Text 468, 830 rader
Skriven 2005-02-11 23:33:00 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0502116) for Fri, 2005 Feb 11
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 11, 2005

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

Press Briefing
"); //--> view

  þ North Korea
      þ Reference B
      þ Reference C
      þ Reference D
  þ Budget
  þ 9/11 Commission Report
  þ Medicare
  þ Iran
  þ Social Security
      þ Reference B
      þ Reference C
      þ Reference D
  þ Immigration
      þ Reference B
  þ Medicaid

12:29 P.M. EST

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everybody. I have nothing to begin with this
Friday, so I will go straight to your questions.

Q Could you give us a readout of the Vice President's meeting with the
South Korean official?

MR. McCLELLAN: With Foreign Minister Ban?

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: They had a good discussion about a wide range of issues. The
two reaffirmed our shared view that North Korea must end its nuclear weapon
program, and that's really the extent of the readout.

Q Any details on how to get --

MR. McCLELLAN: The Foreign Minister is here in town for some visits,
previously scheduled visit. This was something that was scheduled over a
week ago, and I know that he's expected to be visiting with Secretary Rice,
I believe early next week.

Q Scott, rumors* about an attempted coupe against Kim Jong and North Korea
-- anything on that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard anything about it.

Q Did the Vice President reiterate the U.S. position that there could be no
one-on-one talks with North Korea, that it has to be --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think all parties in the region recognize that they have a
stake in North Korea ending its nuclear weapons program. This is a regional
matter that affects the countries in the region, and we've made very clear
our view. It is a view shared by the other parties to the talks. The
six-party talks are the way to resolve this matter in a peaceful and
diplomatic way.

We've also made very clear that North Korea has ample opportunity to visit
directly with us in the context of the six-party talks. And they have had
ample opportunity in the past to do so.

Q So let me just follow up, if I may. So there are no circumstances or
conditions under which the U.S. would talk one-on-one with North Korea?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, the problem is we've been down that road before. The
1994 agreed framework was the road that we went down before. It was a
bilateral approach between the United States and North Korea. North Korea
violated that agreement and continued to pursue nuclear weapons. As I
mentioned, all parties in the region believe they have a stake in making
sure that there is a de-nuclearized Korean Peninsula. That's why we're
working with all parties in the region to say to North Korea: You need to
come back to the six-party talks; you need to permanently dismantle your
nuclear weapons program; that's the way to realize better relations with
the international community and end your isolation.

Q But as you're surely aware, the critics -- including some of the people
who participated in the previous administration's talks with North Korea --
are suggesting that the six-party talks are simply a recipe for ensuring
that nothing ever gets done because of China's very difficult position, not
to mention that of the other parties.

MR. McCLELLAN: China has played a helpful role. Japan has played a helpful
role. South Korea has played a helpful role. Russia has played a helpful
role. I think you're hearing from all those nations that they believe North
Korea needs to come back to the talks so we can talk about the way forward
on the proposal that we outlined at the last round of talks.

This was a forward-looking proposal that provides for North Korea to
realize better relations with the international community if they make a
commitment to dismantle and eliminate its nuclear weapons program.

Q Scott, what are the consequences of not coming back to talks, and North
Korea being free to continue its nuclear program and develop more nuclear
weapons? Is there -- there is no hindrance on their development of these --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out the development of nuclear weapons
was beginning when they were violating the '94 agreed framework. And in
terms of "what-ifs," we are in consultation with other parties to the
talks. We will continue to be in consultation with them, and we would
obviously discuss those matters with the other parties to the talks. But I
think North Korea -- we've heard a lot of rhetoric from them in the past.
They tend to say things from time to time and ramp up the rhetoric from
time to time. We've also seen probably some mixed signals coming from them
over the last couple of days, with some saying that their intention is to
come back to the talks, and others talking about that they've simply
suspended the talks.

Q But there's no impediment right now for them to do anything to continue
their program, is that right?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that all parties in the region are making it clear
to North Korea that it needs to end its nuclear weapons program, that it
needs to permanently dismantle that program and eliminate it for good.

Now, they're also making it clear to them that they only deepen their
isolation from the rest of the world when they take actions and express
words like they have over the last couple of days. We've made it very clear
that no one has an interest in attacking North Korea. That's very clear to
North Korea. Our interest is moving forward on the proposal that was
outlined at the last round of talks. It is a proposal that addresses the
concerns of all parties, and it provides a way for North Korea to become a
part -- a better -- to be a participant of the international community if
they will commit to dismantling and eliminating their nuclear weapons
program.

Q So why does the White House think it's ratcheting it up now? Why is North
Korea doing that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I would never try to guess their motives, but we've seen
this from time to time. It's nothing new.

Q Scott, why -- why did the President cut down on food stamps and child
care and a thousand other -- well, not that many -- social causes, and so
forth, and give huge tax cuts to the rich again?

MR. McCLELLAN: He didn't.

Q He didn't cut down on food stamps and child care, and so forth?

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of the President's compassion agenda and providing
a safety net for those in need, we have made a strong commitment to helping
those who are in need. And I think you should look at our budget and look
at what we've done, because I disagree with your characterization. You
might want to look at our budget to see the specifics. We've continued to
support those programs that are providing aid to those in need.

Q And everyone who has been getting food stamps --

MR. McCLELLAN: If you've got a specific, I'm glad to talk about it, but you
should go back and look at the briefing earlier this week by our OMB
Director, and he addressed these issues. And your characterization is just
--

Q In such a vague way and he didn't really hit them.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, John.

Q Scott, last year during the 9/11 Commission, one of the key points it
looked into was whether the administration had taken the al Qaeda threat
seriously enough before 9/11. Condoleezza Rice, in defending the
administration, wrote an op/ed piece in The Washington Post, in which she
said, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the administration" -- meaning
from the Clinton administration when the Bush administration came in. Now
the sort of infamous Richard Clarke memo from January 25, 2001, has been
released over to the National Archives center. And in there, there is an
attachment of a strategy -- the 2000 year strategy of the Clinton
administration. It's entitled, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from
the Jihadist Networks of al Qaeda Status and Prospects." Was Dr. Rice
telling the truth?

MR. McCLELLAN: Was she telling -- yes, she addressed this matter
previously. I'll be glad to take a look at that. I haven't taken a look at
it, John.

Q She said there was no plan turned over from the previous administration.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I'll be glad to take a look at what you have. I've not
seen it at this point. But, remember, we made it very clear during that
time period that al Qaeda was a threat we took very seriously. You have to
look at the actions that we took during that time period.

You also have to remember that we were not on war footing prior to
September 11th. We are now a nation at war on terrorism. The President is
leading the effort to go after those who seek to do harm to America. We're
staying on the offensive and bringing them to justice. We're also working
to advance freedom and democracy in the world to make the world a safer and
better place, and we will continue to pursue that agenda.

But I know of no reason for anything to change from what we've said
previously. And I'll be glad to take a look at that document that you cite.
I haven't seen it.

Q Basically, you are saying there was no plan turned over -- if you're
sticking with Dr. Rice's op-ed, then you're saying there was no Clinton
plan turned over?

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no reason to believe anything changes from what we've
said previously, and I will be glad to take a look at that document that
you cite, because I have not seen it.

Q Scott, you referred previously to the diplomatic strategy on North Korea,
I'd like to turn you to the question of assessing the nature of the threat.
During the Iraq experience, the President was out several times a week
describing his concerns about what would happen if Saddam Hussein obtained
a weapon, or, secondly, what would happen if he exported nuclear materials.

If you believe, as American intelligence seems to now indicate, that the
North Koreans have several, and if you believe that they may have been
caught in at least one case of export, can you explain to us why this
threat would be any less urgent than the Iraqi threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q And why the President hasn't been out discussing it on regular occasion?

MR. McCLELLAN: Iraq was unique, that's why. And we talked about that
previously, about why they were unique and how they had defied the
international community for some 12 years, and how they had defied
resolution after resolution. It was Saddam Hussein's choice to make, and he
chose continued defiance. Iraq was a country that had invaded its
neighbors, and --

Q North Korea has not defied the international community? Because this --
as I recall, this all started in the President's father's administration --

MR. McCLELLAN: I was giving you the reasons behind the Iraq threat and why
it was unique. And we stated that very clearly before.

We believe that the best way forward to resolving the nuclear issue in
North Korea is the six-party talks. It is an issue that impacts all of
North Korea's neighbors. They all have a stake in the issue. They all
recognize the importance of a nuclear-free peninsula in North Korea. And
that's why they're all urging North Korea to come back to the talks. We
have a proposal on the table that is the way forward, and we believe it's
important to continue to pursue the peaceful diplomatic route for resolving
this matter through the six-party talks.

Q Scott, I asked you to assess a threat, and you came back and told me
about a future diplomatic way forward. Putting aside how you solve it,
could you address the comparative threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you asked me why North Korea -- you asked me why North
Korea and Iraq were different --

Q I'm asking if North Korea, with weapons and with a record of export is --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and I pointed out that we talked about the situation with
Iraq. Iraq was a unique situation, particularly in a post-September 11th
world. We've talked about that on numerous occasions. And in terms of North
Korea, we've been talking about it in this room. We remain concerned about
North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and their proliferation
activities. We've expressed that about how that is a destabilizing force in
the region, and that's why we're working through the six-party talks to
address the matter. And all parties in the region are sending a clear,
unified message to North Korea about the way forward, and the way to
resolve this, in a way that addresses everybody's concerns.

Q So it's your position that Iraq, because it defied the United Nations --
but may or may not have had the weapons -- was a greater threat than North
Korea, which may not have had the record of U.N. resolutions, but has the
weapons? That's --

MR. McCLELLAN: I stated the reason for Iraq, and why it was a unique
threat, and why we addressed it. It was Saddam Hussein's choice to make, in
the end -- he chose continued defiance. We've been working through the
six-party talks. We've made some progress. It's progress that we were able
to get North Korea to sit down and talk with the other parties in the
region about how to address this issue in a way that North Korea agrees to
eliminate its nuclear weapons program, and a way North Korea can realize
better relations in return. The proposal spells out some very clear,
practical steps. It's a comprehensive approach to resolving the matter. And
that's why it's important for North Korea to come back to the talks, so
that they do not continue to isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

Q Since North Korea joined the talks, which is now a long time ago, what
have been the positive results that have come of the talks?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think it is, first of all. The fact that they were
sitting --

Q No, I'm asking what positive results have come out of the talks since
North Korea --

MR. McCLELLAN: You said, "A long time ago," and I disagree with that. First
of all, you have to remember that the bilateral approach of the previous
administration did not work. North Korea violated that agreement. They did
choose to defy the international community in that sense. That's why this
President thought that the best way to approach this was through the
six-party talks. And the fact that North Korea sat down and talked with all
its neighbors in the region is important progress in itself. And we were --
we continue consultations with the parties in the region. From those talks,
we developed a comprehensive, practical proposal for the way forward to
resolving the matter. We presented that proposal at the last round of talks
last summer. And now we want to talk about how we move forward on that
proposal in a substantive way.

So that's what I'm referring to when I'm talking about progress. That's
important progress, Keith.

Q My understanding is that the progress of North Korea sitting down was --
that was about a year-and-a-half ago. Since then, the only progress that
you're citing is proposals. What concrete results have come of the talks
with North Korea?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no. A comprehensive proposal that we put on the table,
Keith, and we discussed it at the last round of talks. And North Korea took
that proposal and -- so that they could talk about it. We talked about it
with all the parties in the region. It's a proposal that we believe -- that
we believe addresses all the issues concerning the parties. It's a
forward-looking proposal, and it's a way to resolve this in a peaceful and
diplomatic way. That was important progress through the last round of
talks.

Now, we're ready to talk about how we can move forward on that proposal in
a substantive way. And all the parties in the region, you've heard from
them over the last couple of days. They sent a very clear message about
their concern and about their desire to see North Korea to come back to
those talks. Those are parties that have a direct stake in what is going on
in that region. And we're all sending a unified message.

The fact that the President has sat down and visited with leader after
leader in the region, and all of us agree on the same approach for
resolving this matter, that is significant progress, Keith, because North
Korea chose to violate the '94 agreement and continue to pursue nuclear
weapons over the course of the last decade or more. That's why we need to
resolve this issue now, through the six-party talks.

Q Has North Korea built nuclear weapons while this proposal has been on the
table?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, our intelligence community has spoken to that
issue, in terms of their assessment and their belief regarding North Korean
nuclear weapons. That's why I pointed out to you, as well, that it was the
'94 framework that North Korea violated, and they were continuing to pursue
nuclear weapons during that time period, when they had made a previous
agreement with the United States through the bilateral approach. It takes
time to develop nuclear weapons, as you are well aware.

Q Scott, the President used a word today that we don't often hear from him,
saying he would veto any Medicare legislation that came his way -- if there
is such legislation -- that would weaken the prescription drug benefit, in
his view. Did he have something specific, either someone in Congress
specific in mind or some proposal specific in mind when he said that today?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was making a general statement. There are some who would
like to undermine the reforms we've put in place to expand benefits for
America's seniors and make health care more affordable for our seniors. The
President was making very clear to America's seniors that we stand with
you, we made a promise to you, and we're going to keep that promise. And
he's not going to let anybody take away what we have provided to you that
you waited on for way too long.

Q Is it just -- is his veto threat just on the parameters -- the benefits
of the prescription drug benefit? Senators McCain and Kennedy, for example,
have talked about legislation that would revisit the issue of bulk
purchasing by the government. Others have talked about revisiting the
reimportation issue in a way inconsistent with the test laid out by the
task force of the administration. If you touch those things, but not
prescription drug benefit, is that a veto --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said the President was making a general
statement. I'm not trying to get into individual, specific ideas that
people have talked about, but you've heard from a number of people who are
seeking to undermine the Medicare reforms we put in place for America's
seniors that provides them with prescription drug coverage, that provides
them with more preventive care, so that they can have the care they need,
when they need it, and have more affordable health care. Seniors will
realize significant savings through this. The President was making a very
strong statement that we made a promise to you; we're going to keep our
word, we're not going to let anybody undermine these important reforms that
we are working on putting in place right now.

Q Would he consider revisiting the bulk purchasing issue, for example,
undermining the reforms in place?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've made our views very clear when it comes to that. I
think that all you need to do is look at the Congressional Budget Office,
and their analysis. They looked at the issue and pointed out that there
would not be any significant savings through that approach; that the
approach that was put in place, where private plans can negotiate those
prices is an approach that is going to provide seniors with significant
savings. And we believe that's the way to move forward on implementing
these reforms.

It's historic legislation that modernizes Medicare for the first time in
its history. It provides greater competition and choice for seniors. It
gives them more options and better benefits. It gives them the kind of
preventive care they need to prevent costly surgeries from happening in the
first place. As the President said earlier today, it made no sense why
Medicare wasn't providing some of that coverage and bringing competition
and choice into Medicare. We'll improve the quality of care, make it more
affordable, give seniors what they have waiting on for far too long, and it
will help provide savings to Medicare in the long-run.

Q To just sort of refine on John's point, then, Scott. These are Republican
majorities we're talking about on Capitol Hill, so when the President is
issuing a veto threat, presumably he's saying to members of his own party,
he's going to fight their desires to scale back the growth of this project.
How does that play for this Republican President?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that you've seen some Democrats in recent weeks
talking about undermining these reforms. And in terms of Congress, we're
working very closely with the congressional leadership to address the
important priorities for the American people. The congressional leadership,
I think, recognizes the important of putting these reforms in place. The
Medicare reform legislation enjoyed some strong support. And the President
believes now is the time to focus on putting those reforms in place. And
we're going to continue to work with Congress to make health care more
affordable and more accessible for all Americans.

Q So it's a veto threat to congressional Democrats?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, the President was making a general statement, Carl. I
know you're trying to get me to get into specific people. The President
made a general statement. And you heard from members of the Democratic
Party earlier this week who really were trying to move forward on an
attempt to undermine the reforms that we put in place. We're not going to
let that happen. The President was making a general statement that these
reforms are something that we promised to America's seniors, and we're not
going to let people take them away.

Q So, Scott, you're saying that this is nothing new for North Korea, and
you've basically seen this before. So how has that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not saying; it's a matter of fact. I think it's been
documented that they've said this on -- this kind of rhetoric on a number
of occasions.

Q So how have you gotten the process back on track in the past? And how
will you get it back on track this time?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why we're consulting with other parties in the
region now. The Foreign Minister of South Korea was here in town. The Vice
President met with him earlier today. He will be meeting with Secretary
Rice, as well. And we will continue to consult with other parties in the
region. There is -- there have been instances before where North Korea said
they weren't going to come back to talks.

But North Korea made a commitment to work through the talks. And the talks
are the way forward for all of us to address the nuclear issue in North
Korea and for North Korea to lessen its isolation from the rest of the
world.

Q But what, specifically, do you say to, you know, the parties in the
process?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the other parties, as you're well aware, have
discussions with North Korea from time to time, as well. And they're all
sending the same message to North Korea about the importance of coming back
to the talks, and the importance of North Korea eliminating its nuclear
weapons program. They all want a nuclear-free peninsula. They've made that
very clear. They all have expressed their support for the six-party talks.

The President met with some of those leaders as recently as his last trip
to Chile, and had good discussions with a number of those leaders. He's
remained in contact with some of leaders more recently. I know he had a
good conversation with President Roh just last week. So we'll continue to
consult with our allies and to consult with those in the region about how
to move forward on this issue.

Q Scott, for the last couple of years you've been dealing with both North
Korea and Iran on their nuclear policies in multilateral forums. From both
we've heard nothing but conflicting statements, contradictory statements.
What is there out there that can give anyone any hope that these talks have
any chance of success with either party?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, on North Korea, if North Korea did
refuse to return to the talks, then we would discuss the next steps with
other parties to the talks. But everybody involved in those talks is saying
to North Korea, come back to the talks, because this is the best way to
address this issue and to address any concerns you may have, as well.

With regards to Iran, I think we've made it very clear that Iran made some
commitments -- they made some commitments to the international community.
We expect them to live up to their obligations. We've also made it clear
that they need to know that they're -- if they continue to defy those
commitments, then it is a matter that we believe should go to the Security
Council for discussion about next steps. And Iran has said that they would
abide by their international commitments. We will see; we want to see
through their actions, not their words. We appreciate the efforts of our
European friends to address this issue. We're pursuing diplomatic
approaches on both these matters. And there's important progress being made
on both when you have the international community saying with a single
voice: This needs to stop, you need to live up to your commitments.

Q Are we going to pursue a date certain in terms of Iran having to show
good faith before we go to the U.N.?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to continue to consult with our European friends
about the matter.

Q On Social Security, can I ask the "where are we" question? The President
made his proposal in the State of the Union speech, we've been traveling,
he's got more travel next week. And he repeatedly says, if you've got good
ideas, come forward. Does he now want lawmakers to come forward with
specific legislation, or is he preparing to do that, himself?

MR. McCLELLAN: He welcomes all ideas, he has made that very clear, with the
exception of increasing the payroll tax. That's something the President has
made very clear. He's going to talk more about this in his radio address
tomorrow. We are also talking directly with the American people about the
serious problems facing Social Security. You have survey after survey
showing that the American people recognize that Social Security faces major
problems, and that we need to address it. We need to make sure that Social
Security sees no changes for today's retirees. It's fiscally sound for
today's retirees, and it's working. But it won't be for tomorrow's, and
that's why we need to strengthen it for our children and grandchildren.

And so the President is going to continue reaching out to the American
people and talking about the problems facing Social Security, and the
reason why we need to act now to strengthen it, because it's something that
only gets worse over time. In 2018, you're going to have the system paying
out more than it's taken in. And each year after that, the shortfall only
grows worse. And then in 2042, of course, it becomes bankrupt.

So the President is going to continue emphasizing the problem facing Social
Security, he's going to continue to reach out to members of Congress, as
well. He's had a number of meetings, he will continue to have a series of
meetings to talk about ideas for solving this problem. Part of the solution
is personal accounts, so that younger workers can realize a greater rate of
return. Everybody is going to have a guaranteed benefit under Social
Security. We want them also to have a voluntary option of a new benefit
that would help them realize a greater rate of return.

Q But my question is the tactical one. Do you want lawmakers, someone on
Capitol Hill to produce a plan and come to you? Do you want to produce --
or you still want to wait months with the President trying to sell it to
the American people first?

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't describe it either way, Mark. The way I would
describe it is that the President wants to move forward in a bipartisan way
to talk about how we can solve it. So that's why he's having discussions
with members of Congress. That's why he's having discussions with the
American people. And if you look at The Washington Post poll that was out
this week, it showed 73 percent of the people thought that it was either a
crisis, or it faced major problems. And so it's very clear to the American
people that Social Security does face some serious challenges, and that we
do need to address it.

The President believes we shouldn't be passing the problem on to future
generations. We should be solving it now. So he will talk with members of
Congress about the best way to proceed forward. He put an idea out for
personal accounts. He mentioned some ideas that were advocated by
Democratic leaders for solving the issue. He said, these are all on the
table; let's talk about how we can move forward together to solve the
problem; I welcome all ideas and I intend to move forward in a bipartisan
way. And that's the best way to approach this issue, because it is an issue
that affects all Americans.

Q Scott, thank you. Some civil liberties groups are criticizing the tough
border control bill passed by the House as a thinly disguised attempt to
demand national identification cards for all Americans. Does the President
support national ID cards?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President supports the legislation that just passed the
House. We sent out a statement of administration policy. He had previously
said that there should be some standards and that we would work with
members of Congress, including Chairman Sensenbrenner, and they were moving
forward on that legislation this week. We put out a statement of
administration policy expressing our support for the legislation. There are
certain aspects of it we'd like to see addressed as it moves through the
process. But you should look at that statement of administration policy.

Q Scott, the President has said that the only non-negotiable point in
Social Security is a hike in payroll taxes. You talked about this a little
bit on Air Force One yesterday. I just want to make sure I'm clear. Would
raising the cap from $90,000 to, say, $145,000 qualify as a hike in payroll
taxes in the eyes of the President?

MR. McCLELLAN: I would go back to the President's news conference toward
the end of last year. He said there are going to be a number of ideas
expressed by members of Congress. He has expressed his views on some ideas
and about the ways to proceed forward. He's made very clear what his
principles are. But he said, because this is important that we move forward
in a bipartisan way to resolve the matter and to solve the problem, he's
not going to go and get into ruling things in or ruling things out every
time ideas are expressed, because he wants to welcome all ideas for
addressing the issue. But he has made clear what his principles are.

In terms of the issue of raising the cap, we've previously stated that it
does not solve the fiscal problem facing Social Security, that Social
Security is on an unsustainable course right now. And this only pushes it
out a few more years. The President wants to make Social Security
permanently sound. The promise to today's -- I'm sorry, the promise to
tomorrow's retirees is an empty promise because the system is
unsustainable. It cannot afford to pay the benefits it is promising to the
American people.

That's why the President believes personal accounts are an important part
of the solution. And that will help younger workers, if they choose -- it's
a voluntary option -- to realize a greater rate of return on their benefit,
coupled with the traditional benefit. It's similar to the Thrift Savings
Plan that was outlined.

But right now, you have money being paid into the system to support today's
retirees. So people are not able to set aside money into an account. There
is no account there where your money is being set aside in Social Security.
It's a pay-as-you-go system. Today's workers are supporting today's
retirees. And the number of workers supporting those retirees is growing
smaller, and the number of retirees is growing larger, because people are
living longer. And we've seen, I think dozens of times, when payroll taxes
have been increased to try to address the matter it has not solved the
problem facing Social Security. The President wants to make it permanently
sound and address it once and for all.

Q I just want to be clear, though. Is a raise in the cap a raise in payroll
taxes?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I want to be clear, too. I mean, the President stated
very publicly, to everybody, that you're going to come in here -- members
of the press corps -- and we understand that's your job to do, to try to
get us to get into talking about various ideas that are out there. We view
that as negotiating with ourselves, and we're not going to do that. But the
President did make very clear what his views are and what his principles
are for going forward. But that's why I pointed out some of the things that
I did in my remarks in response to your question.

Q Well, I don't want you to negotiate, I just want to be able to have clear
in my mind as I report on Social Security whether or not when Congress
talks about raising the cap, whether that's -- whether that action is
defined by the White House as a --

MR. McCLELLAN: We could go down issue after issue, and you could ask me
what our view is on it. What the President has said is that all ideas are
on the table, with the exception of increasing payroll taxes, and that
we're going to work with members of Congress, listen to their ideas, and
talk about how we can move forward together in a bipartisan way. The
President set the tone for moving forward in this debate, and he made it
very clear that he welcomes all ideas.

Q Would we try to physically prevent any attempt by North Korea to export
nuclear weapons?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, say that again?

Q Would we try to physically prevent any attempt by North Korea to export
nuclear weapons?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, proliferation is a top priority for this
administration. The President led the effort to establish the Proliferation
Security Initiative to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and to stop the proliferation of longer-range missiles and
things of that nature. There are some 60 nations that are working on that
effort. It is a top priority for this administration.

We achieved a great success when Libya agreed to dismantle its WMD
programs. And we've achieved an important success when it comes to
dismantling the A.Q. Khan network. And we continue to learn more and more
about that. But proliferation will remain a top priority for this
administration. I previously expressed that we -- that's one of the
concerns we have with regards to North Korea.

Q Scott, in addition to Medicare and Social Security facing solvency
problems, Medicaid also has funding problems. And there's been talk on the
Hill calling for a Medicaid reform commission. Would the President support
the idea of bipartisan commission to reform Medicaid?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President supports the plan that he outlined for
strengthening Medicaid. And Secretary Leavitt has talked at length about
the importance of addressing some of the loopholes and gimmicks that are
used to double-charge, or to use Medicaid money for purposes other than
what it was intended, and how that's hurting the program. We want to make
sure that governors have as maximum of flexibility as possible in the
Medicaid program so that they can cover as many people as possible at an
affordable cost. And that's what we're moving forward on. Secretary Leavitt
has spoken to this issue, the President spoke about it in his remarks
earlier today, as well. By giving more flexibility in Medicaid and the
S-CHIP program, so that states can cover those who it was intended to
cover, and maybe even cover some more.

Q And with respect to Social Security solvency and personal accounts, could
you clarify that these are two distinct issues? The one addresses
ownership, and the other long-term solvency, in terms of whether --

MR. McCLELLAN: They're both part of the solution, is the way the President
views it, because we need to strengthen Social Security for our children
and grandchildren. Right now people in my generation and younger don't
expect to have any retirement benefits from the Social Security fund when
they do retire. And the President wants to help them build a nest egg of
their own.

And that's why personal accounts are so important. It will help them
realize a greater rate of return on their own retirement savings. It's
about trusting in people. It's a philosophical issue. It is about building
an ownership society. We trust in people to make the right decisions and
the best decisions about their future, and the best decisions about how
their money is spent. That's why we want to give them the voluntary option
to realize a greater rate of return on their own savings, much like federal
employees do now, through the Thrift Savings Plan, which has been a huge
success. We're talking about investing in conservative bonds and stocks.
There are safeguards put in place to the system. The Social Security
commission talked about it. We also need to take steps to make sure Social
Security is permanently sound, and to address the unfunded liability facing
Social Security.

Q But whatever measures the President agrees to go forward with can address
the issue without actually establishing these accounts, correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, say that again.

Q Whatever measures that the President decides to advance or to embrace, in
terms of addressing the issue of Social Security solvency, that that can be
taken without necessarily establishing these accounts.

MR. McCLELLAN: Correct. But there's more of a problem facing Social
Security than just that. That's why the President believes we need to help
workers realize a greater rate of return on their savings, if they so
choose, by investing in secure bonds and stocks, and how that's part of the
solution.

Q It's a follow-up on Sarah's question. Mexican authorities are saying that
it's an offense to Mexico, that the President is supporting a bill who call
for the construction of a wall or fence in the border. What is your
response to that? And does the President believe it's a good idea to have a
fence on the border to fight terrorism -- or stop terrorism coming to the
U.S. and illegal immigrants?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President's views are very clear to the
government of Mexico. He has talked about this issue at length with them.
We have taken a number of steps to strengthen enforcement along our
borders. We also need to take steps to address the problem of illegal
immigrants coming to the country to seek a better way of life. And that's
why the President is continuing to urge Congress to move forward on his
temporary worker program, that will address an economic need and will also
show the compassion of America by addressing some of the issues that affect
those who are coming here illegally. It will also free up our ability to go
after those who are coming here for the wrong reasons.

The President recognizes there are a lot of people coming here simply to
provide for their family and to realize a better way of life. Now,
long-term, that means continuing to expand trade and improve the quality of
life for people in Mexico, so that they have less desire to come to the
United States. But there are also steps we need to take to address some of
the enforcement side of things. And the President made a commitment to
Chairman Sensenbrenner last year when the intelligence reforms were being
discussed that he would work with him this year, early this year, on some
of the issues that he had brought up during that time period.

Q Does the President support, specifically, construction of the wall on the
border?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that there are different areas that are addressing
the issue, in a number of different ways. And if you look back at the
policy statement that we put out, it talks about the President's views on
the various issues in this legislation. But the President believes the best
way to address the problem of some 8 million illegal immigrants coming to
the country to seek work to provide for their families is to move forward
on the proposal that he outlined, and that he stated very firmly in his
State of the Union address.

And he also went to the Republican retreat in West Virginia and made it
very clear it's important that we move forward on this program. This is the
way to address this issue, and to have a more humane migration system into
the U.S.

Q Can I just try to refine a little further the question about solvency and
the personal accounts. Is it right that the administration has two goals
when it comes to Social Security, and that they're really separate goals:
one is to get the personal accounts, which the administration is no longer
saying is going to secure the solvency of Social Security. It may do many
wonderful things in the administration's view, but that's not what it does.
So you've got that goal to get the personal accounts.

Then you've got the other goal of trying to secure the solvency of Social
Security, and that's separate. And you have to go down -- maybe they'll be
intertwined in the negotiations, but they are two separate things; is that
right?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it's one goal. And I see someone is leaving that I'm
getting ready to mention here in a minute. (Laughter.) She can listen to
it.

No, it is one goal to strengthen Social Security for our children and
grandchildren. And both of those are part of the solution for meeting that
goal.

Q But the personal accounts are not part of solving the solvency problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: They're part of strengthening Social Security, and that's --
the problem facing Social Security right now is that younger workers are
facing either massive benefit cuts or massive tax increases if we don't act
to address it now. The status quo is massive tax increases or severe
benefit cuts. And that's not a solution. So both are part of the solution.
Yes, personal accounts in and of themselves do not solve the fiscal problem
facing Social Security, but they are part of the solution for strengthening
Social Security for our children and grandchildren.

And seniors are not going to see any changes. The President will continue
to make that clear, that if you're born before 1950, nothing will change
for you.

Thank you.

One last thing I want to mention, as she unfortunately walked out of the
room because I was talking too long, but maybe she is watching this right
now: Claire Buchan, who has been deputy press secretary here for the last
four years, I've worked very closely with her during that entire time
period, is going on to be chief of staff to the Secretary of Commerce,
Secretary Gutierrez. And I want to extend best wishes to her from the Press
Office -- I'm sure from each of you, as well.

She has done an outstanding job helping to support the President's agenda
and to work with each of you all. And we will miss her here. And just from
a personal standpoint, I express my deep appreciation to Claire for all
that she did to support me in my role, and personally wish her all the
best.

Q So it is true that Andy Card is telling people to leave?

MR. McCLELLAN: You all have a good weekend. Thank you. (Laughter and
applause.)

END 1:10 P.M. EST

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050211-6.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)