[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 42, Number 27 (Monday, July 10, 2006)]
[Pages 1278-1291]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference in Chicago

July 7, 2006

    The President. Please be seated. Thank you. It's nice to be here in 
Chicago. Mr. Mayor, I thought you might have had enough of me last 
night. [Laughter] Thanks for the birthday party. I really enjoyed our 
dinner and enjoyed our conversation. Jesse, thanks for being here as 
well. It's awfully kind of you to come.
    I do want to thank the trustees of this beautiful museum for opening 
up your facility for a press conference. I hope it doesn't ruin the 
atmosphere of the museum. I will try to make sure it doesn't. I'm 
looking forward to a tour of this museum after the press conference.
    I'm sure you're wondering why I would have a press conference in 
Chicago. It's a fabulous city, plus I'd like to see what it's like to 
have a major press conference outside of Washington. It might do me some 
good. The truth of the matter is, it might do the White House press 
corps some good as well. So I welcome the Chicago reporters here. Thank 
you for coming.
    I had a fine dinner last night at the Chicago Firehouse and a good 
breakfast today at Lou Mitchell's. It's really interesting sites here in 
Chicago, and it's a lot of fun going to them. And I want to thank the 
gracious hospitality of the restauranteurs and the people of Chicago 
for--by welcoming me.
    I had some conversations with some of the business leaders last 
night and for breakfast, and there's kind of an interesting sense of 
optimism here in this part of the world, and the statistics bear that 
out. In the Chicago area, businesses have added over more than 74,000 
new jobs over the past 2 years. And that's positive; it's a good sign. 
The unemployment rate in this area is 4.3 percent--that's below the 
national average. People are working. People are able to find jobs. 
Illinois created more jobs than any other State in the month of April. 
So the entrepreneurial spirit is strong here.
    One of the things I detected from the business leaders, that there's 
a sense of optimism which encourages people to invest. And when you 
invest, you create the conditions for job growth. Major companies have 
announced plans to add even more jobs.
    This morning we got some good news--the Nation added 121,000 new 
jobs for the month of June. That's over 5.4 million jobs since August of 
2003; that's 34 months of job increases. In the first quarter, our 
economy grew at 5.6 percent. Productivity is high. People are better 
off. Things are working. And so the fundamental question we face in 
Washington is, how do we keep economic vitality alive? What do we do? 
What are the policies necessary to keep this growth strong?
    And one policy is to keep taxes low. If you raise taxes, you take 
money out of the pockets of small businesses and entrepreneurs, which 
makes it harder to increase employment. One of the reasons I'm here at 
this museum is because one way to make sure we continue

[[Page 1279]]

to grow our economy is to have a workforce that's capable of filling the 
jobs of the 21st century.
    One of the subjects the mayor and I talked about last night was the 
No Child Left Behind Act and what the city of Chicago is doing to hold 
people to account and have high standards and to offer different choices 
to parents here in Chicago, through charter schools, for example. The 
mayor said something interesting--he said, ``Reading scores are up.'' 
That's a good sign. It means people are measuring, and teachers are 
teaching. And when you have the basics--the basic foundation for good 
education laid, then you can focus on math and science.
    So the truth of the matter is, we have to make sure our kids have 
got the math and science skills to fill the jobs of the 21st century. We 
live in a global economy in an interconnected world, and if we can't 
provide the employees for the jobs of the 21st century, they're going to 
go somewhere else. So education is crucial to make sure we're a 
competitive and vibrant nation.
    Job training is really important. The Labor Department, working with 
the local folks here, have set up one-stop centers in Chicago to help 
connect workers with employers. You've got a good community college 
system here. Community colleges are really important to make sure that 
workers are given the skills to fill the jobs which actually exist. And 
the Lake Land Community College system is a strong program. There's 
Federal help, and there's State help, and there's local involvement, all 
aimed at making sure people have got the capacity to have the--to fill 
the jobs. I mean, you have got a growing economy like this; there's 
concern by employers whether or not they're going to be able to find 
people to do the work. And education is the gateway to make sure that we 
remain a competitive economy.
    I also believe strongly that we've got to open up markets to goods 
produced here in Illinois, goods and services. In other words, one way 
to make sure this economy of ours grows is to reject protectionism and 
be confident in our capacity to trade. I'm getting ready to go to the G-
8, and one of the topics there is going to be the Doha round of the WTO, 
which basically--the commitment is that a world that trades freely is a 
world in which people are going to be able to find work here at home, 
and it means we have better capacity to be able to help lift nations out 
of poverty.
    We talked last night about immigration. I found it interesting that 
the people that were there with the mayor and me, employers and chamber 
of commerce-type people, put immigration as one of the issues they want 
to talk about. I told them this; I said, ``First of all, I'll always 
remember that immigrants have helped shape the character of this 
Nation.'' We are a land of immigrants. I also reminded them that the 
system we got today isn't working, and it needs to be changed and 
reformed.
    We're a nation of law, and we can be a compassionate nation when it 
comes to immigration, and the two don't conflict. So I've talked about a 
comprehensive immigration plan. Look, people in this country expect us 
to secure the border, and we will. And the way you do that is, you add 
more manpower and you put new technologies on the border to keep people 
from sneaking across.
    But in order to enforce this border, we've got to have a rational 
way that recognizes there are people sneaking across to do work 
Americans aren't doing. They're doing jobs Americans are not filling. 
And my attitude is this: When you find a willing worker and a willing 
employer, there ought to be a legal way to let somebody come here to 
work on a temporary basis. It takes pressure off the border. When you 
got people sneaking across to do work, it puts pressure on the border. 
If somebody can come in on a legal way, it's going to make it easier for 
our Border Patrol agents to do their job.
    Secondly, one of the serious issues we have, and one of the issues 
that the--some of the leaders brought up yesterday was--the guy said, 
``We really shouldn't be in a position to be document verifiers.'' And 
when you make something illegal that people want, it's amazing what 
happens--kind of a whole industry of smugglers and innkeepers and 
document forgers that sprung up. And so people show up and say, ``I want 
to work.'' The guy says, ``Show me your document,'' and they don't know 
whether it's real or not.

[[Page 1280]]

And we got a Basic Pilot program to help people verify whether documents 
are real.
    But one way to do it is, if you have a temporary-worker program, 
say, here's a tamper-proof card that will enable our employers to be 
able to verify whether someone is here legally to do work on a temporary 
basis and enable the Government to hold people to account for hiring 
illegal workers. See, it's against the law to hire somebody who is here 
illegally, and the American people expect us to enforce the law, and we 
will. But the system needs to be reformed.
    I told the workers last night that there are about 11 million people 
here, more or less, who have been here for awhile, that are building 
families, and they're good workers. And they said, ``What are you going 
to do about it?'' And I said, well, there's two extremes on this issue. 
One extreme is, kick them out, deport everybody. That's not going to 
work. It may sound like a kind of an interesting sound bite, kind of a 
nice throwaway line, but it's not going to work. It's impractical.
    The other option is to say, well, you're an automatic citizen. 
That's called amnesty. That won't work. And the reason that won't work 
is, if you grant 8 or 9 million people who are here illegally automatic 
citizenship, it means another 8 or 9 million coming.
    The best way to deal with this problem, in my judgment, is to say, 
look, you're here illegally; there's got to be a consequence. The 
consequence could be a penalty, a fine. It could be proof that you're 
not a criminal. In other words, there's got to be ways to say--make 
restitution for society for breaking the law; but say to the person, you 
can get in the citizenship line, but at the back of the line, not at the 
beginning. See, there are people in line who want to become a citizen of 
the United States. It doesn't make sense to penalize those who are here 
legally, playing by the rules, to let people who have been here 
illegally get ahead of them.
    This is a comprehensive plan. Look, the House has passed a bill; the 
Senate has passed a bill. And we're working in Washington to reconcile 
the differences. It's hard work. It's not an easy assignment. But I'm 
confident if we all keep working on it, we can get a comprehensive bill 
done, which will be good for the country and send the message that we're 
a land of different folks from different religions and different 
backgrounds, all united under the great American ideal.
    I spend a lot of time worrying about the war on terror. I think 
about it every single day. My biggest job, frankly, is to protect the 
American people. And this is a dangerous world, and there are people out 
there lurking who are trying to figure out ways to hurt us. I know some 
dismiss that as empty rhetoric; I'm just telling you, it's the truth. 
And therefore, we're doing a lot of stuff in Washington. We're reforming 
our intelligence services to be able to react better. The FBI is now 
focusing on counterterrorist activities. The CIA is developing more 
human intelligence, which will make it easier to be able to do our duty.
    We're also on the offense against the terrorists. We'll keep the 
pressure on them. We'll bring them to justice before they hurt our 
people.
    The central front in the war on terror is Iraq. And I know Iraq is 
on the minds of a lot of people here in Chicago. It's hard work. It's 
hard work because we face an enemy that will kill innocent people in 
order to achieve an objective, and their objective is to drive us out of 
Iraq so they can have safe haven from which to launch attacks against 
modern Muslim nations, so they can spread their ideology of hate. They 
want us to--they believe capitalist societies and democracies are 
inherently weak. They do not believe that we've got the capacity to do 
the hard work necessary to help the Iraqis succeed.
    And they're mistaken; they're just wrong. Success in Iraq is vital 
for the security of the United States, and success in Iraq is vital for 
long-term peace. And so therefore, we'll complete the mission.
    And we've got good partners. Zal Khalilzad came in the other day, 
who is our Ambassador to Iraq. And he, like me, has confidence in Prime 
Minister Maliki. He's a guy who can set goals and follow through on 
those goals. He understands what needs to be done in order to succeed. 
And he represents the will of 12 million people who went to the polls. 
That's a pretty interesting

[[Page 1281]]

sign that the Iraqi people want to live in freedom.
    There's been a lot of sacrifice in the war on terror. People have 
lost life. We've lost, obviously, a lot of lives here on the homeland, 
and we've lost lives overseas. I think of Corporal Ryan Cummings, from 
right here in the Chicago area. He was an honor student at Hoffman 
Estates High School. He volunteered for the United States Marine Corps. 
He served two tours of duty in Iraq, and then he volunteered for a 
third. Ryan understood the stakes. He understood that we must win. And 
so he said, ``I'd like to go back.'' And he was killed in Anbar Province 
last month.
    Our prayers go out to Ryan's family. I marvel at the strength of his 
mother, when she said, ``He wanted to be doing something that made a 
difference; he was doing what he wanted to do.''
    I have confidence in the capacity of liberty to transform hostile 
regions to peaceful regions. And I have confidence in our capacity to 
win the war on terror because of people like Ryan Cummings are willing 
to step up and serve this Nation.
    There's a lot of issues that I'm sure we'll be talking about today--
North Korea and Iran, hopefully the Middle East, maybe some local issues 
here in Chicago. It's my honor to be here. Thank you for coming. And now 
I'll start answering some questions, starting with one of the senior 
members of the press corps--are you over 60?

North Korea/Missile Testing

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. You look like you're about 65. Anyway, go ahead. 
[Laughter]
    Q. Harsh. Mr. President, Japan has dropped the threat of sanctions 
from its proposed Security Council resolution about North Korea. Why was 
that necessary? And how do you punish or penalize a country that's 
already among the poorest and most isolated in the world?
    The President. I think that the purpose of the U.N. Security Council 
resolution is to send a clear message to the leader of North Korea that 
the world condemns that which he did. Part of our strategy, as you know, 
has been to have others at the table, is to say as clearly as possible 
to the North Korean, ``Get rid of your weapons, and there's a better way 
forward.'' In other words, there's a choice for him to make. He can 
verifiably get rid of his weapons programs and stop testing rockets, and 
there's a way forward for him to help his people.
    I believe it's best to make that choice clear to him with more than 
one voice, and that's why we have the six-party talks. And now that he 
has defied China and Japan and South Korea and Russia and the United 
States--all of us said, don't fire that rocket. He not only fired one; 
he fired seven. Now that he made that defiance, it's best for all of us 
to go to the U.N. Security Council and say loud and clear, here are some 
red lines. And that's what we're in the process of doing.
    The problem with diplomacy, it takes a while to get something done. 
If you're acting alone, you can move quickly. When you're rallying world 
opinion and trying to come up with the right language at the United 
Nations to send a clear signal, it takes a while.
    And so yesterday I was on the phone with--I think I mentioned this 
to the press conference yesterday--to Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin; the 
day before to President Roh and Prime Minister Koizumi. And Condi, by 
the way, was making the same calls out there to her counterparts, all 
aiming at saying, ``It's your choice, Kim Jong Il; you've got the choice 
to make.''
    So we'll see what happens at the U.N. Security Council. I talked to 
Condi this morning first thing, in anticipation of this question, and 
she feels good about the progress that can be made there.

North Korea/Six-Party Negotiations

    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Well, what matters most of all is for Kim Jong Il to 
see the world speak with one voice. That's the purpose, really.
    Here's the problem, it seems like to me, that there have been 
agreements with North Korea in the past. There's the '94 agreement. I 
think you were around here then, Sanger [David Sanger, New York Times]. 
And then it turns out he didn't live up to the agreement. He said--in 
September of '05, there

[[Page 1282]]

was a joint declaration that talked about lasting peace, and we all 
signed on to a document that said we'll denuclearize the Korean 
Peninsula. That's a noble and important goal. This was signed by the 
five of us plus North Korea. He had also talked about the rocket 
moratorium. He assured Koizumi in '04, Prime Minister Koizumi, that he 
would adhere to that. And you just got to wonder whether the man's word 
means anything. And one way to make sure it does mean something is for 
nations other than the United States to say the same thing, to speak 
loud and clear. And that's what you're seeing evolve.
    Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea

    Q. Thank you, sir. Some experts say North Korea may be launching 
missiles to attract more concessions. Are you prepared to offer any more 
concessions beyond that already offered in the six-party format? And 
have you ruled out the possible military option in responding to them?
    The President. As you know, we want to solve all problems 
diplomatically. That's our first choice.
    What was the first part of your question? This is what happens when 
you're 60----
    Q. ----are they trying to exchange--[inaudible].
    The President. Look, I don't know what the man's intentions are. I 
don't know what they are. It's an interesting question: Is he trying to 
force us to do something by defying the world? If he wants a way 
forward, it's clear. If he wants to have good relations with the world, 
he's got to verifiably get rid of his weapons programs like he agreed to 
do in 1994, stop testing missiles, and there is a way forward. Part of 
the discussions in September were, here's a way forward. Here's a way 
for--he's worried about energy, and our partners at the table said, 
well, here's an energy proposal for you to consider. And so the choice 
is his to make.
    And I made it very clear to our partners that it seems like to me, 
that the message ought to be one that said, you shouldn't be rewarded 
for violating that which you've said you're going to do and kind of 
ignoring what the world has said. And it's just--whether it be the 
Iranian issue or the North Korean issue, there is a way forward for 
these leaders that will lead to a better life for their people and 
acceptance into the international community. And one of the things we've 
done in the United States is to work with the coalition to send that 
message. It's a clear message. He knows what his options are.
    Kelly [Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News]. A couple--then we'll start 
working the local thing. Warm up.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

    Q. Hello, Mr. President.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. I'd like to ask you to speak on the broad implications of that 
recent Supreme Court case--not the specifics of the case. But the 
Justices said that you overreached your authority, and your critics have 
been saying that too. Given your support and respect for the Court, are 
you willing to rethink how you use your Presidential authority?
    The President. I am willing to abide by the ruling of the Supreme 
Court. And the Supreme Court said that in this particular case, when it 
comes to dealing with illegal combatants who were picked up off a 
battlefield and put in Guantanamo for the sake of our security, that we 
should work with the United States Congress to develop a way forward. 
They didn't say we couldn't have done--made that decision, see. They 
were silent on whether or not Guantanamo--whether or not we should have 
used Guantanamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantanamo, 
the decision I made. What they did say was, in terms of going forward, 
what should the court system look like? How can we use a military 
commission or tribunal?
    And we'll work with the United States Congress. They have said, work 
with the Congress. I have been waiting for this decision in order to 
figure out how to go forward. I want to move forward. First of all, I 
stand by the decision I made in removing these people from the 
battlefield. See, here's the problem: These are the types of combatants 
we have never faced before. They don't wear uniforms, and they don't 
represent a nation-state. They're bound by an ideology. They've sworn 
allegiance to individuals but not to a nation. The Geneva Conventions 
were set up

[[Page 1283]]

to deal with armies of nation-states. You've got standard rules of war.
    So this is new ground. This is different than any President has been 
through before, in terms of how to deal with these kind of people that 
you're picking up off a battlefield and trying to protect the American 
people from.
    So we have about 600 or so there, and 200 have been sent back home. 
We'd like to send more back to their countries of origin. Some need to 
be tried, and the fundamental question is, how do we try them? And so in 
working with the Supreme--in listening to the Supreme Court, we'll work 
with Congress to achieve that objective.
    And so your question is slightly loaded, which is okay; I'm used to 
it. But the idea of making the decision about creating Guantanamo in the 
first place was upheld by the courts. Or let's say, the courts were 
silent on it.
    Let's see--Jessica [Jessica Yellin, ABC News]. Go ahead and yell it 
out.
    Q. Yell it out. Alright, sir.
    The President. Or don't yell it out.

North Korea/Missile Defense System

    Q. It's been three days since North Korea fired those missiles. 
Yesterday you said you did not know the trajectory of the long-range 
missile. Can you now tell us, where was it headed? And if it were 
headed--if it had been headed at the United States, how would our 
national ballistic missile system have taken it down?
    The President. I still can't give you any better answer than 
yesterday. I can embellish yesterday's answer. It may sound better. No, 
I, really, I haven't talked to the Secretary of Defense about that.
    Our missile systems are modest--our antiballistic missile systems 
are modest. They're new. It's new research. We've gotten--testing them. 
And so I can't--it's hard for me to give you a probability of success. 
But, nevertheless, the fact that a nontransparent society would be 
willing to tee up a rocket and fire it without identifying where it's 
going or what was on it, means we need a ballistic missile system.
    So that's about all I can tell you on that. Yes. Obviously, it 
wasn't a satisfactory answer.
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Yes, I think we had a reasonable chance of shooting 
it down. At least that's what the military commanders told me.
    Rick. Let's get a little local here, Ricky. Do you consider yourself 
local or national? Hybrid? Are you a hybrid?

CIA Employee Identity Leak Investigation

    Q. It seems trendy----
    The President. Yes, very trendy. You're kind of a trendy guy. Got 
the gray shirt.
    Q. Thank you very much. Mr. President, the work of U.S. Attorney 
Patrick Fitzgerald in prosecuting alleged corruption is well-known here 
in Chicago as well as nationally. It's my understanding that 
technically, he hasn't been reappointed to his position and serves at 
your pleasure. Do you have any plans to formally reappoint him to the 
post, or any other position at Department of Justice?
    The President. As a special prosecutor?
    Q. And would you give us your assessment of the job that he's doing?
    The President. I don't have any plans to reappoint him because I 
haven't thought about it. I will now think about it, now that you 
brought it up.
    The only--I can give you an assessment of how I thought he handled 
the case in Washington. I haven't been following the cases here. I 
thought in Washington, he handled the case with professionalism; he was 
very professional about it. You didn't see a lot of leaks; you didn't 
see a lot of speculation; you didn't see a lot of people, kind of, 
dropping a little crumb here for the press to chew on. And I really 
thought he handled himself well.
    But as far as reappointing him as a special prosecutor, I don't know 
whether the Attorney General is going to do that or not. That's his 
choice to make.
    Chris. Or, Paul. Paul.

Energy/Alternative Fuel Sources

    Q. Mr. President, gas prices are high, as you know. Oil is at 75 a 
barrel. There is a

[[Page 1284]]

poll that suggests that three in four Americans are not content with 
your leadership on the issue, and that the State of the Union pitch for 
alternative fuel technology has fallen flat and is not moving. Why not 
call for an emergency energy summit and lift the issue to a higher 
priority?
    The President. Well, I thought addressing the issue at the State of 
the Union was pretty much lifting it to a high priority. When you 
include it in the State of the Union, it means it's a top priority, and 
it is.
    It took us a while to get in a position where we're reliant upon 
sources of energy from outside our boundaries, and it's going to take us 
a while to become less dependent. It just takes a while; things just 
don't happen instantly. I told the people, if I could lower gasoline 
prices with a snap of the fingers, I'd do it. And I've been talking 
about energy independence since I first got elected. And we've made some 
progress. We made progress by encouraging the spread of ethanol. And I 
think if you were to look at the facts, that ethanol has gone from low 
market penetration to pretty significant market penetration in selected 
parts of the country, relatively speaking, particularly in the Midwest.
    There is more work to be done. There is a lot of ethanol plants 
being built as we speak, and there's incentives in Government law to do 
that. We've effected CAFE standards when it comes to light trucks, which 
will help consumers make a rational decision. We put incentives for 
people to buy hybrid vehicles in law. If you go out and buy a hybrid 
vehicle, you get a tax credit.
    I happen to believe it's essential for us to promote nuclear power 
as a way to make us less dependent on natural gas from overseas, for 
example. Also, this will help us be wise stewards of our environment. 
We're spending a lot of money on technologies--battery technologies, for 
example--that would enable Chicago residents to drive the first 40 miles 
on electricity before one would have to use gasoline.
    And so we do have a full-blown strategy to make this country less 
dependent on foreign sources of oil, to help relieve pressure at the gas 
pump. When the demand for crude oil in China rises, it affects the 
global price of crude oil, which affects your price of gasoline. And 
therefore, the strategy has got to be to diversify away from crude oil.
    One of the issues that we're trying to get done here is that if 
you--if people are genuinely concerned about the price of gasoline, they 
ought to be supporting my initiative to encourage the construction of 
additional refinery capacity. Certainly, it's not the long-term 
solution, but it's an important solution for the short run. If you have 
constrained gasoline supplies and demand remains high, you're going to 
have higher prices of gasoline. We haven't built a new refinery in this 
country since the early 1970s. And so the truth of the matter is, I 
would hope people would contact their Members of Congress to insist that 
they support a--the bill that we ran up to the Hill, which would have 
made it much easier to permit and construct refineries.
    So we have a comprehensive plan. This is a serious issue. I 
understand people are paying high gasoline prices here--it's like a tax. 
I understand it's like a tax. And we got a strategy to deal with it.
    Anna. We're going to work our way down the row here. The Daily 
Herald, is that one of Pearson's competitors? It is?

Free Trade

    Q. Well, we compete with everyone. My question is focusing, too, 
also, on technology. There's been a lot of mergers with companies in the 
technology industry, and one of the more recent ones was Lucent 
Technologies with Alcatel, which is French-owned. How do you feel about 
a lot of the foreign-owned companies buying out U.S. tech companies, 
especially those that have military contracts?
    The President. We have laws that prevent sensitive technologies from 
being transferred as a result of sale and/or merger. And we watch that 
very carefully.
    On the broader scale, I have no problem with foreign capital buying 
U.S. companies; nor do I have a problem with U.S. companies buying 
foreign companies. That's what free trade is all about. As a matter of 
fact, there are workers working here in Illinois because of foreign 
investment. A foreign company takes a look at Illinois; they like the 
tax structure; they like the governance; they like the workforce; and 
they invest. And when they invest, they create jobs.

[[Page 1285]]

    A lot of the jobs in America exist as a result of foreign companies 
investing here in our country. So I believe in opening markets. I do 
believe in protecting secrets, but we've got laws on the books to 
prevent secrets from being transferred or vital technology from being 
transferred. But I believe in free flows of capital, and I believe in 
free trade. And that's not a given in the United States. There are 
people who say, ``Well, we can't compete with China; let's throw up 
roadblocks; let's protect ourselves,'' or, ``We don't want foreigners 
coming to invest in our country.'' I think that would be a mistake. I 
think that's the early signs of protectionist sentiments, which would 
mean our economy wouldn't grow.
    In my State of the Union--the very same State of the Union that I 
addressed the energy problem--I talked about trends that are worrisome. 
One trend would be protectionism, and its corollary would be 
isolationism. An isolationist world basically says, ``Don't worry about 
what happens overseas; we'll just worry about what happens here at home. 
Don't worry about HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa, not our problem. 
Don't worry about Darfur; it's not our problem. Don't worry about the 
fact that there's tyrannies in the Middle East; that's not our 
problem.''
    The truth of the matter is, all of these issues are our problem, and 
if we became isolationist, we would not do our duty to protect the 
American people and, kind of, lay the foundations for a better world.
    People say, well, you know, China is too tough to compete with; 
let's just throw up tariffs. I completely disagree. I think competition 
is good and healthy. I think it's important to have a competitive world. 
It means that people are constantly producing a better product and a 
better service at a better price, which is good for consumers.
    Yes, sir.

2006 Elections

    Q. An aide to Judy Topinka was quoted as saying that given your low 
approval ratings in the polls, they prefer you to come here in the 
middle of the night.
    The President. Didn't work. I'm coming at lunch. [Laughter]
    Q. I'm wondering if you're offended by those remarks, and whether or 
not you think your presence may actually harm Republican candidates when 
you come out to campaign for them.
    The President. I'm not offended. First of all, I think--am I 
offended that you read the person's remarks to me? No, I'm not offended 
that you were reading that at all, nor am I offended at what the person 
said. The first I've heard it was just then. And I'm coming to lunch. I 
think it's going to be a pretty successful fundraiser. And I--we will 
hold the House and the Senate. And I've spent a lot of time on the road. 
I like campaigning, and I'm proud she invited me. And--yes.
    Q. [Inaudible]--approval ratings, do you think that--[inaudible].
    The President. That's up to the candidates to decide. I was invited; 
I gladly came. And I think we're going to have a pretty successful 
fundraiser for her.
    Here's how you win elections. You win elections by believing 
something. You win elections by having a plan to protect the American 
people from terrorist attack. You win elections by having a philosophy 
that has actually produced results--with economic growth, for example--
or kind of changing the school systems for the better or providing 
prescription drug coverage for elders. That's how you win elections. And 
I'm looking forward to these elections. I think you'll be surprised. Or 
maybe you won't be surprised. You're probably a sophisticated political 
analyst; you know what's going on.

Iraq/North Korea

    Q. Mr. President, a lot of people here in Chicago tell us that they 
see an incongruity in your foreign policy. We're involved in a shooting 
war in Iraq; yet we have a leader in North Korea who has announced his 
affection for nuclear weapons and no hesitation to use them against the 
United States. Is your policy consistent between the way you have dealt 
with Iraq, the way you have dealt with North Korea? And if so, are we 
headed toward a military action in North Korea? And if so, can this 
Nation sustain military action on three fronts--Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
North Korea?

[[Page 1286]]

    The President. I have always said that it's important for an 
American President to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before the use of 
force. Committing our troops into harm's way is a difficult decision. 
It's the toughest decision a President will ever make. And I fully 
understand the consequences of doing so.
    All diplomatic options were exhausted, as far as I was concerned, 
with Saddam Hussein. Remember that the U.N. Security Council resolution 
that we passed when I was the President was 1 of 16, I think--16, 17? 
Give me a hand here. More than 15. [Laughter] Resolution after 
resolution after resolution saying the same thing, and he ignored them. 
And we tried diplomacy. We went to the U.N. Security Council--15-to-
nothing vote that said, ``Disarm, disclose, or face serious 
consequences.''
    I happen to believe that when you say something, you better mean it. 
And so when we signed on to that resolution that said, disclose, disarm, 
or face serious consequences, I meant what we said. That's one way you 
keep the peace: You speak clearly, and you mean what you say.
    And so the choice was Saddam Hussein's choice. He could have not 
fooled the inspectors. He could have welcomed the world in. He could 
have told us what was going on. But he didn't, and so we moved.
    And we're in the diplomatic process now with North Korea; that's 
what you're seeing happening. Remember--remember, we put a coalition 
together at the United Nations that said, ``Disclose, disarm, or face 
serious consequences.'' It was 15 to nothing. It wasn't a U.S., 1 to 14. 
It was 15 to nothing; other nations stood up and said the same thing we 
said.
    So we're now working the diplomacy, and you're watching the 
diplomacy work, not only in North Korea but in Iran. It's kind of 
painful, in a way, for some to watch because it takes a while to get 
people on the same page. Everybody--not everybody thinks the exact same 
way we think. There are different--words mean different things to 
different people, and the diplomatic processes can be slow and 
cumbersome. That's why this is probably the fourth day in a row I've 
been asked about North Korea--it's slow and cumbersome. Things just 
don't happen overnight.
    But what you're watching is a diplomatic response to a person who, 
since 1994, has said they're--not going to have a weapon.
    Q. Do you believe the United States [inaudible]----
    The President. I don't accept that hypothetical question. You're 
asking me a hypothetical. What I believe is, we can solve the problem 
diplomatically.
    Let's see here--Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News].

Upcoming G-8 Summit/Iran

    Q. Mr. President, if the EU does not receive a definitive answer 
from Iran on the incentives package by next week, do you foresee the G-8 
summit as being a springboard to bring that issue to the U.N. Security 
Council? And what do you say to Americans who are frustrated by the 
familiar roadblocks, it seems, of China and Russia on harsh sanctions?
    The President. I said I wasn't going to answer a hypothetical; now 
you're trying to get me to answer a hypothetical. The G-8 will be an 
opportunity for those of us involved with this issue to make it clear to 
the Iranians that they--we're firm in our resolve for them not to have a 
nuclear weapon.
    I talked to President Putin about North Korea; I also talked to him 
about Iran. I believe he understands the dangers of the Iranians having 
a nuclear weapon.
    Some nations are more comfortable with sanctions than other nations, 
and part of the issue we face in some of these countries is that they've 
got economic interests. And part of our objective is to make sure that 
national security interests, security of the world interests, trump 
economic interests. And sometimes that takes a while to get people 
focused in the right direction.
    You know, the first step of a diplomatic solution is for there to be 
a common goal agreed upon by those of us participating in the process. 
The goal in North Korea is a nuclear weapons-free peninsula--not just in 
North Korea but North and South Korea. And that's an important goal. 
It's important for the neighborhood to have embraced that goal.

[[Page 1287]]

    The goal for Iran is for them to have a--verifiably get rid of their 
weapons program. The first step, however, is to--for their verifiable 
suspension. And by the way, if they will verifiably do which they said 
they would do in Paris, we will come back to the table. That's what 
we've said we will do.
    And whether or not they--what their posture is, we're finding out as 
a result of the conversations of Mr. Solana of the EU and Mr. Larijani. 
I do appreciate Javier Solana's work on this issue. I saw him when I was 
in Austria, and I thanked him for doing a good job.
    Yes. I'm trying to kind of tamp the follow-ups down a little bit 
here.
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. Do I have a sense of urgency? I have a--I'm realistic 
about how things move in the world. Sanger will tell you; he's been 
covering North Korea since the mid '90s--these problems don't arise in a 
nanosecond. It takes a while for a problem to fester and grow, and then 
it takes a while to solve them diplomatically. That's just the nature of 
diplomacy. I wish we could solve them overnight. But I'm a realistic--
one thing I'm not going to let us do is get caught in the trap of 
sitting at the table alone with the North Korean, for example. In my 
judgment, if you want to solve a problem diplomatically, you need 
partners to do so.
    And a good partner to have at the table with us is China. They're in 
the neighborhood, got some influence in the neighborhood. Another good 
partner to have at the table is South Korea. They've got a lot at stake 
of what happens in North Korea, so it's important to have them at the 
table as well. My concern--I've said this publicly a lot--my concern 
about being--handling this issue bilaterally is that you run out of 
options very quickly. And sometimes it's easier for the leader of the 
nontransparent society to turn the tables and make a country like the 
United States the problem, as opposed to themselves.
    The problem in North Korea and the problem in Iran is, their leaders 
have made choices. And what we're saying is, ``There's a better avenue 
for you. Here's a different route; here's a different way forward for 
your people.''
    I said yesterday--and I truly mean this--I am deeply concerned about 
the plight of the folks who live in North Korea. I'm concerned about 
starvation and deprivation. I'm concerned that little children are being 
denied enough food so they can develop a mental capacity to be citizens 
of this world. I'm concerned about concentration camps. There is a 
better way for the people of North Korea, and their leader can make 
better choices if he truly cares about their plight. And we have made 
clear what that choice is.
    Suzanne [Suzanne Malveaux, CNN].

North Korea

    Q. Mr. President, if I could follow up, you say diplomacy takes 
time----
    The President. Yes, it does.
    Q. ----but it was 4 years ago that you labeled North Korea a member 
of the ``axis of evil.'' And since then, it's increased its nuclear 
arsenal; it's abandoned six-party talks; and now these missile 
launches----
    The President. Let me ask you a question. It's increased it's--
that's an interesting statement: ``North Korea has increased its nuclear 
arsenal.'' Can you verify that?
    Q. Well, intelligence sources say--if you can--if you'd like to 
dispute that, that's fine.
    The President. No, I'm not going to dispute; I'm just curious.
    Q. Our intelligence sources say that it's increased the number--its 
nuclear capability----
    The President.  Let me put it this way: The guy is dangerous--
dangerous. He's got potential danger.
    Q. It's increased its nuclear capabilities. It's abandoned six-party 
talks, and it's launched these missiles.
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Why shouldn't Americans see the U.S. policy regarding North Korea 
as a failed one?
    The President. Because it takes time to get things done.
    Q. What objectives has the U.S. Government achieved when it comes to 
North Korea? And why does the administration continue to go back to the 
same platform process if it's not effective in changing North Korea's 
behavior? Thank you.
    The President. Suzanne, these problems didn't arise overnight, and 
they don't get

[[Page 1288]]

solved overnight. It takes a while. Again, I think if you look at the 
history of the North Korean weapons program, it started probably in the 
'80s. We don't know--maybe you know more than I do about increasing the 
number of nuclear weapons. My view is, we ought to treat North Korea as 
a danger, take them seriously. No question that he has signed agreements 
and didn't stick by them. But that was done during--when we had 
bilateral negotiations with him, and it's done during the six-party 
talks.
    You've asked what we've done. We've created a framework that will be 
successful. I don't--my judgment is, you can't be successful if the 
United States is sitting at the table alone with North Korea. You run 
out of options very quickly if that's the case. In order to be 
successful diplomatically, it's best to have other partners at the 
table. You ask what we've done. We got the six-party talks started. And 
that's a positive development. It's a way to solve this problem 
diplomatically.
    Bill.

Usama bin Laden

    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. I just thought for a minute you might have known more 
than I do about--when you say, definitively say, he's increased the 
number of weapons. I don't think we know that.
    Q. Maybe you know, but you're not telling.
    The President. That's an option. [Laughter]
    Q. Mr. President, you said some time ago that----
    The President. Maybe I don't know and don't want to tell you I don't 
know. Anyway [laughter]----
    Q. You said some time ago that you wanted Usama bin Laden dead or 
alive. You later regretted the formulation, but maybe not the thought.
    The President. I regretted the formulation because my wife got on me 
for talking that way.
    Q. We suspected as much, sir. [Laughter] But the question I have is, 
it appears that the CIA has disbanded the unit that was hunting him 
down. Is it no longer important to track him down?
    The President. It's just an incorrect story. I mean,we got a lot of 
assets looking for Usama bin Laden. So whatever you want to read in that 
story, it's just not true, period.
    Q. You're still after him?
    The President. Absolutely. No ands, ifs, or buts. And in my 
judgment, it's just a matter of time, unless we stop looking. And we're 
not going to stop looking so long as I'm the President--not only for 
Usama bin Laden but anybody else who plots and plans attacks against the 
United States of America. We're going to stay on the offense so long as 
I'm your President. And my judgment is, if we let up the pressure on 
them, the world is more dangerous. In the short run, we will bring these 
people to justice. We will use good intelligence. We will share 
information with our allies. We will work with friends. We'll bring 
people to justice. In the long run, the way you defeat this enemy is to 
spread liberty, and that's what you're seeing unfold.
    Yes, sir. You are?

Mayor Daley of Chicago

    Q. Carlos.
    The President. Who are you working for, Carlos?
    Q. CLTV, the Tribune TV station in town.
    The President. CLTV.
    Q. I work with Pearson, so----
    The President. You do?
    Q. Well, thank you, Mr. President. Last summer, when you were here 
to sign the transportation bill in Denny Hastert's district, you 
described Mayor Daley as ``a great mayor.'' If you've read the morning 
papers, you'll find that Patrick Fitzgerald has secured the conviction 
of one of the mayor's top--former top officials for rigging city jobs to 
benefit the mayor's political workers. Does that change your assessment 
of Mayor Daley's tenure?
    The President. I still think he's a great mayor. This is a well-run 
city, and he gets a lot of credit for it. He doesn't get sole credit, 
but he gets a lot of credit. He's a leader. The thing I like about Daley 
is he--when he tells you something, he means it. Like, he told me, he 
said, we're going to whomp you in the 2000 election. He meant it. 
[Laughter] He's a--yes, I'm proud to call

[[Page 1289]]

him friend. I'm proud to have shared my 60th birthday with your mayor.
    Yes, sir. Yes, Mark.

Progress in Iraq/U.S. Armed Forces

    Q. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. President, three Illinois National Guard 
units left this week for Iraq. At a time when there's discussion about 
withdraw or drawdown of troops, what are the families of these Illinois 
National Guardsmen to expect?
    The President. They expect that their loved one will be 
participating in a noble and important cause. If I didn't think it was 
important, I wouldn't have put out the orders to have people go there. 
And if I didn't think we could win, I wouldn't be there. That's what 
they can expect. They can expect tough work, tough sledding, and they 
can expect a grateful Commander in Chief and a grateful nation for their 
sacrifices.
    In terms of troop levels, those decisions will be made by General 
Casey. There's a debate in Washington as to whether or not we set an 
artificial timetable for withdrawal. That's what it's about in 
Washington, DC. And the answer is, absolutely not. You can't win a war 
if you have an artificial timetable for withdrawal. You can't have 
people making troop decisions based upon political considerations. It 
just won't work. It's unfair to those families that we're sending--of 
the kids we're sending over, and it's unfair to the troops.
    Artificial timetable for withdrawal sends the wrong message to the 
Iraqis; they're seeing it's not worth it. There's a lot of Iraqis over 
there determined--trying to make up their mind whether they want to be a 
part of democracy or whether or not they're going to take to the hills 
and see what happens. Artificial timetable for withdrawal, kind of early 
withdrawal before this finishes, sends the message to the enemy, we were 
right about America. That's what they say. Al Qaida has said it's just a 
matter of time before America withdraws. They're weak; they're corrupt; 
they can't stand it; and they'll withdraw. And all that would do is 
confirm what the enemy thinks.
    And getting out before we finish the job would send a terrible 
message to the troops who've sacrificed. We'll win. We'll achieve our 
objective, which is a free country that can govern itself, defend 
itself, and sustain itself, and will be an ally in the war on terror. 
And we're making progress toward that goal.
    The problem is that the enemy gets to define success better than we 
do. See, they'll kill innocent people like that; they don't care. Life 
is not precious to them. And they're willing to kill women and children 
in order to achieve a tactical objective. And it gets on our TV screens. 
And people mourn the loss of life. This is a compassionate nation that 
cares about people, and when they see people die on their TV screens, it 
sends a signal: Well, maybe we're not winning.
    We occasionally are able to pop in with great success, like Zarqawi 
or 12 million people voting. But increasing electricity in Baghdad is 
not the kind of thing that tends to get on the news, or small-business 
formation is not the kind of thing to get--or new schools or new 
hospitals, the infrastructure being rebuilt that had been torn apart. 
And I'm not being critical. I'm just giving you a fact of something I 
have to deal with in order to make it clear to the American people that 
the sacrifice of those families is worth it. We are winning. And a free 
Iraq is an essential part of changing the conditions which causes the 
terrorists to be able to recruit killers in the first place.
    For a long period of time, our foreign policy was just, kind of, 
excuse tyranny and hope for the best. It didn't work. The world may have 
seemed placid, it may have seemed calm, but beneath the surface was 
resentment and hatred, out of which came an attack that killed 3,000 of 
our citizens.
    And so I am committed to the spread of liberty. It's, after all, how 
we were founded. And there's a debate here in the United States that 
says, well, maybe it's too much for the United States to insist others 
live in a free world. Maybe that's just too unilateral. I view that as 
cultural elitism for people who say that. It's like saying, we're okay 
to be free, but you're not.
    I believe freedom is universal, and I believe etched in the soul of 
every person on the face of the Earth is the desire to be free. And I 
know that freedom has got the capacity to change regions of the world 
for the better.

[[Page 1290]]

    Our press corps is bored with this story, but I'm going to tell it 
anyway--the Koizumi story. [Laughter] That's what you get when you get 
familiar with people--they can anticipate your remarks.

    I hope you thought it was interesting that Prime Minister Koizumi 
and I went to Graceland. It was really a lot of fun, wasn't it? It's an 
interesting part of the development of our relationship, from one in 
which Japan was the enemy of the United States and today, the son of a 
person who fought the Japanese and the son of a person who resented the 
United States are close friends. We talk about keeping the peace. We 
talk about working together to change the world for the better: What do 
we do? How do we feed people who are hungry? How do we build roads in 
Afghanistan? What do we do?

    And so what happened? What happened was, is that Japan adopted a 
Japanese-style democracy after World War II, and the conditions of our 
relationship--the condition of the country changed; the attitude 
changed; and our relationship changed.

    The Far East was a pretty difficult place. I know we spend a lot of 
time talking about the Far East today because of North Korea, but if you 
really look at the development in the Far East, it's pretty remarkable, 
isn't it? South Korea has emerged into a vibrant capitalist society. 
Japan has still got a little hangover from their previous activities in 
the region, but nevertheless, is a thriving partner in peace. Taiwan is 
making progress. China has got opening markets. Their economy is 
growing. Their entrepreneurial class is strong. They need to--the 
political system needs to evolve. But nevertheless, the region is 
relatively peaceful except for one outpost; one system that's not open 
and transparent; one system that doesn't respond to the will of the 
people; one system that's dark, and that's North Korea.

    It took a while for that peaceful evolution to occur. And that's 
what's going to happen in the Middle East. It is. And it's hard work. 
And I want those parents to know that. These are historic times. We will 
lose if we leave too early. The stakes of success are vital, but a free 
Iraq is going to help inspire others to demand what I believe is a 
universal right of men and women.

    General Casey will make the decisions as to how many troops we have 
there. And that's important for the families to know. It's really 
important. General Casey is a wise and smart man who has spent a lot of 
time in Baghdad recently, obviously. And it's his judgment that I rely 
upon. He'll decide how best to achieve victory and the troop levels 
necessary to do so.

    I spent a lot of time talking to him about troop levels, and I told 
him this; I said: You decide, General. I want your judgment, your 
advice. I don't want these decisions being made by the political noise, 
by the political moment. It's just unfair to our troops, and it's unfair 
to their families. It's the reasoned judgment of our military commanders 
that the President must count on in order to achieve a victory that is 
necessary to help make this country more secure. And that's exactly how 
I'm going to make my decision.

    So if the people are listening, they need to know I'm proud of their 
families. The cause is noble and necessary. And the size of the troops 
that will be there will depend upon the sound judgment of our military 
commanders.

    Thank you for this press conference. I've enjoyed it. Appreciate it.

Note: The President's news conference began at 10 a.m. in the Museum of 
Science and Industry. In his remarks, he referred to Mayor Richard M. 
Daley of Chicago, IL; Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., of Illinois; Prime 
Minister Nuri al-Maliki and former President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; 
President Hu Jintao of China; President Vladimir Putin of Russia; 
President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi 
of Japan; Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District 
of Illinois and Department of Justice CIA leak investigation Special 
Prosecutor; Judy Baar Topinka, candidate for Governor of Illinois; 
Secretary General Javier Solana of the Council of the European Union; 
Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Secretary Council and 
President Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran; and Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., 
USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq.

[[Page 1291]]