississippi, Moore. Attorney General Moore--fine 
Democrat, elected statewide in the State of Mississippi; a man who, I 
suspect, is a man who got elected because he cares deeply about the 
civil rights of his citizens--came up and sat in the Oval Office and 
said, Judge Pickering has had a fine record on civil rights and should 
be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I hope the Senators hear that. I hope 
they listen to Moore or Al Gore's brother-in-law or the former Governor 
of Mississippi, Winters.
    Zimbabwe. We do not recognize the outcome of the election because we 
think it's flawed. And we are dealing with--and we are dealing with our 
friends to figure out how to deal with this flawed election.
    Q. What are the options then?
    The President. Well, we're dealing with our friends right now to 
figure out how to deal with it.

Class Action Reform Legislation

    Q. The House is voting on class action reform this evening. Given 
the current political atmosphere, do you want to enact new legal reforms 
into law this year? And if so, which ones are you going to----
    The President. Well, here's the thing. I am for reducing the number 
of lawsuits in our society. I think everybody will have their day in 
court, but I think a society that is so kind of litigious-oriented is 
one that is bad for jobs, bad for the creation of jobs. And if any 
reform--I will support reforms which reduce lawsuits and at the same 
time provide--give people the opportunity to take their case to court.
    Q. Are there any ones you want to pursue?
    The President. Stretch [Richard Keil, Bloomberg News]. Super 
Stretch, Little Stretch. Regular Stretch. [Laughter]

[[Page 417]]

Corporate Management Reform

    Q. Last week you announced an ambitious set of changes to make it 
easier for the Government to crack down on corporate wrongdoing. Yet 
Republicans in Congress and your own SEC Chairman says, essentially, a 
lot more money than you proposed will be needed to do the job 
effectively. I'm talking about the----
    The President. You're talking about when I called on the SEC to 
enact laws to make sure that corporate CEOs take responsibility for 
their books, make sure that when somebody says they've got X amount in 
liabilities, that X equals X and not X equals Y or something less than 
X. Yes, I strongly believe that, and the SEC needs to get after it. And 
I don't use the excuse of not enough money in the budget, frankly. I 
need to know the numbers, but we need action. And we need reasonable 
action, without causing a plethora of lawsuits.
    Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder].

Perspective on the War on Terrorism

    Q. Thank you, sir. I wanted to ask about the second phase of the 
war. As a member of the Vietnam generation, do you worry as you send 
these military advisers all over the world, typically to chaotic places, 
that they may get involved in direct conflict and the situation could 
escalate? And are you prepared to do that?
    The President. Interesting question. Hutch, let me tell you 
something, I believe this war is more akin to World War II than it is to 
Vietnam. This is a war in which we fight for the liberties and freedom 
of our country.
    Secondly, I understand there's going to be loss of life and that 
people are going to--and the reason I bring that up is because for a 
while, at least for a period, it seemed to be that the definition of 
success in war was, nobody lost their life. Nobody grieves harder than I 
do when we lose a life. I feel responsible for sending the troops into 
harm's way. It breaks my heart when I see a mom sitting on the front row 
of a speech and she's weeping, openly weeping for the loss of her son. 
It's--it just--I'm not very good about concealing my emotions, but I 
strongly believe we're doing the right thing.
    And Hutch, the idea of denying sanctuary is vital to protect 
America. And we're going to be, obviously, judicious and wise about how 
we deploy troops.
    I learned some good lessons from Vietnam. First, there must be a 
clear mission. Secondly, the politics ought to stay out of fighting a 
war. There was too much politics during the Vietnam war. There was too 
much concern in the White House about political standing. And I've got 
great confidence in General Tommy Franks and great confidence in how 
this war is being conducted. And I rely on Tommy, just like the 
Secretary of Defense relies upon Tommy and his judgment--whether or not 
we ought to deploy and how we ought to deploy.
    Tommy knows the lessons of Vietnam just as well as I do. Both of 
us--he was a--he graduated from high school in '63, and you and I 
graduated in '64. We're of the same vintage. We paid attention to what 
was going on. And so--I think it was '64, wasn't it?
    Q. No, sir.
    The President. Oh. [Laughter] You're not that old. You're not that 
old.
    I'll give you an interesting fact: I don't know if you all know this 
or not, speaking about Tommy, but Tommy Franks went to Midland Lee High 
School, class of '63. Laura Bush went to Midland Lee High School, class 
of '64. That's an interesting thing for the social columns. [Laughter] 
For those of you who allow for your news-gathering to slip into social 
items. [Laughter] Or social gossip, which sometimes happens; it doesn't 
happen that much.
    Q. Did they know each other?
    The President. No. [Laughter]
    Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times]?

Immigration and Naturalization Service

    Q. Mr. President, who do you hold responsible for the failure of the 
INS this week? I see the Attorney General said he was going to hold 
individuals responsible----
    The President. Going to do--hold----
    Q. Hold individuals responsible.
    The President. Well, let's see what the Inspector General comes back 
with. But obviously, I named a good man to run it, Ziglar, and he's held 
accountable. His responsibility

[[Page 418]]

is to reform the INS. Let's give him time to do so. He hasn't been there 
that long, but he now has got another wake-up call. The first wake-up 
call was from me: This agency needs to be reformed. And secondly, he got 
another one with this embarrassing disclosure today that, as I 
mentioned, got the President's attention this morning. I could barely 
get my coffee down when I opened up my local newspaper--well, a 
newspaper. [Laughter]

U.N. Security Council Resolution

    Q. Mr. President, back on the Middle East, sir, can you tell us what 
was behind the timing of pursuing a U.N. resolution at this point 
regarding a future Palestinian state?
    The President. Well, there was a--sometimes these resolutions just 
get a life of their own. And sometimes we have to veto them, and 
sometimes we can help--help the message. This time, we felt like we were 
able to make the message a clear message that we agreed with. If it was 
a message that tried to isolate or condemn our friend, I'd have vetoed 
it. In this case, it was a universal message that could lead to a more 
peaceful--a peaceful world. And so we supported it. As a matter of fact, 
we helped engineer it; we were a part of the process.
    And as to the timing, I don't know the timing. All I know is the 
things start showing up on my desk. And----
    Q. When did it start showing up on your radar screen, sir?
    The President. Well, desk or radar screen, same thing. About 24 
hours ago. And I heard from the Secretary of State and Condoleezza Rice 
that there was a little movement afoot there at the Security Council. 
And so we made a decision, a conscious decision to try to send a 
statement that it was a hopeful statement. It turned out to be a good 
statement, by the way. It was one of those statements that was embraced 
by all the parties except for one that couldn't bring themselves to vote 
for it, Syria.
    But again, we are working hard to create the conditions for a 
security arrangement that will then enable the Mitchell process to kick 
in. I know you all are tired of hearing me say that. But unlike other 
parts of the world, in this part of the world, Tenet and Mitchell have 
been agreed to by both parties, which means there is a hopeful process 
if we can get people into the process. And so our mission is to do that. 
And that's why Zinni is over there.
    Listen, I want to thank you very much. I've enjoyed this press 
conference. I hope you have as well. Thank you.

Note: The President's news conference began at 4 p.m. in the James S. 
Brady Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to 
President Vladimir Putin of Russia; U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle 
East Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.); Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, 
terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks; Edward Cardinal Egan, 
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York; Bernard Cardinal Law, Roman 
Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, MA; Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of 
Israel; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida terrorist organization; 
Crown Prince Abdullah and Minister of Foreign Affairs Saud al-Faysal al 
Saud of Saudi Arabia; President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; President Robert 
Mugabe of Zimbabwe; Mike Moore, Mississippi attorney general; Frank W. 
Hunger, Al Gore's brother-in-law; and former Governor William Winters of 
Mississippi. The President also referred to the Mitchell report, the 
Report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, issued April 30, 
2001; the Tenet plan, the Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire and security 
plan of June 13, 2001, negotiated by Director of Central Intelligence 
George J. Tenet; and H.R. 1885, the ``Section 245(i) Extension Act of 
2001.''