Text 210, 867 rader
Skriven 2004-12-20 23:33:28 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0412203) for Mon, 2004 Dec 20
====================================================
===========================================================================
President Holds Press Conference
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 20, 2004

President Holds Press Conference
Room 450
Dwight DC Eisenhower Executive Office Building

President's Remarks
"); //--> view


10:32 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, and happy holidays to you all. I thought I'd
come and answer some of your questions. Before I do so, I've got a
statement I'd like to make.

We're nearing the end of a year where -- of substantial progress at home
and here -- and abroad. In 2004, the United States grew in prosperity,
enhanced our security and served the cause of freedom and peace. Our duties
continue in the new year; I'm optimistic about achieving results. America's
economy is on solid footing, growth is strong and the nation's
entrepreneurs have generated more than 2 million jobs in this year alone.

There's more we must do to keep this economy flexible, innovative and
competitive in the world. In a time of change we must reform systems that
were created to meet the needs of another era. Soon I will appoint a
citizens panel to recommend ways we can transform the outdated tax code.
I'll work with the new Congress to make health care more accessible and
affordable, to reform the legal system, to raise standards of achievement
in public schools -- especially our high schools -- and to fix the Social
Security system for our children and our grandchildren.

Early in the year, I will also submit a budget that fits the times. We will
provide every tool and resource for our military, we'll protect the
homeland and we'll meet other priorities of the government. My budget will
maintain strict discipline and the spending of tax dollars, and keep our
commitment to cutting the deficit in half over five years.

All of these goals require the energy and dedication of members of both
political parties. Working in a spirit of bipartisanship, we will build the
foundation of a stronger, more prosperous country. We'll meet our
obligations to future generations as we do so.

Our duties to future generations include a sustained effort to protect our
country against new dangers. Last week, I signed legislation that continues
the essential reorganization of our government by improving the nation's
intelligence operations. Because we acted, our vast intelligence enterprise
will be more unified, coordinated and effective than ever before. And the
American people will be more secure as a result.

Our country is also safer because of the historic changes that have come
around the world in places like Afghanistan. This year brought the first
presidential election in the 5,000 year history of that country. And the
government of President Hamid Karzai is a steadfast ally in the war on
terror. President Karzai and the Afghan people can be certain of America's
continued friendship and America's support as they build a secure and
hopeful democracy.

In Iraq, a people that endured decades of oppression are also preparing to
choose their own leaders. Next month, Iraqis will go to the polls and
express their will in free elections. Preparations are underway for an
energetic campaign, and the participation is wide and varied. More than 80
parties and coalitions have been formed, and more than 7,000 candidates
have registered for the elections. When Iraqis vote on January the 30th,
they will elect 275 members to a transitional national assembly, as well as
local legislatures throughout the country.

The new national assembly will be responsible for drafting a constitution
for a free Iraq. By next October, the constitution will be submitted to the
people for ratification. If it is approved, then, by December, the voters
of Iraq will elect a fully democratic constitutional government.

My point is, the elections in January are just the beginning of a process,
and it's important for the American people to understand that. As the Iraqi
people take these important steps on the path to democracy, the enemies of
freedom know exactly what is at stake. They know that a democratic Iraq
will be a decisive blow to their ambitions, because free people will never
choose to live in tyranny.

And so the terrorists will attempt to delay the elections, to intimidate
people in their country, to disrupt the democratic process in any way they
can. No one can predict every turn in the months ahead, and I certainly
don't expect the process to be trouble-free. Yet, I am confident of the
result, I'm confident the terrorists will fail, the elections will go
forward, and Iraq will be a democracy that reflects the values and
traditions of its people.

America and our coalition have a strategy in place to aid the rise of a
stable democracy in Iraq. To help the Iraqi government provide security
during the election period, we will increase U.S. troop strength. Coalition
forces will continue hunting the terrorists and the insurgents. We will
continue training Iraqi security forces so the Iraqi people can eventually
take responsibility for their own security.

We have a vital interest in the success of a free Iraq. You see, free
societies do not export terror. Free governments respect the aspirations of
their citizens and serve their hopes for a better life. Free nations are
peaceful nations. And free nations in the heart of the Middle East will
show what is possible to others who want to live in a free society.

In Iraq and elsewhere we've asked a great deal of the men and women of our
Armed Forces. Especially during this holiday season, those on duty far from
home will be in our thoughts and our prayers. Our people in uniform and our
military families are making many sacrifices for our country. They have the
gratitude of our whole country.

Now, I will be glad to answer some questions. Hunt.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. A month ago in Chile, you asked Vladimir Putin
to explain why he has taken actions widely seen as a move away from
democracy. What do you think Mr. Putin's intentions are, and do you think
that Russia's behavior has chilled relations with the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: As you know, Vladimir Putin and I have got a good personal
relationship, starting with our meeting in Slovenia. I intend to keep it
that way. It's important for Russia and the United States to have the kind
of relationship where if we disagree with decisions, we can do so in a
friendly and positive way.

When Vladimir made the decision, for example, on the -- whether to elect
governors or appoint governors, I issued a statement that said in a free
society, in a society based upon Western values, we believe in the proper
balance of power. I think he took that on and absorbed in the spirit in
which it was offered, the spirit of two people who've grown to appreciate
each other and respect each other. I'll continue to work with him in a new
term. Obviously, we have some disagreements. He probably has disagreements
over some of the decisions I've made. Clearly, one such decision was in
Iraq. But this is a vital and important relationship.

And it's a relationship where it's complicated -- it's complex, rather than
complicated. It's complex because we have joint efforts when it comes to
sharing intelligence to fight terrorism. We've got work to do to secure
nuclear materials. I look forward to working with the Russians to continue
to expand cooperation. I think one of the things we need to do is to give
the Russians equal access to our sites, our nuclear storage sites to see
what works and what doesn't work, to build confidence between our two
governments.

Obviously, there's a lot of trade that's taking place between Russia and
the West, and the United States. And that trade relationship is an
important relationship. I told Vladimir that we would work in a new term
for -- to see if Russia could then be admitted to the WTO. I think that
would be a positive step for relations between our two countries. And I'll
continue to express my belief that balanced government, the sharing of
power amongst government will lead to a -- will lead to stability in
Russia. And the relationship is an important relationship. And I would call
the relationship a good relationship.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Several Republican lawmakers recently have
criticized Secretary Rumsfeld. What does he need to do to rebuild their
trust?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, when I asked the Secretary to stay on as
Secretary of Defense, I was very pleased when he said "yes." And I asked
him to stay on because I understand the nature of the job of the Secretary
of Defense, and I believe he's doing a really fine job.

The Secretary of Defense is a complex job. It's complex in times of peace,
and it's complex even more so in times of war. And the Secretary has
managed this Department during two major battles in the war on terror --
Afghanistan and Iraq. And at the same time, he's working to transform our
military so it functions better, it's lighter, it's ready to strike on a
moment's notice. In other words, that the force structure meets the demands
we face in the 21st century.

Not only is he working to transform the nature of the forces, we're working
to transform where our forces are based. As you know, we have recently
worked with the South Korean government, for example, to replace manpower
with equipment, to keep the Peninsula secure and the Far East secure, but
at the same time, recognizing we have a different series of threats. And
he's done a fine job, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.

And I know the Secretary understands the Hill. He's been around in
Washington a long period of time and he will continue to reach out to
members of the Hill, explaining the decisions he's made. And I believe that
in a new term, members of the Senate and the House will recognize what a
good job he's doing.

Let's see here. Let's go to the TV personalities. (Laughter.) Let's start
with you, Cochran. David, prepare yourself.

Q Any lessons you have learned, sir, from the failed nomination of Bernard
Kerik? As you look forward now to pick a new Director of the Homeland
Security Department, and also as you pick a Director of National
Intelligence, any lessons learned in terms of vetting, and particularly
with the DNI? What sort of qualities are you going to be looking for in
that man or that woman that you choose?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, let me say that I was disappointed that the
nomination of Bernard Kerik didn't go forward. In retrospect, he made the
right decision to pull his name down. He made the decision. There was a --
when the process gets going, our counsel asks a lot of questions and a
prospective nominee listens to the questions and answers them and takes a
look at what we feel is necessary to be cleared before the FBI check and
before the hearings take place on the Hill.

And Bernard Kerik, after answering questions and thinking about the
questions, decided to pull his name down. I think he would have done a fine
job as the Secretary of Homeland Security, and I appreciate his service to
our country.

We've vetted a lot of people in this administration. We vetted people in
the first, we're vetting people in the second term, and I've got great
confidence in our vetting process. And so the lessons learned is, continue
to vet and ask good questions and get these candidates, the prospective
nominees, to understand what we expect a candidate will face during a
background check -- FBI background check, as well as congressional
hearings.

Now, in terms of the NDI -- DNI, I'm going to find someone that knows
something about intelligence, and capable and honest and ready to do the
job. And I will let you know at the appropriate time when I find such a
person.

Gregory.

Q Mr. President, thank you. A year ago we were in this room -- almost to
the day -- and you were heralding the capture of Saddam Hussein and
announcing the end of Baathists tyranny in Iraq. A year later, the chairman
of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate said, after returning from
Iraq, that -- talking about Iraqi troops -- the raw material is lacking in
the willpower and commitment after they receive military training. At the
same time here at home a higher percentage of Americans is less confident
of a successful conclusion in Iraq -- 48 percent less confident to 41
percent. What's going wrong?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first let me talk about the Iraqi troops. The ultimate
success in Iraq is for the Iraqis to secure their country. I recognize
that, the American people recognize that. That's the strategy. The strategy
is to work to provide security for a political process to go forward. The
strategy is to help rebuild Iraq. And the strategy is to train Iraqis so
they can fight off the thugs and the killers and the terrorists who want to
destroy the progress of a free society.

Now, I would call the results mixed, in terms of standing up Iraqi units
who are willing to fight. There have been some cases where when the heat
got on, they left the battlefield. That's unacceptable. Iraq will never
secure itself if they have troops that when the heat gets on, they leave
the battlefield. I fully understand that. On the other hand, there were
some really fine units in Fallujah, for example, in Najaf, that did their
duty. And so the -- our military trainers, our military leaders have
analyzed what worked and what didn't work. And I met with General Abizaid
and General Casey in the White House last week. And I think it was before
the -- yes, I think it was Thursday morning, if I'm not mistaken -- I was
going to say before the interminable press conference -- I mean press
party. Anyway. (Laughter.)

Here's what -- first of all, recruiting is strong. The place where the
generals told me that we need to do better is to make sure that there is a
command structure that connects the soldier to the strategy in a better
way, I guess is the best way to describe it. In other words, they've got
some generals in place and they've got foot soldiers in place, but the
whole command structure necessary to have a viable military is not in
place. And so they're going to spend a lot of time and effort on achieving
that objective. And so the American people are taking a look at Iraq and
wondering whether the Iraqis are eventually able -- going to be able to
fight off these bombers and killers. And our objective is to give them the
tools and the training necessary to do so.

Q What about that percentage, though, 48 percent to 41 percent? More
Americans losing confidence --

THE PRESIDENT: You know, polls change, Dave. Polls go up. Polls go down. I
can understand why people -- they're looking on your TV screen and seeing
indiscriminate bombing where thousands of innocent, or hundreds of innocent
Iraqis are getting killed, and they're saying whether or not we're able to
achieve the objective. What they don't see are the small businesses
starting; 15 of the 18 provinces are relatively stable, where progress is
being made; life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein. And so
there is -- there are very hopeful signs.

But no question about it, the bombers are having an effect. You know, these
people are targeting innocent Iraqis. They're trying to shake the will of
the Iraqi people, and frankly, trying to shake the will of the American
people. And car bombs that destroy young children or car bombs that
indiscriminately bomb in religious sites are effective propaganda tools.
But we must meet the objective, which is to help the Iraqis defend
themselves, and at the same time, have a political process to go forward.
It's in our long-term interests that we succeed, and I'm confident we will.

I saw an interesting comment today by somebody I think in the Karbala area
or Najaf area who said, look, what they're trying to do -- "they" being the
terrorists -- are trying to create sectarian violence. He said, they're not
going to intimidate us from voting; people want to vote; people want to
live in a free society. And our job in these tough times is to work and
complete our strategy.

Yes, John. And then John.

Q Mr. President, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: I had to work my way through all the mass medias.

Q You mentioned that meeting with General Abizaid and General Casey. One of
their complaints now, and a complaint we have heard dating back more than a
year ago, even to when combat was underway in Iraq, is what some called
meddling, interference from Syria and Iran, people coming across the
border, people going back across the border, sometimes money. Now, they say
meddling in the political process. What specifically is the problem now, in
your view? And there are some who watch this and see a series of complaints
from the administration, but they say, will there ever be consequences?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the -- yes, I spent some time talking to our generals
about whether or not there are former Saddam loyalists in Syria, for
example, funneling money to the insurgents. And my attitude is, if there's
any question that they're there, we ought to be working with the Syrian
government to prevent them from either sending money and/or support of any
kind. We have sent messages to the Syrians in the past, and we will
continue to do so. We have tools at our disposal, a variety of tools,
ranging from diplomatic tools to economic pressure. Nothing is taken off
the table. And when I said the other day that I expect these countries to
honor the political process in Iraq without meddling, I meant it. And,
hopefully, those governments heard what I said.

John.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You've made Social Security reform the top of
your domestic agenda for a second term. You've been talking extensively
about the benefits of private accounts. But by most estimations, private
accounts may leave something for young workers at the end, but wouldn't do
much to solve the overall financial problem with Social Security.

And I'm just wondering, as you're promoting these private accounts, why
aren't you talking about some of the tough measures that may have to be
taken to preserve the solvency of Social Security, such as increasing the
retirement age, cutting benefits, or means testing for Social Security?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that question. First of all, let me put
the Social Security issue in proper perspective. It is a very important
issue -- but it's not the only issue, very important issue we'll be dealing
with. I expect the Congress to bring forth meaningful tort reform. I want
the legal system reformed in such a way that we are competitive in the
world. I'll be talking about the budget, of course; there is a lot of
concern in the financial markets about our deficits, short-term and
long-term deficits. The long-term deficit, of course, is caused by some of
the entitlement programs, the unfunded liabilities inherent in our
entitlement programs. I will continue to push on an education agenda.
There's no doubt in my mind that the No Child Left Behind Act is
meaningful, real, reform that is having real results. And I look forward to
strengthening No Child Left Behind. Immigration reform is a very important
agenda item, as we move forward.

But Social Security, as well, is a big item. And I campaigned on it, as
you're painfully aware, since you had to suffer through many of my
speeches. I didn't duck the issue like others have done have in the past. I
said this is a vital issue and we need to work together to solve it. Now,
the temptation is going to be, by well-meaning people such as yourself,
John, and others here, as we run up to the issue to get me to negotiate
with myself in public; to say, you know, what's this mean, Mr. President,
what's that mean. I'm not going to do that. I don't get to write the law. I
will propose a solution at the appropriate time, but the law will be
written in the halls of Congress. And I will negotiate with them, with the
members of Congress, and they will want me to start playing my hand: Will
you accept this? Will you not accept that? Why don't you do this hard
thing? Why don't you do that? I fully recognize this is going to be a
decision that requires difficult choices, John. Inherent in your question
is, do I recognize that? You bet I do. Otherwise, it would have been.

And so I am -- I just want to try to condition you. I'm not doing a very
good job, because the other day in the Oval when the press pool came in I
was asked about this -- a series of question on -- a question on Social
Security with these different aspects to it. And I said, I'm not going to
negotiate with myself. And I will negotiate at the appropriate time with
the law writers. And so thank you for trying. The principles I laid out in
the course of the campaign, and the principles we laid out at the recent
economic summit are still the principles I believe in. And that is nothing
will change for those near our Social Security; payroll -- I believe you
were the one who asked me about the payroll tax, if I'm not mistaken --
will not go up.

And I know there's a big definition about what that means. Well, again, I
will repeat. Don't bother to ask me. Or you can ask me. I shouldn't -- I
can't tell you what to ask. It's not the holiday spirit. (Laughter.) It is
all part of trying to get me to set the parameters apart from the Congress,
which is not a good way to get substantive reform done.

As to personal accounts, it is, in my judgment, essential to make the
system viable in the out years to allow younger workers to earn an interest
rate more significant than that which is being earned with their own money
now inside the Social Security trust. But the first step in this process is
for members of Congress to realize we have a problem.

And so for a while, I think it's important for me to continue to work with
members of both parties to explain the problem. Because if people don't
think there's a problem, we can talk about this issue until we're blue in
the face, and nothing will get done. And there is a problem. There's a
problem because now it requires three workers per retiree to keep Social
Security promises. In 2040, it will require two workers per employee to
meet the promises. And when the system was set up and designed, I think it
was, like, 15 or more workers per employee. That is a problem. The system
goes into the red. In other words, there's more money going out than coming
in, in 2018. There is an unfunded liability of $11 trillion. And I
understand how this works. Many times, legislative bodies will not react
unless the crisis is apparent, crisis is upon them. I believe that crisis
is.

And so for a period of time, we're going to have to explain to members of
Congress that crisis is here. It's a lot less painful to act now than if we
wait.

Q Can I ask a follow up?

THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.) Otherwise, it will make everybody else
jealous, and I don't want that to happen.

Angle.

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, on that point, there is already a lot of
opposition to the idea of personal accounts, some of it fairly entrenched
among the Democrats. I wonder what your strategy is to try to convince them
to your view? And, specifically, they say that personal accounts would
destroy Social Security. You argue that it would help save the system. Can
you explain how?

THE PRESIDENT: I will try to explain how without negotiating with myself.
It's a very tricky way to get me to play my cards. I understand that. I
think what you -- people ought to do is to go look at the Moynihan
Commission report. The other day, in the discussions at the Economic
Summit, we discussed the role of a personal account. In other words, what
-- how a personal account would work. And that is, the people could set
aside a negotiated amount of their own money in an account that would be
managed by that person, but under serious guidelines. As I said, you can't
use the money to go to the lottery, or take it to the track. There would be
-- it's like the -- some of the guidelines that some of the thrift savings
plans right here in the federal government.

And the younger worker would gain a rate of return, which would be more
substantial than the rate of return of the money now being earned in the
Social Security trust. And over time, that rate of return would enable that
person to be -- have an account that would make up for the deficiencies in
the current system. In other words, the current system can't sustain that
which has been promised to the workers. That's what's important for people
to understand. And the higher rate of return on the negotiated amount of
money set aside would enable that worker to more likely get that which was
promised.

Now, the benefits, as far as I'm concerned, of the personal savings
account, is, one, it encourages an ownership society. One of the
philosophies of this government is if you own something, it is -- it makes
the country a better -- if more people own something, the country is better
off; you have a stake in the future of the country if you own something.
Secondly, it's capital available for -- when people save, it provides
capital for entrepreneurial growth and entrepreneurial expansion, which is
positive. In other words, it enhances savings. And, thirdly, it means that
people can take their own assets, their own retirement assets, and pass
them on, if they so choose, to their family members, for example. That's
positive. That's a step.

The Social Security system was designed in a, obviously, in an era that is
long gone, and it has worked in many ways. It's now in a precarious
position. And the question is whether or not our society has got the will
necessary to adjust from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution
plan. And I believe the will will be there. But I'm under no illusions.
It's going to take hard work. It's going to take hard work to convince a
lot of people -- some of whom would rather not deal with the issue. Why
deal with the issue unless there is a crisis? And some of whom have got
preconceived notions about the benefits of what may be possible.

Okay, let's get away from the media. Yes, Carl, thank you. I accused Carl
of trying to look like Johnny Damon. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, it's -- 140,000 Americans are spending this Christmas in
Iraq, as you know, some of them their second Christmas there. Now, you
outlined your vision for Iraq, both in your statement and in response to
David Gregory. My question is, how long do you think it will take that
vision to be realized and how long will those troops be there?

THE PRESIDENT: No, it's a very legitimate question, Carl, and I get asked
that by family members I meet with -- and people say, how long do you think
it will take. And my answer is -- you know, we would like to achieve our
objective as quickly as possible. It is our commander -- again -- I can --
the best people that reflect the answer to that question are people like
Abizaid and Casey, who are right there on the ground. And they are
optimistic and positive about the gains we're making.

Again, I repeat, we're under no illusions that this Iraqi force is not
ready to fight. They're -- in toto, there are units that are, and that they
believe they'll have a command structure stood up pretty quickly; that the
training is intense; that the recruitment is good; the equipping of troops
is taking place. So they're optimistic that as soon as possible it can be
achieved. But it's -- I'm also wise enough not to give you a specific
moment in time because, sure enough, if we don't achieve it, I'll spend the
next press conference I have with you answering why we didn't achieve this
specific moment.

Sanger.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You spent a good deal of time before the Iraq
war, some in this room, explaining to us why the combination of Saddam
Hussein as a dictator and the weapons that you thought at the time he had
assembled made a case for regime change. In the case of North Korea and
Iran, you have not declared yourself on the question of regime change,
though North Korea -- your intelligence agencies believe -- may have added
six or seven nuclear weapons in the past two years. And Iran seems to have
a covert program, or at least your government believes it does. Where do
you stand on regime change? And how would it be accomplished?

THE PRESIDENT: I'll tell you where I stand, David, I stand on the --
continuing the six-party talks with North Korea to convince Kim Jong-il to
give up his weapons systems. As you might remember, our countries tried a
strategy of bilateral relationships in hopes that we can convince Kim
Jong-il. It didn't work. As a matter of fact, when we thought we had, in
good faith agreed to an agreement -- I mean, agreed to a plan that would
work, he, himself, was enriching uranium, or saw to it that the uranium was
enriched. In other words, he broke the agreement.

I think it's an important lesson for this administration to learn, and that
the best way to convince him to disarm is to get others to weigh-in, as
well -- the Iranian situation, as well. We're relying upon others, because
we've sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran, to send a message
that we expect them to -- in other words, we don't have much leverage with
the Iranians right now, and we expect them to listen to those voices, and
we're a part of the universal acclaim.

I believe that -- and so, therefore, we're dealing -- this is how we're
dealing with the issue. And it's much different between the situation in
Iraq and Iran because of this. Diplomacy had failed for 13 years in Iraq.
As you might remember, and I'm sure you do, all the U.N. resolutions that
were passed out of the United Nations, totally ignored by Saddam Hussein.

And so diplomacy must be the first choice, and always the first choice of
an administration trying to solve an issue of, in this case, nuclear
armament. And we'll continue to press on diplomacy.

Now, in terms of my vision for the future of the world, I believe everybody
ought to be free. I believe the world is more peaceful as liberty takes
hold. Free societies don't fight each other. And so we'll work to continue
to send a message to reformers around the world that America stands strong
in our belief that freedom is universal, and that we hope at some point in
time, everybody is free.

Yes.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You talked earlier about the importance of
spending discipline in the federal budget, but you went your entire first
term without vetoing a single spending bill, even though you had a lot of
tough talk on that issue in your first term. And I'm wondering, this time
around, what are you going to do to convince Congress you really are
serious about cutting federal spending? Will you veto spending bills this
time?

THE PRESIDENT: Here's -- here's what happened. I submitted a budget and
Congress hit our number, which is a tribute to Senator Hastert and -- I
mean, Senator Frist and Speaker Hastert's leadership. In other words, we
worked together, we came up with a budget, like we're doing now, we went
through the process of asking our agencies, can you live with this, and, if
you don't like it, counter-propose.

And then we came up with a budget that we thought was necessary, and we
took it to the leadership and they accepted the budget. And they passed

bills that met our budget targets. And so how could you veto a series of
appropriations bills if the Congress has done what you've asked them to do?

Now, I think the President ought to have a line-item veto, because within
the appropriations bills, there may be some differences of opinion on how
the money is being spent. But overall, they have done a superb job of
working with the White House to meet the budget numbers we submitted, and
so the appropriations bill I just signed was one that conformed with the
budget agreement we had with the United States Congress. And I really do
appreciate the leadership, not only of Speaker Hastert and Senator Frist,
but also the budget committee chairman. I talked to Senator Gregg this
morning, as a matter of fact, who's running -- he'll be heading the budget
committee in the United States Senate.

And we're working very closely with members of Congress as we develop the
budget. And it's going to be a tough budget, no question about it, and it's
a budget that I think will send the right signal to the financial markets
and to those concerned about our short-term deficits. As well, we've got to
deal with the long-term deficit issues. That's the issue that John Roberts
talked about, which is the unfunded liabilities when it comes to some of
the entitlement programs.

Ed.

Q Good morning, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you on Social Security, you
said that you don't like to come to the table with -- having negotiated
with yourself. Yet, you have ruled out tax cuts and no cuts in benefits for
the retired and the near retired. I wonder how you square that statement.
And also, what do you -- in your mind, what is near retired?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, that's going to fall in the negotiating with
myself category. But, look, it was very important for me in the course of
the campaign, and it's going to very important for all of us who feel like
we have a problem that needs to be fixed, to assure Americans who are on
Social Security that nothing will change.

Part of the problem, politically, with this issue in the past, Ed, as you
know, is the minute you bring up Social Security reform, people go running
around the country saying -- really, what he says is he's going to take
away your check -- or that which you have become dependent upon will no
longer be available for you to live on. And so, therefore, part of setting
the stage, or laying the groundwork for there to be a successful reform
effort is assuring our seniors that they just don't have to worry about
anything. When they hear the debate that is taking place on the floor of
the Congress, they just need to know that the check they're getting won't
change; that promises will be met; that, you know, if there is to be an
increase in their check they'll get their check. In other words, the
formula that has enabled them to the -- to a certain extent -- the formula
they're relying on won't change, let me put it that way. I was trying to be
really brilliant.

Now, what was the other part of your question?

Q If I could just follow-up. Why --

THE PRESIDENT: Is this a follow-up or part of the question?

Q You asked, though. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, yes, you're right. (Laughter.)

Q Why did you choose to take on Social Security and not Medicare, which
some people believe is a worse problem?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that, Ed, but we did take on Medicare.
And it was the Medicare Reform Bill that really began to change Medicare as
we knew it. In other words, it introduced market forces for the first time;
it provided a prescription drug coverage for our seniors, which I believe
will be cost effective. I recognize some of the actuaries haven't come to
that conclusion yet. But the logic is irrefutable. It seems like to me,
that if the government is willing to pay $100,000 for heart surgery, but
not a dime for the prescription drug that would prevent the heart surgery
from happening in the first place, aren't we saving money when we provide
the money necessary to prevent the surgery from being needed in the first
place. I think we are. That's one of the differences of opinion that I had
with the actuaries.

I readily concede I'm out of my lane. I'm not pretending to be an actuary.
But I know that we made progress in modernizing the Medicare system, and
there's more work to be done. No question about it. But as you know, it's a
three-year phase-in on Medicare -- or two-year phase-in from now. And in
2006, the prescription drug coverage will become available for our seniors.
And I look forward to working with members of Congress to make sure the
Medicare system is solvent in the long run.

Let's have somebody new. Mike, you want to -- no, you're not new.
(Laughter.) That is a cheap shot. Go ahead -- that is generous.

Q Thank you. (Laughter.) Yes, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mike, welcome.

Q -- since early in your first term you've talked about immigration reform,
but, yet, people in your own party on the Hill seem opposed to this idea.
And you've gotten opposition even on the other side. Do you plan to expend
some of your political capital this time to see this through?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that -- well, first of all, welcome. I'd
like to welcome all the new faces -- some prettier than others, I might
add. (Laughter.) Yes, I intend to work with members of Congress to get
something done. I think this is a -- a issue that will make it easier for
us to enforce our borders. And I believe it's an issue that is -- that will
show the -- if when we get it right, the compassion, heart of American
people. And no question, it's a tough issue, just like some of the other
issues we're taking on. But my job is to confront tough issues and to ask
Congress to work together to confront tough issues.

Now let me talk about the immigration issue. First, we want our border
patrol agents chasing crooks and thieves and drug runners and terrorists,
not good-hearted people who are coming here to work. And therefore, it
makes sense to allow the good-hearted people who are coming here to do jobs
that Americans won't do a legal way to do so. And providing that legal
avenue, it takes the pressure off the border.

Now, we need to make sure the border is modern, and we need to upgrade our
border patrol. But if we expect the border patrol to be able to enforce a
long border, particularly in the south -- and the north, for that matter --
we ought to have a system that recognizes people are coming here to do jobs
that Americans will not do. And there ought to be a legal way for them to
do so. To me, that is -- and not only that, but once the person is here, if
he or she feels like he or she needs to go back to see her family, to the
country of origin, they should be able to do so within a prescribed -- in
other words, and the card, the permit would last for a prescribed period of
time. It's a compassionate way to treat people who come to our country. It
recognizes the reality of the world in which we live. There are some people
-- there are some jobs in America that Americans won't do and others are
willing to do.

Now, one of the important aspects of my vision is that this is not
automatic citizenship. The American people must understand that. That if
somebody who is here working wants to be a citizen, they can get in line
like those who have been here legally and have been working to become a
citizen in a legal manner.

And this is a very important issue, and it's a -- and I look forward to
working with members of Congress. I fully understand the politics of
immigration reform. I was the governor of Texas right there on the front
lines of border politics. I know what it means to have mothers and fathers
come to my state and across the border of my state to work. Family values
do not stop at the Rio Grande River, is what I used to tell the people of
my state. People are coming to put food on the table, they're doing jobs
Americans will not do.

And to me, it makes sense for us to recognize that reality, and to help
those who are needing to enforce our borders; legalize the process of
people doing jobs Americans won't do; take the pressure off of employers so
they're not having to rely upon false IDs; cut out the coyotes who are the
smugglers of these people, putting them in the back of tractor trailers in
the middle of August in Texas, allowing people to suffocate in the back of
the trucks; stop the process of people feeling like they've got to walk
miles across desert in Arizona and Texas in order just to feed their
family, and they find them dead out there. I mean, this is a system that
can be much better.

And I'm passionate on it because the nature of this country is one that is
good-hearted and compassionate. Our people are compassionate. The system we
have today is not a compassionate system. It's not working. And as a
result, the country is less secure than it could be with a rational system.

Yes, sir. Let us take it overseas, across the pond.

Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. I wonder whether I could ask you two
central questions about the war on terrorism. The first one is, do you have
a sense of where Osama bin Laden is, and why the trail on him seems to have
gone cold? And, secondly, how concerned are you by the reports of torture,
to use your word, the interminable delays to justice, for the detainees
held in Guantanamo, and how much that damages America's reputation as a
nation which stands for liberty and justice internationally?

THE PRESIDENT: Right, thank you. If I had to guess, I would guess that
Osama bin Laden is in a remote region on the Afghan-Pakistan border. But I
don't have to guess at the damage we have done to his organization. Many of
his senior operators have been killed or detained. Pakistan government has
been aggressive in pursuit of al Qaeda targets in Waziristan.

And I appreciate the work of President Musharraf. He came the other day, on
a Saturday morning to the White House and it was an opportunity to thank
him once again for some of the bold steps he's taken. And al Qaeda is
dangerous, no question about it, but we've got a good strategy, and it's a
strategy that requires cooperation with other nations, and the cooperation
has been great when it comes to sharing intelligence and cutting off
finances, and arresting people, or killing people. We'll stay on the hunt.

In terms of the second part of your -- oh, the damage. Look, we are a
nation of laws and to the extent that people say, well, America is no
longer a nation of laws -- that does hurt our reputation. But I think it's
an unfair criticism. As you might remember, our courts have made a ruling,
they looked at the jurisdiction, the right of people in Guantanamo to have
habeas review, and so we're now complying with the court's decisions. We
want to fully vet the court decision, because I believe I have the right to
set up military tribunals. And so the law is working to determine what
Presidential powers are available and what's not available. We're reviewing
the status of the people in Guantanamo on a regular basis. I think 200 and
some-odd have been released. But you've got to understand the dilemma we're
in, these are people that got scooped up off a battlefield, attempting to
kill U.S. troops. I want to make sure before they're released that they
don't come back to kill again.

I think it's important to let the world know that we fully understand our
obligations in a society that honors rule of law to do that. But I also
have an obligation to protect the American people, to make sure we
understand the nature of the people that we hold, whether or not there's
possible intelligence we can gather from them that we could then use to
protect us. So we'll continue to work the issue hard.

Let's see, here, yes, Hutch. Go head and yell it out, Hutch.

Q Going for another new face, huh?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.)

Q I'd like to go back to Secretary Rumsfeld --

THE PRESIDENT: It's not a pretty face. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. (Laughter.) You talked about the big picture elements of the
Secretary's job, but did you find it offensive that he didn't take the time
to personally sign condolence letters to the families of troops killed in
Iraq? And, if so, why is that an offense that you're willing to overlook?

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know how -- I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart. I
know how much he cares for the troops. He and his wife go out to Walter
Reed in Bethesda all the time to provide comfort and solace. I have seen
the anguish in his -- or heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes
when we talk about the danger in Iraq, and the fact that youngsters are
over there in harm's way. And he is -- he's a good, decent man. He's a
caring fellow. Sometimes perhaps is demeanor is rough and gruff, but
beneath that rough and gruff, no-nonsense demeanor is a good human being
who cares deeply about the military, and deeply about the grief that war
causes.

Deans.

Q Mr. President, I want to kick forward to the elections in Gaza in a few
weeks if I could, please. As you know, Presidents back to Carter have
searched for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Your dad
worked hard for it. Your predecessor said once it was like going to the
dentist without getting your gums numbed. I'm wondering what great --

THE PRESIDENT: Guy had a way with words. (Laughter.)

Q I'm wondering, sir, what lesson you draw, though, from their efforts, how
you think the war in Iraq may, at this point, have improved prospects for a
Mideast peace? And whether you think you might sit in that diplomatic
dental chair yourself this year?

THE PRESIDENT: I've been in the diplomatic dental chair for four years.
This is an issue we talk about a lot, but it became apparent to me that
peace would never happen so long as the -- the interlocutor in the peace
process was not really dedicated to peace, or dedicated to state.

I was at -- look, I gave the speech June 24, 2002, in the Rose Garden that
laid out the vision about how to achieve -- at least from my point of view,
how to achieve a peaceful solution, and something that I hope happens. But
I'm realistic about how to achieve peace. And it starts with, my
understanding, that there will never be peace until a true democratic state
emerges in the Palestinian territory. And I'm hopeful right now because the
Palestinians will begin to have elections, have -- will have elections,
which is the beginning of the process toward the development of a state. It
is not the sign that democracy has arrived. It is the beginning of a
process.

And we look forward to working with Israel to uphold her obligations to
enable a Palestinian state to emerge. But we've got a good chance to get it
done. And I just want the people -- and I know the world is wondering
whether or not this is just empty rhetoric or does -- do I really believe
that now is the time to move the process forward. And the answer is: Now is
the time to move the process forward. But we cannot shortcut the process by
saying -- you know, well, the Palestinians can't self-govern; they're not
suitable for a democracy. I subscribe to this theory that the only way to
achieve peace is for there to be democracies living side-by-side.
Democracies don't fight each other. And the last system didn't work, which
was the hope that a Palestinian authority, run by a singular head, who on
some days would say we're for peace and some days would say now is the time
to attack; hope that everything would be fine. It just didn't work.

So I look forward to working with the world, the new Secretary of State, to
work with the Palestinians to develop the structures necessary for a
democracy to emerge. And I appreciate the fact that Prime Minister Tony
Blair is willing to help that process by holding a conference with
Palestinians that will help develop the state. And if the free world
focuses on helping the Palestinians develop a state, and there is
leadership willing to accept the help, it's possible to achieve peace. And
there are responsibilities for all parties; the Palestinians have
responsibilities, the Israelis have responsibilities, the Americans have
responsibilities, the EU has responsibilities. But we all have got to keep
the big vision in mind in order to achieve the objective.

Listen, thank you all very much. I wish everybody -- truly wish everybody a
happy holidays. For those of you coming to Crawford, I look forward to not
seeing you down there. (Laughter.)

Thank you, all.

Q Are you going to the Rose Bowl?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I won't be going to the Rose Bowl; I'll be watching the
Rose Bowl. And by the way, in case you're not following high school
football in Texas -- atta boy, Jackson -- the Crawford Pirates are the
state 2A, Division II champs. And we look forward, don't we, to wave the
championship banner above the Crawford High School.

All right, happy holidays.

END 11:25 A.M. EST
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041220-3.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)