Text 2170, 248 rader
Skriven 2006-02-21 23:39:30 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0602211) for Tue, 2006 Feb 21
====================================================
===========================================================================
Roundtable Interview of the President by the Press Pool
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 21, 2006

Roundtable Interview of the President by the Press Pool
Aboard Air Force One
En route Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland



2:42 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. A couple of points I want to make
to you. First, I'm excited about the energy initiative. American people are
beginning to see that we've made good progress on research and development.
We've got more to do. We're close to some breakthroughs that will achieve
an economic and national security objective.

And I've enjoyed traveling around and talking to these scientists and
engineers that are really excited about how close we are to some
technological breakthroughs. Today, talking to the two scientists involved
with the cellulosic ethanol projects was exciting. These guys are pretty
fired up about it all, and they realize we've got a chance to change our
driving habits.

I do want to talk about this port issue. A foreign company manages some of
our ports. They've entered into a transaction with another foreign company
to manage our ports. This is a process that has been extensively reviewed,
particularly from the point of view as to whether or not I can say to the
American people, this project will not jeopardize our security. It's been
looked at by those who have been charged with the security of our country.
And I believe the deal should go forward. This company operates all around
the world. I have the list somewhere. We can get you the list. They're in
Germany and elsewhere -- Australia.*

They -- in working with our folks, they've agreed to make sure that their
coordination with our security folks is good and solid. I really don't
understand why it's okay for a British company to operate our ports, but
not a company from the Middle East, when our experts are convinced that
port security is not an issue; that having worked with this company,
they're convinced that these -- they'll work with those who are in charge
of the U.S. government's responsibility for securing the ports, they'll
work hand in glove. I want to remind people that when we first put out the
Container Security Initiative, the CSI, which was a new way to secure our
ports, UAE was one of the first countries to sign up.

In other words, we're receiving goods from ports out of the UAE, as well as
where this company operates. And so I, after careful review of our
government, I believe the government ought to go forward. And I want those
who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle
Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British [sic]
company. I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to people of
the world, we'll treat you fairly. And after careful scrutiny, we believe
this deal is a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the
country, and at the same time, send that signal that we're willing to treat
people fairly.

Thirdly, I'm looking forward to my speech tomorrow about my trip to India
and Pakistan. It's going to be an important trip, one where we'll work on a
variety of issues with both countries -- security, prosperity and trade;
working with India, of course, on energy security. It will be an important
trip.

I'll answer some questions, and then we're getting ready to land.

Q Mr. President, leaders in Congress, including Senator Frist, have said
that they'll take action to stop the port control shift if you don't
reverse course on it. You've expressed your thoughts here, but what do you
say to those in Congress who plan to take legislative action?

THE PRESIDENT: They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They
ought to look at the facts, and understand the consequences of what they're
going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it, with a veto.

Q Mr. President, on energy and foreign policy, some Saudi officials have
said they're unhappy with being targeted about Middle Eastern oil, saying
that you wanted to reduce dependence on Middle East oil. You've got a close
relationship with King Abdullah --

THE PRESIDENT: I do.

Q -- he's been to see you. Have you heard something directly, yourself,
from the Saudis?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven't talked to His Majesty, but if I did, I would
say, I hope you can understand that the relationship between supply and
demand is so tight that any disruption on the supply side of energy causes
our prices to go up, and spiking prices hurts our economy. And secondly,
there are parts of the world where people would -- that don't agree with
our policy, namely Iran, for example. And that it's not in our interest to
be dependent, when it comes to our economic security, and for that matter,
national security, in a market that is volatile. And so hopefully he'll
understand.

Q So you don't think they should take offense at the comments about Middle
Eastern oil?

THE PRESIDENT: I would think that he would be understanding that new
technologies will enable us to diversify away from our reliance upon crude
oil. As a matter of fact, it's not only a message for the United States,
that's also a message for India and China. In order for these growing
economies to be able to be competitive, they're going to have to learn how
to use technologies that will enable them to meet the needs of their
people, but also the international demands of the world for good
environment, for example. The Nuclear Energy Initiative I'll be talking to
the Indians about is an important initiative.

Q The understatement today, and one of the concerns of lawmakers seems to
be that they want more of a briefing, and they want more details about the
things that you know, that have given you confidence that there aren't any
national security implications with the port deal. Are you willing to
either have your staff or to give any kind of briefing to leaders of
Congress --

THE PRESIDENT: Look at the company's record, Jim, and it's clear for
everybody to see. We've looked at the ports in which they've operated.
There is a standard process mandated by Congress that we go through, called
the CFIUS process. I'm not exactly sure if there's any national security
concerns in briefing Congress. I just don't know. I can't answer your
question.

Q It seems like -- you've already heard from different administration
officials, saying, not in as strong terms as you have today, that there
aren't problems with this deal, that the deal should go forward. But they
seem to want more of a briefing. Would you be willing to give any
additional briefings, either --

THE PRESIDENT: We'll be glad to send --

Q -- either in a classified basis, or --

THE PRESIDENT: I don't see why not. Again, you're asking -- I need to make
sure I understand exactly what they're asking for.

Yes. Oh, you're not the press.

MR. BARTLETT: I could ask a question. You showed some strong leadership
today -- (laughter.)

Q Why is it so important to you, sir, that you take on this issue as a
political fight? Clearly, there's bipartisan --

THE PRESIDENT: I don't view it as a political fight. So do you want to
start your question over? I view it as a good policy.

Q Why is it -- clearly --

THE PRESIDENT: Are you talking about the energy issue?

Q No, I'm sorry, the ports issue.

THE PRESIDENT: It's not a political issue.

Q But there clearly are members of your own party who will go to the mat
against you on this.

THE PRESIDENT: It's not a political issue.

Q Why are you -- to make this, to have this fight?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't view it as a fight. I view it as me saying to people
what I think is right, the right policy.

Q What's the larger message that you're conveying by sticking to this UAE
contract, by saying that you're not going to budge on this, or you don't
want to change policy?

THE PRESIDENT: There is a process in place where we analyze -- where the
government analyzes many, many business transactions, to make sure they
meet national security concerns. And I'm sure if you -- careful review,
this process yielded a result that said, yes, a deal should go forward.

One of my concerns, however, is mixed messages. And the message is, it's
okay for a British company, but a Middle Eastern company -- maybe we ought
not to deal the same way. It's a mixed message. You put interesting words
in your question, but I just view -- my job is to do what I think is right
for the country. I don't intend to have a fight. If there's a fight, there
is one, but nor do I view this as a political issue.

Q I say it because you said you'd be willing to use the veto on it.

THE PRESIDENT: I would. That's one of the tools the President has to
indicate to the legislative branch his intentions. A veto doesn't mean
fight, or politics, it's just one of the tools I've got. I say veto, by the
way, quite frequently in messages to Congress.

Q Mr. President, Israel is halting payments to the Palestinians -- the tax
monies. What do you think about that, and what is the next step?

THE PRESIDENT: I'll just give you our government's position, and that is,
we have said that -- well, first of all, the U.S. government doesn't give
direct grants to Palestine, we go through the Palestinian Authority, we go
through -- we give grants through NGOs from our USAID, to help people. But
my statement still stands, that so long as Hamas does not recognize
Israel's right to exist, my view is we don't have a partner in peace, and
therefore shouldn't fund a government that is not a partner in peace. I
thought the elections were important. I was one voice that said the
elections should go forward on time.

But I recognized that, one, elections are the first step in many cases in
evolution of a true democracy; and secondly, that elections show -- give
everybody a true look at how -- what people are thinking on the street; and
thirdly, though, that because the Palestinians spoke, doesn't necessarily
mean we have to agree with the nature of -- the party elected. And the
party elected has said, we're for the destruction of Israel. And our policy
is, two states living side by side in peace. And therefore, it's hard to
have a state living side by side in peace when your stated objective is the
destruction of one of the states. So my policy still stands, what I said
day one after the Hamas elections.

Q Can I ask you about a domestic issue, the prescription drug benefit plan.
A lot of Democrats are on recess, and they want to make a big campaign
issue out of this this year. What makes you think that the problems that
this program being rolled out has had are something other than just the
glitches that you've described?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm glad that they're making this an issue. This is -- the
reforms that we passed in the Medicare law were necessary and are going to
change people's lives in a positive way. And I look forward to talking
about this issue next fall, if that's one of the issues they want to talk
about, because I understand the impact that this law is going to have on
seniors. And millions have signed up, and millions are realizing the
benefit of this program. And so it's -- we have done the right thing in
passing this law. Seniors are given different options. Seniors are going to
get an extraordinarily good drug benefit. We have helped modernize
Medicare. And looking forward to talking about it.

Good.

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you all.

THE PRESIDENT: Pleasant experience working with you all.

END 2:55 P.M. EST

*FROM MR. McCLELLAN: These are some countries where Dubai has operations:
Australia, China, Hong Kong, Romania, Germany, Dominican Republic,
Venezuela, Djibouti, India, Saudi Arabia.

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060221-1.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)