Text 938, 963 rader
Skriven 2005-05-12 23:40:12 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0505122) for Thu, 2005 May 12
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
May 12, 2005

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

Press Briefing
"); //--> view

  þ World leader visits
  þ Darfur funding increases
  þ Plane incident
  þ Bolton nomination
      þ Reference B
  þ Iran
  þ Russia
  þ Immigration reform
  þ Women in the military
  þ United Airlines pension reform
  þ China/Taiwan

12:56 P.M. EDT

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. I want to begin with a few announcements of
world leaders who will be coming to meet with the President, and then I
want to make a statement about one announcement that was made by Prime
Minister Martin earlier today, regarding Sudan.

First of all, the President will welcome President Karzai of Afghanistan to
the White House on May 23rd. The last time they met, you all will recall,
was in September 2004, during the United Nations General Assembly in New
York. This will be an opportunity for the two leaders to discuss the
progress in the global war on terrorism, the achievements of the Afghan
people in building democracy, and our ongoing cooperation on a range of
bilateral, regional and international issues.

The President will welcome Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark to the White
House on May 20th. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Denmark has
been a key partner in advancing freedom and democracy around the world. The
President looks forward to discussing with the Prime Minister how Denmark
and the United States can continue to support freedom and democracy,
particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan, through the Broader Middle East
Initiative, NATO and -- they'll also discuss NATO and U.S.-EU issues, as
well.

The President, on May 18th, will welcome Prime Minister Nazif of Egypt to
Washington. I expect they will discuss a wide range of bilateral and
regional issues, including the President's efforts to promote democratic
reform, achieve peace in the Middle East and advance the war on terrorism.

And on May 17th, the President will welcome former South African President
Nelson Mandela to the White House. This meeting will be an opportunity for
the two leaders to discuss our shared priority for fighting HIV/AIDS in
Africa. It will also be an opportunity for the leaders to talk about
President Mandela's foundation to promote universal education in Africa and
enhance the social development of African youth and children.

And finally, on Prime Minister Martin's announcement in Canada today, Prime
Minister Martin announced increased support for humanitarian efforts in
Darfur. While there's been progress in reducing the suffering and loss of
life, the crisis in Darfur continues. We commend Canada for acting to help
people in need by offering assistance to the peacekeeping efforts of the
African Union. Canada is an important partner in our humanitarian mission
around the world. Sudan continues to be a high priority for the United
States and we support the efforts of the African Union on their
peacekeeping and mediation efforts in Darfur. We also continue to undertake
a major humanitarian assistance operation in southern Sudan, Chad and
Darfur.

And specifically, what Canada announced earlier today was an assistance
package of $200 million that would provide equipment such as aircraft and
helicopters and basic military equipment for the African Union peacekeeping
mission, as well as up to, I think, 60 Canadian forces to support those
efforts. And they also are providing additional humanitarian and diplomatic
support for the mission in Darfur. And this will enable the African Union
to really increase their ability to help protect people in Darfur.

And with that, I'm ready for your questions.

Q Scott, yesterday the White House was on red alert, was evacuated. The
First Lady and Nancy Reagan were taken to a secure location. The Vice
President was evacuated from the grounds. The Capitol building was
evacuated. The continuity of government plan was initiated. And yet, the
President wasn't told of yesterday's events until after he finished his
bike ride, about 36 minutes after the all-clear had been sent. Is he
satisfied with the fact that he wasn't notified about this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. I think you just brought up a very good point -- the
protocols that were in place after September 11th were followed. The
President was never considered to be in danger because he was at an
off-site location. The President has a tremendous amount of trust in his
Secret Service detail.

The Secret Service detail that was traveling with the President was being
kept apprised of the situation as it was developing. They were in close
contact with officials back here at the White House. And the President
appreciates the job that they do.

Q The fact that the President wasn't in danger is one aspect of this. But
he's also the Commander-in-Chief. There was a military operation underway.
Other people were in contact with the White House. Shouldn't the
Commander-in-Chief have been notified of what was going on?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the protocols that we put in place after September
11th were being followed. They did not require presidential authority for
this situation. I think you have to look at each situation and the
circumstances surrounding the situation. And that's what officials here at
the White House were doing. That's what officials were doing that were with
the President at the off-site location, and this was a matter of minutes
when all this was happening, when the alert level was going from yellow to
orange to red, and then it went back down to yellow when the plane turned
away.

The plane was -- as described yesterday -- lost and accidently in the
restricted airspace around the Capital region. And we appreciate the job
that was done by all those who worked to make sure that the protocols that
were in place were followed. That was one of the President's priorities
after September 11th, was making sure that we were prepared for a situation
like this. And the fact is that the protocols were followed.

Q I take it that it's not the Secret Service's duty to inform the President
of national security circumstances, that that would come from somebody here
at the White House. Even on a personal level, did nobody here at the White
House think that calling the President to say, by the way, your wife has
been evacuated from the White House, we just want to let you know
everything is okay.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, all the protocols were followed and people were --
officials that you point out were taken to secure locations or evacuated,
in some cases. I think, again, you have to look at the circumstances
surrounding the situation, and it depends on the situation and the
circumstance. But the Secret Service detail that was with the President was
being kept apprised throughout while the situation was developing. There is
always a military aide that is right with the President. That military aide
was in close contact with the Situation Room here at the White House, which
is overseen by the National Security Council. And --

Q Nobody thought to say, by the way, this is going on, but it's all under
control?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think it depends on each situation and the
circumstances surrounding the situation when you're making those decisions.

Q Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Kelly.

Q Thank you. Isn't there --

MR. McCLELLAN: And welcome.

Q Thank you, I appreciate that. Isn't there a bit of an appearance problem,
notwithstanding the President's safety was not in question, protocols were
followed, that today, looking at it, he was enjoying a bike ride, and that
recreation time was not considered expendable to inform him of this. Isn't
there just an appearance problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, John mentioned 36 minutes after the all-clear.
Remember, this was a matter of minutes when all this was happening. The
all-clear was given at 12:14 p.m., and it had gone down to yellow a few
minutes before that, as well. So again, you have to take into account the
circumstances; you have to take into account where the President is. The
President was never considered to be in danger. The protocols that we put
in place after September 11th, I think, worked.

This plane was warned by flares and it turned and then was escorted to an
airport in the area. And the pilots were questioned. It was determined that
this was an accident, that they should not have been in the area and they
did not realize where they were at the time.

Q Scott, I think there's a disconnect here --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me keep going through here and then I'll come back to
the -- I'll come back to your --

Q It's a follow-up.

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, I'll come back to you.

Q But has the President even indicated that even if everything was followed
that he would prefer to be notified, that if the choice is: tell the
Commander-in-Chief or let him continue to exercise, that he would prefer to
be informed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it depends on the situation and the circumstances.
And you have to take all that into account, and I think that's what people
were doing here at the White House, as well as those people that were with
the President.

And let me just step back from this specific question because any time you
have a situation like this, we will review the procedures and protocols
that were followed. And if there are any steps that need to be made to make
improvements, those steps will be made. But that's not pointing to anything
specific at this point. The President appreciates the job that those that
were with him did in the situation like this. They were constantly being
kept apprised of the situation as it was developing.

Q Is he ever -- is he on any protocol to be informed at any point? Is there
a protocol that involved when he's informed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Of course, and he has been in the past, Helen.

Q Scott --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve.

Q New subject, or do you want --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's stay on this subject since there seems to be
interest in this subject.

Now, go ahead.

Q I think there's a disconnect here because, I mean, yesterday you had more
than 30,000 people who were evacuated, you had millions of people who were
watching this on television, and there was a sense at some point -- it was
a short window, a 15-minute window, but there was a sense of confusion
among some on the streets. There was a sense of fear. And people are
wondering was this not a moment for the President to exercise some
leadership, some guidance during that period of time? Was this not a missed
opportunity for the President to speak out and at least clarify what --
that he was informed, and what was taking place at that time? If not even
during the 15-minute window, why not later in the day?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President did lead, and the President did that after
September the 11th when we put the protocols in place to make sure that
situations like this were addressed before it was too late. And that was
the case -- that was the case in this situation. And in terms of during
this time, this was a matter of minutes when this was occurring. And all
the appropriate security personal and Homeland Security officials and
others were acting to implement those protocols. And we commend all those
that worked to follow those protocols and make sure that this situation was
addressed. And it worked, in terms of the protocols.

Q Beyond the protocols here, I mean we're talking about just simply
demonstrating to the American people, I understand what's taking place,
we're in control of the situation, and I've been apprised of what is
happening here -- because there were thousands of people involved in what
was a very scary moment.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and we briefed you about the circumstances of the event
shortly after that. But during that time period, it's important in those
minutes when this is occurring, that everybody is focused on making sure
the people in the area of the threat are protected, and there are protocols
in place to make sure that the people in the area of the threat are
protected. Those protocols were followed. You all covered this on the
coverage last night and pointed out how those protocols were followed and
how jets were scrambled. This was an instance where presidential authority
was not required because we had put these protocols in place after
September 11th.

Q Any consideration of reexamining these protocols in light of yesterday?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, I'm not pointing to anything specifically, but
in any situation of this nature, there's always going to be a review to
look at how things transpired. And if there are any improvements that need
to be made, they will be made.

Q Scott, on the protocol issue, is there going to be a review of the fact
that, one, the intercom system, this elaborate intercom system and the
emergency response that the White House was supposed to give after 9/11 did
not go off; the fact that some people over in the Old Executive Office
Building got emails to tell them to evacuate -- who sits at an email
constantly -- at the Internet constantly to see that you have to evacuate
because of an emergency situation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me stop you right there and correct you, because it's
not just an email. I mean, it's notifying you through sound, as well as
flashing.

Q Oh, really? When you open an email up, correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q Okay, well --

MR. McCLELLAN: It will automatically be notified --

Q How many people sit -- how many people sit in front of their computers
solely all day to see an email come up to say, evacuate or to leave?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me correct you again. There were personnel at the White
House, security personnel, the Secret Service Uniformed Division, the
Secret Service personnel that is part of the President's detail here at the
White House that were acting to notify people and to make sure people were
going to the appropriate locations or staying where they were if at some
point it was more appropriate and safer for them to remain where they were.

So there was a great effort, I think, by those who work here at the White
House and protect us all, every day, to make sure that they were following
protocols, as well, and that they were looking out for the interests of all
those who work every day --

Q The Old Executive Office Building got emails. What did the people here in
the press area, get nothing --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll be glad to -- I'll be glad to come to your question,
April, but I'd like to finish talking for a minute.

Q Okay, go ahead.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, they work day-in and day-out with one priority in
mind, and that's the safety and security of the people here in this
building. And as I said, anytime there's a situation like this, you're
going to review it, you're going to look at what occurred, you're going to
look at all issues. And if there are improvements that need to be made,
they will be made.

But I personally saw people here at the White House, security personnel,
working to evacuate people or move people to more secure locations, or tell
people to stay where they were, if that was the more appropriate action to
take and safer action to take.

I appreciate your concerns. This was one of the first things I asked
yesterday, and I'm sure that all these issues will be looked into.

Q I have one more question. When we walked out of this door yesterday, when
those of us who heard that there was a situation, when we walked out of the
door, we heard aircraft, jets overhead. There is a concern that that plane
came closer to the White House than the White House said, more -- it came
within the three-mile radius, it was closer than you --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I said that it came within three miles.

Q Okay, but you said three miles. How close --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, it came within three miles.

Q How close was it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have --

Q How close was it? Because someone has taken a picture of a plane being
escorted on K street. How close was the plane?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I mean, if the Department of Homeland Security or FFA
has any additional information, I'm sure --

Q Scott, how close was it?

MR. McCLELLAN: April, it was within --

Q You know how close it was. Please tell us.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, within three miles. I don't know beyond that. Go ahead.

Q Could you be a little more specific --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I appreciate your concerns, April. I know you work here.
And that's why I was asking questions about how things occurred here --

Q Not just us, but -- that door was shut, that door was closed, and we
called back to find out who -- the people -- to tell people in the press
office, the people who were left downstairs, that door was shut and locked.

MR. McCLELLAN: My understanding was that people were directed to go
downstairs at a certain point after a number of people here were being
evacuated. I think you all were here covering it. I really appreciate your
concerns. I know that they're all going to look at all these issues, the
ones that you're bringing up. They'll take a look at those issues.

Q Can you be more specific about who's going to conduct this review,
whether it's going to involve the Secret Service and their procedures and
protocols, as well as the senior staff here in the White House, and --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it depends on what aspect you're talking about.
Everything will be reviewed. The Department of Homeland Security will do
their own review. We have the Homeland Security Advisor that's involved in
overseeing some aspects. In terms of procedures here at the White House, we
have a Deputy Chief of Staff that oversees the Secret Service, as one of
his responsibilities. And then you have the head of the Presidential
Protective detail. They'll be looking at all these issues and reviewing
what occurred. There's already been discussion, as I indicated to April --
there's already been discussion about what was taking place at the time.

Q I'm talking specifically about the question of notifying the President.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q I'm talking specifically about the question --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I already addressed that question. That always
depends on the situation and the circumstances. And this question was asked
earlier today, about whether or not the President was satisfied -- I
indicated --

Q This review is not going to --

MR. McCLELLAN: I indicated that he was. But, obviously, you review and look
at everything, and if there are any necessary improvements that need to be
made, they'll be made.

Q But they're not going into it with any sense that something needs to be
changed, that everything was fine --

MR. McCLELLAN: I talked about this yesterday, I talked about it in this
briefing room a short time ago, and I indicated the President's view.

Q Scott, may I just maybe take a slight step back? Aside from the
particulars of what happened yesterday and when, maybe the larger issue has
to do with whether this President is sufficiently at the levers of power on
his job during the day or night. When we think of the event at the ASNE
meeting, when the President said he didn't know about the issue of possibly
requiring passports of all Americans who are returning from Canada or
Mexico until he read it in the papers -- and I think that's the larger
question we're all trying to get at.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree and I think that's unfounded. Absolutely the
President is. I disagree with your characterization completely, and I think
the American people reject that, as well. And the President was informed
immediately upon the conclusion of the bike ride, as well, about what had
occurred. But by that point, it was well in hand.

Q Thank you, Scott --

MR. McCLELLAN: Are we still on this issue?

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sarah, stay on this topic.

Q Why was the Cessna allowed to get so close to the White House or the
Capitol? And why weren't the federal buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue
between the White House and the Capitol evacuated?

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. One, there's an operations center at the
Department of Homeland Security where you have a number of personnel, that
includes local officials, as well, or representatives of local
organizations, like the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. And then you
have other operations centers at various locations, as well, including here
at the White House, and they're in constant communication about these
matters.

I pointed out yesterday, and I think that the Department of Defense and
some others provided some additional detail, as well, following my
briefing, pointed out how all this occurred. And you had the fighter jets
scrambled fairly early on when this plane was in the restricted air space.
And they were up there, fired a flair to signal to the pilot that -- or to
get the pilot's attention, because there were efforts made to communicate
with the plane. And those efforts were not being responded to by the pilot.
So there were protocols in place.

Let's keep in mind that there weren't -- these protocols weren't in place
prior to September 11th. The President led our efforts to make sure that we
were doing everything we possibly can to protect the people across America,
as well as here in D.C., and prevent something like what occurred on
September 11th from ever happening again. And so we appreciate the efforts
that were undertaken, and the protocols that were followed in this
instance. And I think people did a tremendous job.

Again, any time there's a situation like this, you're going to review
matters and take a look at where, or if any improvements need to be made.

Q Scott, same topic.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q Might there be something wrong with protocols that render the President
unnecessary when the alarm is going off at his house?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not at all what occurred, Ken. And I would disagree
strongly with the way you characterize it for the reasons I started
earlier, and that I talked about. This was a situation where the President
was in an off-site location. He was not in danger, a situation where
protocols have been put in place to address the situation. The protocols
were followed. The Secret Service detail and the military aide that were
with the President were being kept apprised of the situation as it was
developing over a course of 15, 20 minutes. And as you're well aware, after
several minutes, the plane turned away from the direction of the White
House and Capitol.

And I don't think anybody -- as the Department of Defense indicated
yesterday -- that it came to a point where a more drastic measure was
needed to be taken to protect people in the area of the threat. But the
protocols are in place to protect the people in the area of the threat. And
those protocols were being followed.

Q And those protocols are okay with the President despite the fact that his
wife was in a situation where she might have been endangered?

MR. McCLELLAN: She was taken to a secure location, as were some other
officials.

Q And wouldn't he want to know about that as it was happening?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was briefed about the situation.

Q After it happened.

MR. McCLELLAN: He was briefed about the situation, Ken. And I think that he
wants to make sure that the protocols that are in place are followed. The
protocols that were in place were followed.

Q Scott, to follow on the same line of questioning, if there is a
possibility that a plane may have to be shot down over Washington, doesn't
the President want to be involved in that type of decision?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Keith, I think again, it depends on the circumstances
in the situation. You have to look at each individual situation and the
circumstances surrounding that situation. There are protocols --

Q You talked about the circumstances -- a plane was three or four miles
away, maybe less, from the White House --

Q No, within three miles, within three miles.

Q Doesn't the President want to be involved in what could be a decision to
shoot down a plane over Washington?

MR. McCLELLAN: To answer your question, I was just getting ready to address
exactly what you're bringing up. The protocols that were put in place after
September 11th include protocols for that, as well. And there are protocols
there. They're classified. But they do not require presidential authority.
But you have to look at each individual situation and circumstance. But it
was important that we put such protocols in place after September 11th.
That was one of the many measures we have taken to better protect the
American people.

Q They don't require presidential authority, but they don't obviate the
need for presidential authority, do they? They don't say the President
cannot be involved --

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, that depends on --

Q -- wouldn't he want to be involved --

MR. McCLELLAN: It depends on the circumstances and it depends on the
situation.

Q And wasn't there a possibility that a plane headed for the White House,
that this was the leading edge of some broader attack, isn't the President
concerned that maybe he should have been alerted to the fact that this
could have been the beginning of a general attack?

MR. McCLELLAN: That was not the case, and I think the Department of Defense
yesterday indicated that they didn't sense any hostile intent on the part
of the plane, so again --

Q How did they know -- how did they know this plane wasn't laden with WMD
or some other type of weapons like that? Did they get reassurances from the
pilot? Or how did they know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, if you want to give me a chance to respond,
I'll be glad to. The protocols were followed. This situation, as you're
well aware, turned out to be an accident. The Department of Defense pointed
out yesterday that they didn't sense any hostile intent on the part of the
plane. There were fighter jets scrambled. There was a Blackhawk helicopter
scrambled, as well, to get in contact with the plane. Once the flare was
fired and the warning was sent to the plane, the plane realized -- the
pilot realized that they were in the wrong place and turned away. And the
plane was escorted safely to the ground where the pilots were questioned.
And it was determined that they were just in the wrong place and it
shouldn't have been that way.

Q So if it was assessed that there was no hostile intent on the part of
this aircraft, can you tell us why 30,000 people -- 35,000 people were told
to run for their lives?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because of the protocols that are in place, John. We want to
make sure that the people in the area of the threat are protected. After --

Q But what was the threat? You just said there was no threat.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, after September 11th, we have to take into account the
world that we live in. We live in a very different world than we did before
September 11th. And the President is going to do everything in his power to
make sure we are protecting the American people and to make sure that the
people in areas that could be high-risk areas are protected, as well.

And, I, personally, having been someone here at the White House, and I
think many others in the area, as well, appreciate the job that was done.
In this instance, it turned out that this plane was accidentally in the
area, had no intent of carrying out any sort of attack.

Q Right, but there seems to be so many disconnects here. You've got a plane
that was assessed as not being a threat, you've got 35,000 people
evacuated, you've got a person who you claim is a hands-on
Commander-in-Chief who is left to go ride his bicycle through the rural
wildlands of Maryland while his wife is in some secure location somewhere,
it's just not adding up.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, I disagree, and let me tell you why: You have
highly skilled professionals who are involved in situations like this, in a
variety of different fronts, from our Homeland Security officials to our
National Security Council officials to our Secret Service officials and to
others and to local officials, and they work very closely together. The
protocols that were put in place were followed, and I think they were
followed well.

Now, with that said, you always want to step back after a situation like
this occurs and do a review and see if there are any improvements that need
to be made. If there are, they will be made. We always learn things as a
situation like this occurs, and you want to make sure that you're always
working to do a better job in the future.

Q Any idea what you've learned from this so far?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that will be part of the review, John, and I'm not
carrying that out from this podium.

Q Scott, protocols aside, was there any kind of explanation given by the
Secret Service, kind of a commonsense reason for why they didn't notify the
President? Was it that they didn't want to disrupt his bicycle ride, they
didn't want to inconvenience him? I mean, what was the reason?

MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe you didn't hear what I pointed out earlier in the
briefing so let me repeat that. The President was never in danger. He was
at an off-site location --

Q I heard you.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and the protocols that were in place were being followed,
the Secret Service detail that was with the President, as well as the
military aide, were being kept apprised of the situation as it was
developing over the course of a very short period of time. And in a very
short period of time, it also -- the threat level went back down, because
the plane had turned away from this direction. And so we appreciate the job
that was being done, and the President appreciates the job that his
security, Secret Service detail did, as well.

Q Can we go to another subject? Could we?

MR. McCLELLAN: Are we off, are we done?

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's up to you all. Can we start with Terry, because he
wanted to go first to a different subject. And I think -- Steve, did you
have something?

Q The Bolton nomination. Senator Voinovich had a scathing statement, a
Republican Senator, saying that John Bolton is the poster child for what
diplomats should not be, he refused to give his assent to the confirmation,
and he suggested that his fellow senators reject him. What do you say to
that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we respect Senator Voinovich's decision, but there are
many people who agree with the President that John Bolton is the right
person at the right time for this important position. We appreciate that
Senator Voinovich is allowing his vote to proceed to the floor of the
United States Senate, and we are confident that the Senate will confirm his
nomination.

John Bolton is a strong voice for reform at a time when the United Nations
is beginning efforts to move forward on reform. He is exactly the kind of
person we need at the United Nations. He brings a lot of unique
qualifications to the position and a great amount of experience and
passion, and sometimes a little bluntness. But the President believes
that's exactly what is needed at the United Nations during this time of
reform.

Q You say you appreciate Senator Voinovich allowing it to go to the floor,
but he did so, tagging it with just a blistering attack. Do you think that
that level of denigration of John Bolton as the person who should be at the
United Nations for the United States hurts the nomination when it gets to
the floor?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. And in fact, we think that the issues that were raised
have been addressed -- by John Bolton, himself, and by many highly
respected individuals who have worked very closely with John Bolton in the
past. Look at comments from Secretary Baker and former Attorney General
Meese, and former United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former
Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger -- these are all highly respected
individuals. Ambassador Kirkpatrick was someone who brought a strong voice
to the United Nations. John Bolton is going to bring a strong voice to the
United Nations to make sure that it is results-oriented and effective in
the important work that it is doing, and to make sure that much-needed
reform is implemented at the United Nations.

I think the American people want to see reform at the United Nations, and
John Bolton has the experience and the ability to get things done at the
United Nations. And if you look at his experience -- let me just point this
out -- he has been Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, under this
President; he was the Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organizations, under the administration of former President Bush; and he
has accomplished many great things. He has been our primary point person
when it comes to combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction. He
worked to build a coalition of 60-plus nations to move forward on the
President's proposal for the proliferation security initiative. That is one
of the most dangerous threats that we face in this day and age -- or the
most dangerous threat we face in this day and age. That is a high priority
for the United Nations.

He's also someone who was the chief negotiator for the Moscow Treaty, where
we have now reached an agreement with Russia and we're significantly
reducing our nuclear arsenals. He is someone who was involved in making
sure Libya got rid of its weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass
destruction programs. He is someone who has been a strong advocate for
ending anti-Semitism in this world. And he is someone who's accomplished
many great things, and those are the kind of results-oriented people we
need at the United Nations at this time.

Q So you don't think Voinovich will have any effect on other Republicans if
they can get the votes together --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we are confident that the Senate will move forward and
confirm his nomination when it reaches the floor. And the sooner the
better, because we've got a lot of important work to get done and many
important reforms to implement at the United Nations.

Q Scott, since the Europeans issued their warning against Iraq, is it your
position that if -- sorry, Iran -- if Iran begins uranium enrichment, will
you then refer their case to the Security Council?

MR. McCLELLAN: The Europeans have been in discussions with Iran and moving
forward on efforts to get Iran to provide an objective guarantee that they
are not developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program.
We are very supportive of the efforts of the Europeans. We continue to
support those efforts. Those efforts are ongoing at this point.

But let me point out that Iran has a long history of hiding its nuclear
activities. For some two decades, Iran hid its nuclear activities from the
international community. Iran made an agreement with the Europeans that
while these negotiations were ongoing, that they would suspend their
uranium enrichment and reprocessing-related activities. That's important.
Ultimately, we believe there needs to be a cessation, because that's the
objective guarantee that will build confidence with the international
community that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. And given
their history, it's important that there be an objective guarantee.

Now, the Europeans have made it clear that they support referring Iran to
the United Nations Security Council if Iran breaks the agreement and starts
its nuclear -- starts some of those nuclear activities again. And that's
been our position, as well, as you -- has been our position, as well, as
you are well aware.

Q Scott --

MR. McCLELLAN: Jennifer.

Q Scott, I'd like to turn to Russia for just a minute. Just a few days
after --

MR. McCLELLAN: See, if you talk quieter and politer, you get your question
in, Les.

Q Well, I'm sorry.

Q Just a few days ago --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm coming to you. I'm just kidding.

Q Thank you.

Q Just a few days ago, the President and President Putin had a great show
of unity and the warmth of their friendship and relationship. And yet today
you have Russia's security chief saying that American NGOs and NGOs from
other countries are being used to spy on Russia and to plot governmental
overthrows in the region. What's the White House reaction to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I have not seen that. I have no idea what he's referring to.

Q Scott. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: I've not seen those comments yet. I have no idea what he's
referring to. But Russia is someone that we work very closely with on a
number of shared priorities --

Q Are his comments, then, completely unfounded?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we will continue -- we will continue to do so. I
haven't seen his comments. I have no idea what he's referring to.

Q Scott. Scott, the President has said he is opposed to illegal aliens
getting driver's licenses, and he supports the REAL ID Act. But on the
other hand, he says we need the cheap labor that these illegals provide.
And my first question: Does he believe these cheap labor illegals should be
confined to being bused rather than being able to drive even used cars?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, that immigrants --

Q Well, does he believe these cheap labor illegals that he says we need,
should they be confined to being bused to their jobs, rather than being
able to drive, even used cars?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I don't think that's the way the President has
described it, first of all. The President -- in fact, this was one of the
issues that came up in his discussion with the Central American leaders and
the leader of the Dominican Republic that was here earlier today. They
spent most of the time talking about the importance of getting the Central
American Free Trade Agreement passed.

And you heard from the President in the Rose Garden about how this is a
larger issue than just trade. This is about promoting democracy and freedom
and stability and prosperity in our own hemisphere. And the Democrats that
are trying to block efforts from moving forward on the Central American
Free Trade Agreement are only hurting efforts in the hemisphere that will
lead to stronger democracy. Many of these are emerging democracies that are
new and young. And we need to do all we can to support them.

And then towards the end of their discussion, they talked a little bit
about immigration. And the President talked about the importance of making
sure we have a common-sense, rational immigration program. Right now we do
not. There are some 8 million to 10 million undocumented workers in this
country that are filling jobs that Americans are not. And there's also a
great strain on our border because of that, that we need to address. We've
done a lot to strengthen our border security.

But the proposal that the President put forward will not only match willing
workers with willing employers and address an economic need, it will
address a humanitarian need, and it will address a security need, as well,
because it will free up our resources along the border to focus more on
those people who shouldn't be coming to this country in the first place.

Q Both of --

MR. McCLELLAN: But -- hang on. One other thing he said in that discussion,
as well, was he pointed out -- and this is something he talked about in his
remarks, as well, about how CAFTA will help improve the living conditions
of people in those countries. And it will also -- and I remember one
President pointed out that it will now be a two-way street. Right now it's
kind of a one-way street because most of the trade that has evolved with
those countries is coming into the United States duty-free. And that's not
the case with American goods and products. And so this is, as many of those
Central American leaders talked about, a win-win situation. And all of
those leaders expressed their strong support for getting it passed. And the
President made a very strong commitment that we need to move forward on
this. He is going to work it hard because this is an important priority not
only for our efforts to expand trade, but for our hemisphere. It's a
geopolitical issue, as well.

Q Both of Washington's daily newspapers this morning report the President's
fellow Republican, Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, of
California, supports the Military Personnel Subcommittee's amendment to ban
women from serving in combat support units, of which another Republican,
John McHugh, of New York, chairman of the subcommittee said, "The majority
of Congress believes women should not be engaged in combat-related
activities." And my question: Does the Commander-in-Chief agree or disagree
with these Republican congressmen?

MR. McCLELLAN: There is a policy prohibiting women in combat zones. And the
President has been supportive of the Department of Defense policy regarding
women -- well, women in combat, I should say.

In terms of these other issues, we support the decisions by the Department
of Defense and their views on this. Women are doing a tremendous job
serving in our military in many capacities. We are grateful for their
service and for their sacrifice, as well. There are women --

Q How about all the sexual assaults that are being reported --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are women who have --

Q -- sexual assaults from all over.

MR. McCLELLAN: And those issues need to be taken seriously, and they are by
our military leaders. And the President has made sure that they take those
issues seriously and that they work to correct any of those problems. That
cannot be tolerated at all. But let me reemphasize, we appreciate the
extraordinary job that many women in the military are doing in a variety of
capacities, and we support the policies of the Department of Defense that
they have right now. And that says no women in combat, but there are many
other ways that women can contribute and help, and we appreciate those that
are.

Q Scott, United Airlines got the go-ahead this week to dump $6.6 billion in
pension benefits on the U.S. agency that insures these. From the White
House's perspective, is this an appropriate way to deal with cost at
companies --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, are you talking about United Airline?

Q Yes. Is this an appropriate way for companies like United, other
airlines, to deal with their cost structures? And what's preventing this
move by United from starting a whole flood of these kind of --

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. We talked a little bit about this
yesterday, I think. But, one, there is a court decision relating to this on
the bankruptcy proceedings related to United Airlines. The President has
worked to make sure that airlines are taking the necessary steps to
restructure in the aftermath of September 11th in our changing
transportation world. And so many airlines have been working to restructure
and adapt to the circumstances.

You're aware after September 11th, there was a need to provide some support
to the airlines, and we did. In terms of workers and their pensions, the
President has outlined a pension reform plan to make sure that we're
protecting the retirement security of workers, to make sure that their
pensions are protected. You also have the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation, which is in place, as well. In this circumstances -- in this
circumstance, they will be meeting their obligation to provide that
security for workers that are affected by this decision. I'm not going to
get into individual decisions by the Guarantee Corporation, but I will
point out that the President believes strongly we need to continue to move
forward on pension reforms, and he outlined some very specific proposals so
that we are doing everything we can to protect the retirement benefits of
workers.

Q Scott, U.N. leaders have faced a number of scandals over the past year,
from the Oil for Food scandal, the sex scandal in Africa, possible
involvement by Kofi Annan, the Volcker possible whitewash of the
investigation. Why is it that Republican leaders seems to be more upset
about John Bolton's tough management style than they are with corruption at
the U.N.? And where's the outrage regarding that instead of whether or not
Bolton is, let's say, polished enough to handle the job as U.N. ambassador?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I talked about why John Bolton was uniquely qualified
and has the kind of experience that is needed and the approach that is
needed at the United Nations. He's a can-do kind of guy who gets things
done. And, you know, in terms of trying to divide this into a partisan
issue -- I mean, I think that the reforms at the U.N. are too important to
try to make a political issue. We all need to work to support reform at the
United Nations so that it is effective, and John Bolton is the kind of guy
that we need there to lead that effort.

Q Do you think you have to -- there is reform going on right now?

MR. McCLELLAN: They are beginning to move forward on some reforms. We're
working very closely with them. That's all the more reason we need to get
John Bolton in there quickly, so that we can make sure that the reforms
being implemented are going to make the organization more effective. John
Bolton is someone who has worked to make sure that multilateral
organizations are effective, and I pointed to some examples of that
earlier.

Q This is a two-part follow-up to that, though. When a Republican says the
nominee is arrogant, bullying and the poster child for what someone in the
Diplomatic Corps should not be, isn't that an invitation to the Democrats,
first off, to filibuster the nomination? And the second part is, what would
you say to Kofi Annan and other diplomats there at the United Nations when
they hear that kind of language coming from a Republican?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think you're going to see the Senate move
forward and vote to confirm John Bolton. We are confident that he will be
confirmed and we believe strongly in his nomination for the reasons that I
stated earlier today. I think we've been through this during this briefing
and I think I've pretty much addressed it. We believe also that --

Q Are you worried about a filibuster?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- those issues that were raised have been addressed. And
there are many, many people who have worked closely with John Bolton who
agree that he is the right person to be at the United Nations at this
important time of reform.

Q Sorry, this is unrelated, a China question. After Chinese President met
with Taiwanese political leader, the leader of Taiwan, Mr. Chen, said --
and his people, still, they are seeking an independent and sovereign
country. Do you recognize that? What do you think, these talks should go
ahead?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we do not believe there should be any unilateral change
in the status quo. We've made very clear what our policy is. That policy
remains the same, and that's a one China policy based on the three
communiques and that remains our position. We want to continue to work to
promote peace and stability in the region, and a lot of that centers around
the importance of dialogue between the two countries. And that remains our
view. So our position and policy remains unchanged.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.

END 2:46 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050512-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)