[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 38, Number 45 (Monday, November 11, 2002)]
[Pages 1998-2008]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

November 7, 2002

    The President. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for coming. This is 
an important week for our country and for the world. The United Nations 
will vote tomorrow on a resolution bringing the civilized world together 
to disarm Saddam Hussein. Here at home, our citizens have voted in an 
election that I believe will strengthen our ability to make progress for 
all the American people.
    I congratulate the men and women, Republicans and Democrats, who 
were elected this week to public office all across America. I appreciate 
their willingness to leave their private lives and to serve their 
communities and to serve our Nation.
    I also commend the millions of voters across America and across the 
political spectrum who went to the polls. At a time when our freedoms 
are under attack, it is more important than ever that our citizens 
exercise the rights and responsibilities of our democracy.
    Now that the voters have spoken, I urge the members of both 
political parties to come together to get things done for the American 
people. I've talked to leaders of both parties and assured them I want 
to work with them. I talked to Senator Daschle yesterday and said that, 
although the Republican Party now leads the Senate, I still want to work 
with him to get things done for the American people. I talked to Leader 
Gephardt as well.
    I look forward to working with Members of the Congress and the newly 
elected Governors to make America's families safer in their homes and 
their communities, to make our economy stronger so people can find work, 
to make our country a better and more compassionate place. Members of 
the new Congress will take office in January, and they'll have a full 
agenda. The current Congress, however, will return in just a few days to 
take up some unfinished business.
    We have a responsibility to protect the American people against 
threats from any source. I'm grateful to the Members of the Congress, 
both Republicans and Democrats, that came together to support the war 
against terror and authorize, if need be, the use of force to disarm 
Iraq. We must bring the same spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the 
urgent task of protecting our country from the ongoing threat of 
terrorist attack.
    The single most important item of unfinished business on Capitol 
Hill is to create

[[Page 1999]]

a unified Department of Homeland Security that will vastly improve our 
ability to protect our coasts and our borders and our communities. The 
election may be over, but a terrorist threat is still real. The Senate 
must pass a bill that will strengthen our ability to protect the 
American people. And they must pass a bill that preserves the authority 
every President since John Kennedy has had to act in the interest of 
national security. It's imperative that the Congress send me a bill that 
I can sign before the 107th Congress ends.
    We have a responsibility to strengthen the economy so people can 
find work. We're working to keep this economy moving. And one immediate 
thing Congress should do to help people put--back to work is to pass 
legislation so that construction projects can get insurance against 
terrorism. This will spur construction and create thousands of good 
hardhat jobs that are currently on hold because projects without 
insurance cannot be built.
    Although it's late in the process, Congress must show fiscal 
discipline. At a time when we're at war and a time when we need to 
strengthen our economy, Congress must be wise with the people's money, 
fund the Nation's priorities, and control wasteful spending. The workers 
of America deserve our action on these important issues, which have been 
stalled, yet when approved, will strengthen our economy.
    Many of the fundamental economic indicators are good. Interest rates 
are low, so Americans can buy more homes. Inflation is low, so paychecks 
go further in buying groceries and gas. The productivity of our workers 
is high. The economy has come out of a recession and is growing, but I'm 
not satisfied because I know we can do better. We must have an economy 
to grow at a faster and stronger pace so Americans can find a job. And 
so I'll work with new Congress to pass new growth and jobs packages 
early next year.
    I look forward to welcoming a new Congress. And I look forward to 
working with the current Congress to finish some very important work. 
And now it's my privilege to take some of your questions, starting with 
Sandra [Sandra Sobieraj, Associated Press].

2002 Elections

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Do you believe that Tuesday's election 
gave you, personally, a mandate? And now that you have the Republican 
Congress, what will you do specifically, beyond terrorism insurance and 
Government spending restraints, to address the real anxieties--
[inaudible]--of everyday Americans--[inaudible]?
    The President. Yes. First, I think candidates win elections because 
they're good candidates, not because they may happen to have the 
President as a friend or a foe, for that matter. Races that were won 
were won because people were able to convince the voters they could 
trust their judgment, convince the voters they care deeply about their 
circumstances. I believe if there is a mandate in any election, at least 
in this one, it's that people want something to get done. They want 
people to work together in Washington, DC, to pass meaningful 
legislation which will improve their lives.
    The best way to win an election is to--is to earn the trust of the 
voters, and that's what happened in State after State after State. We 
had some really good candidates who overcame some pretty tough odds. 
They were running against incumbents in a lot of cases, and they ran 
great races. And they were reassuring people. And I really attribute the 
successes to the nature of their candidacies and the hard-working people 
that turned out the vote. There were some really effective voter turnout 
organizations around the country.
    And I think the way to look at this election is to say the people 
want something done. They see the risks are high, the risk of being able 
to find a job or the risk of keeping the homeland secure. And they want 
people to come together to work on it, and that's what I intend to do.
    Helen [Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers].

Legislative Agenda

    Q. The specifics of your----
    The President. Oh, sorry, yes. Well, I'll let you know at the right 
time. For right now, we got to get through a lameduck session. A 
lameduck session, for people who don't know what that means, it means 
the Senate

[[Page 2000]]

is coming and the House is coming back between now and Christmas, and 
they've got a few days to get some big things done. And the most 
important thing to get done, I want to emphasize, is get a Department of 
Homeland Security finished.
    Some rumors moving around that we may not be too keen on getting 
that done. I want it done. It is a priority. We got a good bill out of 
the House, and they need to get a bill out of the Senate and to 
conference and to my desk. I don't know how much time that's going to 
take, but having watched the debate prior to the election, it may take 
some time. But it doesn't matter how long it takes, they need to get it 
done.
    Secondly, they need to get a budget done. We need to get the bills, 
the appropriation bills, done. And I mentioned, they've got to get the 
terrorism insurance bill done.
    Now, given the amount of time they're likely to be here, that's a 
pretty big agenda. And in terms of afterwards, I'll let you know. But 
there are some issues, of course, that I intend to work with the 
Congress on, and one of them is to get prescription drug benefits to our 
seniors. That's an important issue. It's an issue that I talked about at 
every speech. The candidates, I'm sure both political parties, talked 
about it. And that's something that we need to get done.
    But let's get this--get out of this lameduck session first.
    Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

United Nations Resolution on Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, how confident are you that the Security Council 
will approve the tough new resolution on Iraq? And if that happens, what 
happens next? What's the next step? Is war inevitable?
    The President. Well, first of all, the resolution we put down is a 
tough new resolution. It talks about material breach and inspections and 
serious consequences if Saddam Hussein continues to defy the world and 
not disarm. So, one, I'm pleased with the resolution we put down. 
Otherwise, we wouldn't have put it down.
    I just talked to Jacques Chirac, and earlier today I talked to 
Vladimir Putin. I characterize our conversation--I'm loathe to put words 
in somebody else's mouth. That's, evidently, not the case with a lot of 
people in Washington, but nevertheless, I am. And I'm optimistic we'll 
get the resolution vote tomorrow, let me put it to you that way.
    And Steve, the resolution is a disarmament resolution; that's what 
it is. It's a statement of intent to, once and for all, disarm Saddam 
Hussein. He's a threat. He's a threat to the country. He's a threat to 
people in his neighborhood. He's a real threat, and it's now time for 
the world to come together and disarm him. And when this resolution 
passes, I will--we'll be able to say that the United Nations has 
recognized the threat, and now we're going to work together to disarm 
him.
    And he must be cooperative in the disarmament. So the job of 
inspectors is to determine his level of cooperation, see. He has got to 
be the agent of disarming. He's got to agree that what we're doing is 
what he said he we do. And just like the United Nations has agreed that 
it is important to disarm him, for the sake of peace, and so the next 
step will be to put an inspection regime in there to--after all the 
declarations and after all the preamble to inspections, that he's got to 
show the world he's disarming. And that's where we'll be next.
    Let's see here. Helen.
    Q. I have a followup----
    The President. Yes, I have a list. [Laughter] I don't want to be so 
discriminatory that people will say that I haven't thought this through. 
After all, the new arrangement--and by the way, we're here in honor of 
Ari Fleischer. Otherwise, we'd be in his house. But since he's getting 
married this weekend, I thought it appropriate to leave the podium that 
he occupies empty, in honor of the fact that he's getting married. I 
hope you all have sent your gifts to him. [Laughter]
    Ari, I did what you asked me to do. [Laughter] I'm sure he's on C-
SPAN right now.
    Helen.

Iraq and North Korea

    Q. Mr. President, what is the logic of your insistence on invading 
Iraq at some point, which may someday have nuclear weapons, and not 
laying a glove on North Korea, which may have them or may produce them--
both

[[Page 2001]]

of which, of course, would be against international law. And I have a 
followup. [Laughter]
    The President. Well, I may decide to let you have that followup or 
not, depending upon--[laughter]--depending on whether I like my answer. 
[Laughter]
    I am insistent upon one thing about Iraq, and that is that Saddam 
Hussein disarm. That's what I'm insistent on. He agreed to do that, by 
the way. Saddam Hussein said he would disarm, and he hasn't. And for 
the----
    Q. And you don't----
    The President. Is that the followup? [Laughter] Okay, that is the 
followup. I do care about North Korea. And as I said from the beginning 
of this new war in the 21st century, we'll deal with each threat 
differently. Each threat requires a different type of response. You've 
heard my strategy on dealing with Iraq. I've been very clear on the 
strategy all along, and tomorrow it looks like part of that strategy is 
coming to fruition.
    With North Korea, we're taking a different strategy, initially, and 
it's this, that we're going to work with countries in the neighborhood 
to convince North Korea that it is not in the world's interests that 
they develop a nuclear weapon through highly enriched uranium.
    We know they've got the capacity through plutonium. We have IAEA 
inspectors there watching carefully their plutonium stockpile. And then 
we discovered that, contrary to an agreement they had with the United 
States, they're enriching uranium, with the desire of developing a 
weapon. They admitted to this. And so, therefore, we have worked with 
our Japanese friends and South Korean friends, with the leadership in 
China--I will talk with Vladimir Putin about this after my trip to the 
NATO summit--to remind North Korea that if they expect to be a--welcomed 
into this family of peaceful nations, that they should not enrich 
uranium.
    I thought it was a very interesting statement that Jiang Zemin made 
in Crawford, where he declared very clearly that he wants a nuclear-
weapons-free Korean Peninsula. That was, in my judgment, an important 
clarification of Chinese policy that I hope the North Koreans listen to. 
I believe we can achieve this objective, Helen, by working closely with 
this consortium of nations, which have got a valid interest in seeing to 
it that North Korea does not have nuclear weapons.
    Terry [Terry Moran, ABC News].
    Q. Mr. President, can I have a followup----
    The President. Of course, you can. Yes, it's fine. [Laughter] If the 
elections had gone a different way, I might not be so generous. 
[Laughter]
    Q. You are leaving the impression that Iraqi lives, the human cost, 
doesn't mean anything----
    The President. Say that again?
    Q. You are leaving the impression that you wouldn't mind if you go 
to war against Iraq, but you deal with another nation which may have 
weapons in a different way. But there are two other impressions around: 
one, that you have an obsession with going after Saddam Hussein at any 
cost; and also that you covet the oil fields.
    The President. Yes. Well, I'm--some people have the right 
impressions and some people have the wrong impressions.
    Q. Can you----
    The President. Well, those are the wrong impressions.
    Q. Okay.
    The President. I have a deep desire for peace. That's what I have a 
desire for, and freedom for the Iraqi people. See, I don't like a system 
where people are repressed through torture and murder in order to keep a 
dictator in place. It troubles me deeply. And so the Iraqi people must 
hear this loud and clear, that this country never has any intention to 
conquer anybody. That's not the intention of the American people or our 
Government. We believe in freedom, and we believe in peace. And we 
believe the Iraqi dictator is a threat to peace. And so that's why I 
made the decisions I made, in terms of Iraq.
    Now, Terry Moran.

Consequences of Action/Inaction in Iraq

    Q. Thank you, sir. On Iraq, you've said many times that if Saddam 
Hussein does not disarm, he will be disarmed militarily, if necessary, 
by the U.N. or the U.S. and others. There's a school of thought that 
says that

[[Page 2002]]

going to war against Iraq would be a dangerous and misguided idea 
because it would generate a tremendous amount of anger and hatred at the 
United States, and out of that you'd essentially be creating many new 
terrorists who would want to kill Americans. What's wrong with that 
analysis?
    The President. Well, that's like saying we should not go after Al 
Qaida because we might irritate somebody, and that would create a danger 
to Americans. My attitude is, you got to deal with terrorism in a firm 
way. And if they see threats, you deal with them in all different kinds 
of ways. The only way, in my judgment, to deal with Saddam Hussein is to 
bring the international community together to convince him to disarm.
    But if he's not going to disarm, we'll disarm him, in order to make 
the world a more peaceful place. And some people aren't going to like 
that--I understand. But some people won't like it if he ends up with a 
nuclear weapon and uses it. We have an obligation to lead. And I intend 
to assume that obligation to make the world more peaceful.
    Terry, listen, there's risk in all action we take, but the risk of 
inaction is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned. The inaction creates 
more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful. And 
obviously, I weighed all the consequences about all the differences. 
Hopefully, we can do this peacefully--don't get me wrong. And if the 
world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure 
on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there's a chance he may 
decide to do that.
    And war is not my first choice, don't--it's my last choice. But 
nevertheless, it is a--it is an option in order to make the world a more 
peaceful place.
    Let's see here. King. John King [Cable News Network], that is.

Legislative Agenda

    Q. Sir, in referring to the elections, you're being quite humble 
about the results and your role. But many conservative lawmakers and 
many more conservative groups are saying, ``Seize the moment.'' They say 
early in the new Congress, you should push your plan to partially 
privatize Social Security; you should push for new restrictions on 
abortion; you should push and renominate the judges that were rejected 
by the Senate; and that you should push a total overhaul of the Tax 
Code. What are your views on that?
    The President. Well, I appreciate all the advice I'm getting. 
[Laughter] One of the things about this job, if you listen carefully, 
you get a lot of advice. And I--it's important for a President to set 
priorities, and the two biggest priorities are the protection of the 
American people--that's why I wanted to get this Homeland Security 
Department done--and the other one is people being able to find jobs. 
And we'll work on those. And tax relief or tax reform, however you want 
to describe it, is part of, in my judgment, of creating economic 
vitality.
    But there are other things we can work on. Obviously, I'd like to 
see some of my judges get a good--a fair hearing and get approved. And 
Medicare, prescription drugs is a very important issue, needs to get 
done. Terrorism insurance is an important issue. Energy bill is an 
important issue. I mean, there's a lot of things we can do and should do 
when they come back. And I can't remember the litany of things. Listen, 
there's going to be a huge laundry list of things people want to get 
done, and my job is to set priorities and get them done. And job 
creation and economic security--job creation and economic security, as 
well as homeland security, are the two most important priorities we 
face.
    Q. Social Security and any new restrictions----
    The President. No, I think the Social Security debate is an 
incredibly important debate. And we call them personal savings accounts, 
John, so that people have the option, at their choice, to manage their 
own money. That would be younger workers. Obviously, we've got to assure 
older workers that the promises we have made will be kept.
    And the danger, really, is for young workers. That's the threat, as 
to whether Social Security will be around for young workers without some 
massive tax increase. And I still strongly believe that the best way to 
achieve security in Social Security for younger workers is to give them 
the option of managing their own money through a personal savings 
account. Yes, it's an important issue as well.

[[Page 2003]]

    Listen, there's a lot of important issues. The budget is an 
important issue. The budget is an important issue coming out of the 
lameduck session. And the budget, as you know--you're an old hand around 
here--is always an important issue in the next session. So that's always 
an issue, too. There are some practical matters as well that will occupy 
time here in Washington, DC.
    Roberts. John Roberts [CBS News], that is.

Securities and Exchange Commission/Economic Team

    Q. I'm wondering, sir, is Harvey Pitt, the Chairman of the SEC, just 
the first member of your economic team to go? And a separate question: 
Will you ask William Webster to resign?
    The President. Well, let's see, let me start with Pitt. Harvey Pitt 
did some very good things at the SEC, and it's important for the 
American people to know that. Right after 9/11, he did a lot to get the 
markets opened. He really was--played a major role in that and received 
good credit for that. And I want to thank Harvey Pitt for that, and the 
American people should as well.
    He has done a lot to make it clear to corporate Americans that think 
they can--don't have to be responsible in their positions--a lot of 
enforcement, more so than ever in the history; he's enforced the 
corporate responsibility ethos. He has disbarred more people; more money 
has been disgorged as a result of illegal activity. And that's positive, 
what Harvey has done as well.
    And under his watch, CEOs now must verify their returns, and that's 
good. All that's positive. He made the decision himself that he thought 
that he couldn't be as effective as he needed to be. I received his 
letter. I appreciate his service.
    William Webster, the--there's a IG investigation going on there at 
the SEC. We'll see what that says. But I will tell you, William Webster 
is a fine man. He is a decent, honorable public servant who has served 
our country well.
    Q. ----with respect to----
    The President. Is this a three-part question?
    Q. No. I'm just kind of reiterating the first. He is just the first 
member of your economic team to go? The implication is--do you have----
    The President. Listen, my economic team came in during very 
difficult times. There was a recession; there was a terrorist attack; 
there were corporate scandals. We have done a lot to return confidence 
and to provide a--provide stimulus through tax cuts. My economic team 
developed a tax cut package, sold the tax cut package, is implementing 
the tax cut package. And for that, they deserve a lot of credit. They 
made good--we're making good progress on the economy. There's still work 
to do. And I appreciate the hard work of the economic team.
    Campbell [Campbell Brown, NBC News].

2002 Elections

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You were very gracious earlier, giving 
credit in this last election to the individual candidates. But a lot of 
those candidates say they have you to thank. Given the fact that your 
own election for President was so close it had to be decided by the 
Supreme Court, do you now feel personally reassured that these midterm 
elections validated your Presidency?
    The President. Thank you for that loaded question. [Laughter] Look, 
sometimes you win them, and sometimes you lose elections. That's just 
the way it is. And I was pleased with the results. I was more 
particularly pleased for the candidates who worked so hard, and their 
families and their workers. That's how I feel about it. I really don't 
put this in personal terms.
    I know people in Washington like to do that. You know, ``George Bush 
won.'' ``George Bush lost.'' That's the way they do it here, zero sum, 
in Washington. And I know that. But if you're really interested in what 
I think, I think the fact that Norm Coleman ran a very difficult race in 
difficult circumstances and won speaks volumes about Norm Coleman. The 
fact that John Thune ran a difficult race against difficult 
circumstances and at this point is still short, nevertheless, speaks 
volumes about his desire and his intention to serve the country.
    There's case after case of people who have put their reputations on 
the line, who spent

[[Page 2004]]

a lot of time away from their homes and their families, shaking a lot of 
hands and putting their hearts and souls--in both parties. They deserve 
the credit. Thank you for trying to give it to me, but they deserve the 
credit.
    I know what it's like to run for office. I know the strains it puts 
on families. I know the tired--the endless hours you spend campaigning 
and all the wonderful questions you have to answer as part of a 
campaign. I know all that, and these candidates deserve all the credit.
    And I was proud to help some of them the best I could. But the way 
you win a race is, you convince the people of your State or your 
district that they can trust your judgment and they can trust your 
character and they can trust your values. And it takes a lot of work to 
do that, and these candidates get the credit. And I--I appreciate you 
pointing out that some people have given me credit. The credit belongs 
to people in the field.
    Yes, sir, Wendell [Wendell Goler, Fox News].

Iraqi Compliance With U.N. Resolution

    Q. Mr. President, thank you very much. You have put a lot of effort 
toward getting the United Nations to rally the world to disarm Saddam 
Hussein. And yet you and your aides have expressed a great deal of 
skepticism about whether Saddam Hussein will actually comply. Can you 
give us an idea, sir, how long you think it might take for the world to 
know whether Saddam Hussein actually intends to go along with the call 
of the world to disarm? Will it be a matter of days or weeks, months, or 
perhaps a year, sir?
    The President. Well, Wendell, this much we know: It's so far taken 
him 11 years and 16 resolutions to do nothing. And so we've got some 
kind of history as to the man's behavior. We know he likes to try to 
deceive and deny, and that's why this inspection regime has got to be 
new and tough and different. The status quo is unacceptable, you know, 
kind of send a few people in there and hope maybe he's nice to them and 
open up the baby milk factory--it's unacceptable.
    And so that's why you'll see us with a different inspection regime, 
one that works to see to it that Saddam Hussein disarms. It's his 
responsibility to disarm. I don't put timetables on anything. But for 
the sake of peace--sooner, better.
    And we'll see. But you must know that I am serious--so are a lot of 
other countries--serious about holding the man to account. I was serious 
about holding the U.N. to account. And when they pass this resolution, 
which I hope they do tomorrow, it shows that the U.N. is beginning to 
assume its responsibilities to make sure that 11 years of defiance does 
not go unanswered. It's very important that the U.N. be a successful 
international body because the threats that we face now require more 
cooperation than ever. And we're still cooperating with a lot of 
nations. We're still sharing intelligence and cutting off money the best 
we can. And there's still law enforcement efforts taking place all 
around the world.
    And that's why the international--this international body called the 
U.N. is an important body for keeping the peace. And it's very important 
that they're effective. And we'll see tomorrow--starting tomorrow.
    And then the key on the resolution, I want to remind you, is that 
there are serious consequences. And that's one of the key elements to 
make sure that everybody gets the picture that we are serious about a 
process of disarming him in the name of peace. Hopefully, he'll choose 
to do so himself.
    Sammons, Super Stretch [Bill Sammon, Washington Times].
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. [Laughter]
    The President. You and I are eye-to-eye. Well, actually--[laughter]

2004 Election

    Q. Now that the 2004 Presidential campaign has unofficially begun, 
can you tell us whether Vice President Cheney will be your running mate 
again? Or will you, instead, choose someone who might harbor greater 
Presidential ambitions to, perhaps, succeed you one day?
    The President. Well, first of all, I'm still recovering from the '02 
elections. [Laughter] And we got plenty of time to deal with this issue. 
But should I decide to run, Vice President Cheney will be my running 
mate. He's done an excellent job. I appreciate his advice. I appreciate 
his counsel. I appreciate his

[[Page 2005]]

friendship. He is a superb Vice President, and there's no reason for me 
to change.
    I also want to thank him for all his hard work during the campaign. 
He was out there toiling along, working hard and turning out the vote, 
and I want to thank him for the hours he put out there as well.
    Please, yes.
    Q. If I may follow? Last time you had----
    The President. Thank you for not standing up. You block the cameras. 
[Laughter]
    Q. Last time you had to kind of convince him to take the job. Have 
you talked to him this time, whether he is interested in serving another 
term?
    The President. I'm confident that he will serve another term.
    Judy [Judy Keen, USA Today].

United Nations Resolution on Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You said this afternoon that the U.N. 
Security Council vote tomorrow would bring the civilized world together 
against Iraq. But broad opposition remains all over the world to your 
policy. Will you continue to try to build support? If so, how will you 
do that? Or do you think that a Security Council vote would be all the 
mandate you need?
    The President. First of all, broad opposition around the world not 
in support of my policy on Iraq?
    Q. Yes, sir.
    The President. Well, I think most people around the world realize 
that Saddam Hussein is a threat. And they--no one likes war, but they 
also don't like the idea of Saddam Hussein having a nuclear weapon. 
Imagine what would happen. And by the way, we don't know how close he is 
to a nuclear weapon right now. We know he wants one. But we don't know. 
We know he was close to one at one point in time. We have no idea today. 
Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Imagine how the Israeli 
citizens would feel. Imagine how the citizens in Saudi Arabia would 
feel. Imagine how the world would change, how he could alter diplomacy 
by the very presence of a nuclear weapon.
    And so a lot of people--serious people around the world are 
beginning to think about that consideration. I think about it a lot. I 
think about it particularly in the regard of making the world a more 
peaceful place.
    And so it's very important for people to realize the consequences of 
us not taking the case to the U.N. Security Council. People need to 
think about what would happen if the United States had remained silent 
on this issue and just hoped for a change of his attitude or maybe hoped 
that he would not invade somebody again or just hoped that he wouldn't 
use gas on his own people when pressure at home began to mount.
    I'm not willing to take those kind of risks. People understand that. 
I think a lot of people are saying, you know, ``Gosh, we hope we don't 
have war.'' I feel the same way. I hope we don't have war. I hope this 
can be done peacefully. It's up to Saddam Hussein, however, to make that 
choice.
    I also want to remind you that, should we have to use troops, should 
it become a necessity in order to disarm him, the United States, with 
friends, will move swiftly with force to do the job. You don't have to 
worry about that. We will do--we will do--we will do what it takes 
militarily to succeed.
    I also want to say something else to people of Iraq, that the 
generals in Iraq must understand clearly there will be consequences for 
their behavior. Should they choose, if force is necessary, to behave in 
a way that endangers the lives of their own citizens, as well as 
citizens in the neighborhood, there will be a consequence. They will be 
held to account.
    And as to the Iraqi people, what I said before--the Iraqi people can 
have a better life than the one they have now. They can have a--there 
are other alternatives to somebody who is willing to rape and mutilate 
and murder in order to stay in power. There's just a better life than 
the one they have to live now.
    I think the people of the world understand that too, Judy. I don't 
take--I don't take--I don't spend a lot of time taking polls around the 
world to tell me what I think is the right way to act. I've just got to 
know how I feel. I feel strongly about freedom. I feel strongly about 
liberty. And I feel strongly about the obligation to make the world a 
more peaceful place. And I take those responsibilities really seriously.

[[Page 2006]]

    Elisabeth [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times].

President's Leadership

    Q. Thank you, sir. You just said you've reached out to Democrats. 
Does this mean that you will be governing more from the center and 
taking fewer cues from the conservative arm of your party?
    The President. I don't take cues from anybody. I just do what I 
think is right. That's just the way I lead. And what's right is to work 
to stimulate the economy. I strongly believe the tax relief was the 
right thing to do. If people are really interested in job creation, they 
ought to join me in my call to make the tax cuts permanent. It's an 
important part of sending a signal that there is certainty in the Tax 
Code, that all the benefits from tax relief don't go away after 10 
years.
    As I like to say--you might have heard me once or 10 times or 100 
times--the Senate giveth, and the Senate taketh away. That means there's 
uncertainty when that happens. And you've got to have certainty in a 
system that requires risk. And making the tax cuts permanent is an 
essential part. I mean--and so that is a commonsense drive to create 
jobs.
    I will just tell people what I think about how to solve the problems 
we face. And I ran on a political philosophy; I'm not changing my 
political philosophy. I am who I am prior--the same guy after the 
election that I was prior to the election. That's just who I am and how 
I intend to lead this country.
    Jean Cummings [Wall Street Journal]. I'm having such a good time. 
[Laughter] Jean Cummings--there she is, yes.

Securities and Exchange Commission

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the question of Harvey 
Pitt.
    The President. Pitt, yes.
    Q. What kind of person are you looking for to fill that position 
now? And how quickly do you want to move on that? And then also, as much 
as you said that Mr. Webster is a well-respected and quality person, do 
you think that the Chairman, whoever that new Chairman is, should have a 
chance to select their own person and have a fresh start?
    The President. Well, I think--that's kind of the double-whammy 
hypothetical there, Jean. I think that the--on Webster, first, let's 
find out what the facts are so that everybody knows. That's why they're 
doing this investigation. And it's--one fact is irrefutable: He's a 
decent man; he's served the country well. And I know he can do that job.
    Secondly, as soon as possible, for the SEC nominee and somebody who 
is going to continue to fulfill the obligation that--of holding people 
to account. In other words, holding wrongdoers to account and making 
sure the numbers are fair and open and transparent and everybody 
understands the facts when it comes to--to accounting, so that we 
continue to regain confidence in our system; that people, when they 
invest based upon the numbers of a particular stock, are confident in 
that which they read. And that's an essential part of the SEC job, and 
I'm confident we can find somebody soon to be able to do that.
    Hutch [Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder].

Consequences of Action/Inaction in Iraq

    Q. Thank you. I wanted to go back to your earlier point about the 
risk of an action versus the risk of inaction.
    The President. Where would that be, in the Congress or at the U.N.?
    Q. With Iraq.
    The President. Oh, okay.
    Q. Your CIA Director told Congress just last month that it appears 
that Saddam Hussein ``now appears to be drawing a line short of 
conducting terrorist attacks against the United States.'' But if we 
attacked him he would ``probably become much less constrained.'' Is he 
wrong about that?
    The President. No. I think that--I think that if you would read the 
full--I'm sure he said other sentences. Let me just put it to you: I 
know George Tenet well; I meet with him every single day; he sees Saddam 
Hussein as a threat. I don't know what the context of that quote is. I'm 
telling you, the guy knows what I know, that he is a problem and we must 
deal with him.
    And you know, it's like people say, ``Oh, we must leave Saddam 
alone. Otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.'' 
Well, if we don't do something, he

[[Page 2007]]

might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The 
man is a threat, Hutch, I'm telling you. He's a threat not only with 
what he has; he's a threat with what he's done. He's a threat because he 
is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech, I reminded the 
American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al-Qaida-
type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave 
not one fingerprint. That is a threat. And we're going to deal with it.
    The debate about whether we're going to deal with Saddam Hussein is 
over. And now the question is, how do we deal with him? I made the 
decision to go to the United Nations because I want to try to do this 
peacefully. I want Saddam to disarm. The best way to convince him to 
disarm is to get the nations to come together through the U.N. and try 
to convince him to disarm.
    We're going to work on that. We've been spending a lot of time--I 
wouldn't exactly call it gnashing of teeth, but working hard on the U.N. 
resolution. It took a while, but we've been grinding it out, trying to 
bring a consensus, trying to get people together, so that we can say to 
the world the international community has spoken through the Security 
Council of the United Nations, and now, once again, we expect Saddam to 
disarm.
    This would be the 17th time that we expect Saddam to disarm. This 
time we mean it. See, that's the difference--I guess. This time it's for 
real. And I say it must not have been for real the last 16 times because 
nothing happened when he didn't. This time something happens. He knows--
he's got to understand that. The members of the U.N. Security Council 
understand that. Saddam has got to understand it so he--so in the name 
of peace, for a peaceful resolution of this, we hope he disarms.
    Jackson [David Jackson, Dallas Morning News], from Texas. You got 
anything--a Texas question?

Judicial Confirmation Process

    Q. As a matter of fact, I do. [Laughter]
    The President. Thank you.
    Q. Do you intend to resuscitate the nomination of Priscilla Owen and 
Charles Pickering? And also, how bloody do you think the next Supreme 
Court nomination will be?
    The President. Well, first, I want the new chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee to understand that I am very serious about the 
reforms that I suggested in the East Room, about how to get this process 
of nominating judges and approving judges on the right course, not only 
for this administration but future administrations, not only for this 
Senate but future Senates. And so step one on the judiciary process, I 
believe there needs to be reform. I would be glad to reprise the reforms 
if you can't remember them.
    Q. Owen and Pickering, are they going to----
    The President. I'll be there in a minute. [Laughter] I'm using this 
as an opportunity to make a point on judicial reform. And that is that 
if a judge thinks he's going to retire, give us a year's notice, if 
possible. And then we will act--``we,'' the administrative branch, will 
nominate somebody and clear them within 180 days. And then the Senate 
judiciary has got 90 days to go through the process and then get the 
person's name to the floor and 180 days for an up-or-down vote. To me, 
that would be a needed and necessary reform.
    So step one on the nomination process is to work with Senator 
Hatch--and Senator Leahy--to put these reforms in place, is to convince 
Members of the Senate we're serious about a process that will get rid of 
the old bitterness of the judicial process.
    This is probably not to your liking, by the way. You love those 
court fights. I'm confident it makes great covering and great stories.
    I also said at the time of Priscilla Owen's being--not being put to 
the floor of the Senate that I would hope that the Judiciary Committee 
would let her name out to the Senate floor at some point in time. We 
don't have to recommit them. They never--they're there. Pickering and 
Owen are still there at the committee level. They just weren't ever--
their names were never let to the floor for a vote.
    By the way, if they had been let to the floor for a vote, we believe 
they would have won the vote--perhaps the reason why they

[[Page 2008]]

were never let to the floor for a vote. But--so, I hope that judiciary 
committee will let their names out and they get a fair hearing.
    I thought you were going to talk about the Texas elections. But 
that's okay. [Laughter]
    April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks], last question.
    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.

Ryan Tyler James

    The President. How's your child, April?
    Q. She's wonderful.
    The President. Georgia W? [Laughter]
    Q. My husband is watching, and the name is Ryan Tyler James. 
[Laughter].
    The President. You might as well turn to the camera when you say 
that. [Laughter]

Haitian Immigrants/Immigration Policy

    Q. Well, Mr. President, some critics contend there is a racial 
disparity in how immigrants are handled here, and speaking of the 
Haitians versus immigrants, the other immigrants. Do you support the 
current law on the books about Haiti, and why, either way?
    The President. April, first of all, the immigration laws ought to be 
the same for Haitians and everybody else, except for Cubans. And the 
difference, of course, is that we don't send people back to Cuba because 
they're going to be persecuted. And that's why we've got the special law 
on the books as regards to Cubans. But Haitians and everybody else ought 
to be treated the same way. And we're in the process of making sure that 
happens.
    It's been an enjoyable experience.

Note: The President's news conference began at 2 p.m. in Presidential 
Hall in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building. In his 
remarks, he referred to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; President 
Jacques Chirac of France; President Vladimir Putin of Russia; President 
Jiang Zemin of China; William Webster, Director, Security Review 
Commission; Norm Coleman, Senator-elect from Minnesota; and 
Representative John R. Thune, defeated senatorial candidate from South 
Dakota. The President also referred to Texas Supreme Court Justice 
Priscilla Owen and Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr., whose nominations to 
be U.S. Circuit Judges for the Fifth Circuit failed when the Senate 
Judiciary Committee refused to send them forward for a vote by the 
Senate.