Text 2048, 797 rader
Skriven 2006-01-25 23:33:28 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (060125) for Wed, 2006 Jan 25
===================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 25, 2006

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
James S. Brady Briefing Room


  þ President's visit to NSA
      þ Reference B
  þ NSA surveillance/FISA
      þ Reference B
      þ Reference C
  þ Katrina Hearings
      þ Reference B
      þ Reference C
  þ Troops tretched too thin
  þ Palestinian election
  þ Mike Brown/FEMA investigation
  þ North Korea

11:41 A.M. EST

MR. MCCLELLAN: Good morning, everybody. Early briefing today. Let me just
update you on a couple of things on the President's schedule. First of all,
this morning, the President had a very good conversation with Prime
Minister designate Stephen Harper, of Canada. The President called to offer
his congratulations on the Prime Minister-designate's party's strong
showing and victory in the parliamentary elections that took place earlier
in Canada.

Secondly, the President, just a short time ago, concluded a bipartisan
meeting with some members of the Senate. This is another in a series of
meetings that we have been having with members of Congress to reach and
talk to them about our strategy for victory in Iraq. And there was -- this
was a very good discussion. This was an opportunity for these leaders to
hear from our ambassador in Iraq, and hear from General Casey who is on the
ground overseeing our forces there. It was also an opportunity for the
President to hear from these leaders, and listen to ideas that they had or
concerns that they have, and work to address those. And the President very
much enjoyed having the opportunity to sit down with these leaders today,
and updating them, as well as hearing from them.

And then here shortly, the President looks forward to going to the National
Security Agency. The President wants to personally thank all the employees
at the National Security Agency on behalf of the American people for all
that they do 24/7 to protect us from threats that we face. They do a great
job working around the clock with one purpose in mind, and that is the
safety and security of Americans.

And following that, the President will be touring the National Security
Agency and then making some remarks to the press, and talking about the
terrorist surveillance program and how that is a vital tool in our efforts
to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening.

And with that, I am glad to go to your questions.

Q Scott, Senator Specter sent the Attorney General a list of questions that
he was going -- planned to ask at the hearing about the NSA surveillance
program. And one of the questions he asked is, would you consider seeking
approval from the FISA court at this time for the ongoing surveillance
program. Is that something the administration is thinking about?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me mention a couple of things. One, first of all,
let me just say I know the Attorney General looks forward to participating
in next week's hearing. Or it's actually -- I guess, it's the following
week, February 6th. The Attorney General looks forward to talking with the
committee and with congressional leaders about the legal justification for
this program. This is a terrorist surveillance program. We are a nation
engaged in war. It is a limited, targeted program aimed at al Qaeda
communications. There has to be an international component to it, so we're
talking about international communications. And it has one sole purpose;
that is to detect and prevent attacks.

We've already talked about the FISA court. That is a very important tool,
as well, and we make very good use of the FISA tool. But FISA was created
in a different time period for longer-term monitoring. This program is for
a shorter period of time aimed at detection and prevention. And so that's
what it's focus is.

And I think we have to step back and remember that -- and I think the
Attorney General talked about this in his remarks yesterday -- there is a
longtime tradition in war of engaging in surveillance of the enemy. That's
what this is. We are a nation at war, and there is an enemy that is deadly
and determined to strike us again and inflict even greater damage. And we
saw the problem highlighted in the 9/11 Commission report when we learned
too late about communications that were taking place from two hijackers
that were in the United States talking to people outside the United States.
That's the kind of problem this is designed to detect, and then be able to
act and prevent attacks. It's about connecting the dots. That's what the
9/11 Commission said we need to do.

So the President not only had the authority to do what he's doing, but he
has the responsibility to do what he is doing, because it's about saving
lives. It's about preventing attacks. It's very limited in nature, and it's
focused on international communications involving al Qaeda members or
affiliated terrorist organizations from either communicating inside the
United States to someone outside, or communicating from outside the United
States to someone inside. And I think the American people expect us to do
everything within our lawful power to protect them. And the President made
it very clear that as long as he is President, he will continue acting to
do everything he can within his powers and within the law to protect the
American people.

But we work very closely with Congress. We have briefed members of Congress
on this vital tool over the course of the law few years, and we'll continue
to work closely with Congress.

Q I think that -- I mean, the way I read this question, he's asking, will
you ask the FISA court for approval of this program -- not specific
instances, but will you ask the FISA court if this is -- if this program,
the overall program, is sanctioned under the law. And that's the --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if the FISA court wants to talk any more about any
communications that they have had with administration officials, that's up
to them. It is a highly classified court, for good reasons.

Q They won't talk about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I leave it up to them. If there's anything
more they want to say, then I would leave it up to them.

Q Can I just follow on this point, because let's be clear about a couple of
things. First of all, the President argues, asserts, that he has the power
to unilaterally authorize this wiretapping, okay? It's not -- he doesn't
have the monopoly on the truth of how --

MR. McCLELLAN: The courts have upheld it and previous administrations have
asserted it, as well.

Q Well, that was different, and that is, again -- this is your position --

MR. McCLELLAN: Same authority. Same authority, David.

Q -- that's in dispute.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not -- hang on -- that's not in dispute. And look
at the Associate Attorney General under the Clinton administration. The
courts have upheld this authority in the past. Look at the federal courts.
The President talked about it and we provided it in a document. So that's
wrong.

Q No, I don't think that's wrong, and we can go into that, but I don't --
our time is not best spent doing that.

MR. McCLELLAN: That the courts haven't upheld it?

Q My question is, instead of spending time trying to fine-tune the rhetoric
over what you want to call this program for political purposes, why not
seek to amend FISA so that it can better suit your purposes, which is
another thing the previous administration did when it wasn't considered to
be agile enough? So why not, if you want the program to be more responsive,
to be more agile, why not seek to amend FISA?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's look at a practical example. Do you expect our
commanders, in a time of war, to go to a court while they're trying to
surveil the enemy? I don't think so. This is a time of war. This is about
wartime surveillance of the enemy. That's what this is about. And we don't
ask our commanders to go to the court and ask for approval while they're
trying to gain intelligence on the enemy. So I think that's a real
practical term to look at it in when you're talking about this issue,
because that's what this is about.

Q There's no way to amend --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, let me back up, because I talked about this the
last couple days. I mean, it's a very good question and an important
question. FISA is an important tool. We use it. General Hayden talked about
that. When we were briefing members of Congress over the course of the last
few years -- I think it was more recently, over, maybe, the last couple
years -- I think the Attorney General talked about it -- we talked with
congressional leaders, bipartisan congressional leaders, about this very
issue: Should we go and get legislation that would reflect the authority
the President already has? And those leaders felt that it could compromise
our national security interest and this program if we were to go and get
legislation passed. Because we don't want to let the enemy know about our
play book, and the more you talk about this program, the more potential it
has to harm our national security interest. That's why we don't get into
talking about the operational aspects about it.

But it is important for the American people to understand exactly what this
program is and how limited it is and what its purpose is. There's been some
misrepresentations. Now, with that said, as I pointed out, we work very
closely with Congress. We'll continue to work closely with Congress as we
move forward. But the President has the authority and the responsibility to
do what he's doing and he's going to keep doing it.

Q Another question, on Katrina. Why won't the White House provide the
specific information that senators want who are trying to do a detailed
postmortem on what went wrong, particularly who knew what when from the
President and among senior staff? Isn't that an important question to
answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, we are providing information to the
House and Senate so that they have the information they need to do their
job. We are working in a cooperative way. We are working very closely with
Senator Collins and Congressman Davis to make sure they have the
information they need.

Let me just point out a few examples, and then I'll come to your specific
question. But there are some 120 administration officials that have been
made available to the committees for interviews or for hearings. You have
some 15,000 pages of documents that have been provided by the Executive
Office of the President, some 240,000 pages provided by the Department of
Defense, and some 300,000 pages provided by the Department of Homeland
Security. So we believe they're getting the information they need to do
their job. And Senator Collins and Congressman Davis, I know, were quoted
in one news article earlier today saying that they believe that the
hearings will -- something along the lines -- produce meaningful results --
something along those lines.

Now, the issue you bring up goes to separation of powers issues. The
President believes that Senator Lieberman ought to have the right to
confidential conversations with his advisors, just like all Presidents have
asserted they ought to have that same right. That's what this is about.
That's the bottom line here.

Q You always fall back on that, but the President also made a promise to
report to the American people about where the ball was dropped, and if it
was, in part, dropped within this White House, doesn't he have an
obligation to forego the crutch of privilege and tell people what the White
House was told, when it was told it, and where the ball got dropped?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's good rhetoric, too, and that's ignoring the facts,
though, because we are doing a comprehensive lessons-learned review within
the White House and the administration, headed by our Homeland Security
Advisor. It's nearing completion. It is taking a broad look at issues and
looking at where we need to improve things for future responses. And we're
also, as I pointed out, working very closely with Congress and the
committees to make sure that they have what they need to do their job. And
we believe they are getting that information. As I pointed out, there's
been an enormous amount of information provided.

Q What's the President's purpose in going to the NSA today? Is it to buck
up morale there? Because we're hearing from some people inside the agency
that they're feeling a little put upon by all the examination of what
they've been doing for the last four years.

MR. McCLELLAN: I hadn't heard that, John, but I did hear what General
Hayden said the other day, and he talked about how strongly they believe in
the work that they are doing to protect the American people. And I don't
think he indicated anything like what you're suggesting.

Q No, no, no, Scott, you didn't hear what I said. I said they feel put upon
by all of the examination on the agency, the fact that they're conducting
this surveillance.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I heard what you said, you talked about morale. And as I
said, General Hayden didn't seem to give any indication that that was the
case. But it is important to thank those who are working behind the scenes
to do everything they can to save lives. And so the President will express
the gratitude of the American people for what they do round-the-clock.

But General Hayden, I think, talked about that very issue the other day,
and the personnel at the National Security Agency and the work that they're
doing.

Q Can we extrapolate from yours and other officials' statements that had
this program been in place prior to 9/11 you would have picked up some
communications, that 9/11 might have had a chance of being prevented?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, General Hayden is an expert on these matters. He is
someone that headed the National Security Agency for a long time. He is now
the Deputy Director of the National Intelligence, our number two
intelligence official. He is someone of great expertise and experience. And
I think he laid it out very clearly that he believes that if he had had
that authority, the National Security agents had that authority prior to
9/11, that they might have been able to detect some of what was going on
and possibly prevent some of what was occurring. Those were his words; I'm
not going to dispute what he said. We fully support the great job that he's
been doing. I think it's best to hear it from him --

Q Right. Again, can we extrapolate from that, that you might have been able
to prevent the entire operation?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can extrapolate what I said and what he said.

Q Scott, Ivan has got to go to the Pentagon. Could you give him --

MR. McCLELLAN: After Martha. Martha has got the floor, and then I'll go to
Ivan so he can get to the Pentagon. I've got to go to the National Security
Agency, so I'm trying to go through this.

Q Back to the NSA. The White House last night put out paper backing up its
claims that this was a terrorist surveillance program, saying the charges
of domestic spying -- you defined what "domestic" meant. Isn't one end of
that phone call on domestic soil? Why is the charge of it being domestic
spying so far off?

MR. McCLELLAN: For the same reasons that a phone call from someone inside
the United States to someone outside the United States is not a domestic
call. If you look at how that is billed on your phone records, it's billed
as an international call, it is charged the international rate. And so
that's the best way to sum that up. Because one communication within this
surveillance has to be outside of the United States. That means it's an
international communication, for the very reason I just said.

Q Right. But one of the people being eavesdropped on is on domestic soil.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it leaves an inaccurate impression with the American
people to say that this is domestic spying.

Q Why is that inaccurate?

MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons that General Hayden has said, for the
reasons that others have said within the administration, and for the
example I just provided to you. You don't call a flight from New York to
somewhere in Afghanistan, a domestic flight. It's called an international
flight.

Q Right, but --

MR. McCLELLAN: This is international communications that are being
monitored --

Q But whatever -- it's David's point, too -- I mean, whatever you call it
in your trying to call it -- someone domestically --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's what it is.

Q -- is being spied on. Someone's communications --

MR. McCLELLAN: It is what it is.

Q -- on domestic soil are being tracked.

MR. McCLELLAN: If there is an al Qaeda person operating inside the United
States and talking to someone outside the United States, you bet we want to
know what they're saying.

Q An al Qaeda person inside the United States --

MR. McCLELLAN: Could be outside the United States talking to someone inside
the United States, too.

Q But the person inside the United States, there has to be a reasonable
basis that they are connected --

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, if some want to try to defend it and say that it is
domestic spying, they're leaving the American people with an inaccurate
impression, just like they would be if they called an international call a
domestic call.

Q But, Scott, you're arguing that --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're arguing.

Q -- somebody on domestic soil is not being spied on?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say --

Q That's part of it.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that at all. In fact, we have been very
clear and precise in what we have said, to try to make sure it is
accurately reflected to the American people. And I would hope that
everybody would do their best to make sure that it is accurately reflected
to the American people. I don't think it is when someone puts up on the
screen "domestic spying." I think that leaves an inaccurate impression that
this is spying on people that are talking about an upcoming PTA meeting
within their hometown. And that's --

Q That raises a whole -- an issue, because it involves people on domestic
soil.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what it is.

Q That's not why it's become an issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think we all have an obligation to do our best to make
sure the American people have an accurate reflection of what this program
is. You have heard from General Hayden, the person who oversaw this
authority. You have heard from others. This program is carefully reviewed,
approximately every 45 days. It is carefully looked at --

Q Scott, is there any review outside the executive branch?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- by legal authorities and others.

I need to go because we've got to leave here soon. I want to get to others
--

Q Why is he going there today?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just said at the top. I think you missed at the top. Let
me go to Ivan.

Q I'll be as brief as I can. There was a Pentagon-ordered study done
primarily by a retired military officer --

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, and let me back up to Elisabeth. Yes, I guess I didn't
add one thing about it. I talked about it last week when we laid this out.
I said, yes, we are stepping up our efforts to make sure that the American
people understand clearly what this tool is about and how this is a
limited, targeted terrorist surveillance program, and what it is designed
to do.

Go ahead.

Q Anyway, this study ordered by the Pentagon, called by the drafter "The
Thin Green Line," says, in effect, bottom line, that the U.S. Army is
stretched so thin it cannot prevail against the insurgents in Afghanistan
and Iraq. Did that come up at all in this morning --

MR. McCLELLAN: And that's why you're rushing to get over to the Pentagon,
too, I'm sure, to bring up that very question. I tell you that our
commanders would be in the best position to answer that question because
they reject such a characterization very strongly.

There was some discussion, actually, in the meeting about the Guard and
Reserves and troop levels. And General Schoomaker was in the meeting, and
he talked about how he is someone who has served years ago in a broken army
and how he categorically rejects any such suggestion at this point. So I
would look to our commanders. They are the best ones to talk about our
forces and how things look, moving ahead. They're doing a great job to
address these issues. And they totally reject such a characterization.

Q Real quick on Katrina. The last estimate on the death toll we had was
1,300 people across five states, from state and federal officials. Has that
number gone up to 5,100? Has the White House been told that the death toll
number has increased?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll be glad to check into this. I think the ones who keep
track of that are the state authorities. They're the ones who keep track of
the official numbers. And of course, we mourn the loss of all those who
lost their lives during that devastating storm.

Q You have no knowledge of the number increasing to 5,100?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't get an update before I came out here this morning.
As I said, I've been participating in these meetings with the President
with senators, and another interview that he had this morning.

Q Scott, you talk about how the members of Congress were briefed and how
FISA was briefed, and the program is regularly reviewed by the executive
branch. Many in the judiciary and congressional branches aren't so sure
that the briefings constitute the necessary oversight. Is the White House
ready to expand its regular reviews of this program to provide oversight
from other branches of the government?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think the Attorney General has addressed these very
issues and how we're going about it. And we'll continue working with
Congress going forward, but nothing has changed in terms of what we have
previously said if that's what you're asking.

Go ahead, Goyal.

Q Scott, two quick questions. As far as this recording is concerned, of
course, everybody agrees that -- no one should have heard from --
terrorists should not have -- in and out of the U.S. Now, the question is
that many people are in contact with al Qaedas, and including Osama bin
Laden -- and according to the USA Today editorial, they are saying that
Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere in western Pakistan, and communication
-- as far as communication is concerned because --

Q Is there a question in here, Goyal?

Q What's the question?

Q What's the question?

Q Question.

Q -- and worship him as God. My question is how are we progressing as far
as in contact -- or people who are in contact with him?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if he's going to be communicating with people, you can
bet we're going to be doing our best to detect that. And if we knew where
he was, we would go and find him. I can assure you of that. We've got
people that are very focused on those priorities and going after the al
Qaeda leaders. We have done a great job bringing to justice, in one way or
another, some three-quarters of what were the known al Qaeda leaders over
the last few years. And we continue to pursue those al Qaeda terrorists,
wherever they are. And it's important that we continue to keep them on the
run and continue to go after them. We're on the offensive and they're on
the run.

Q And on elections in Palestine -- now Hamas is calling death to Israel and
also the Iranian President also called for the death and destruction of
Israel. So where do we stand as far as this election and the coming of
Hamas in power, terrorists there in the region?

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, I think there are two questions there -- first of all,
the elections in the Middle East that are taking place in the Palestinian
territories, and then the issue of Hamas. So let me come to both of those.

First of all, this is an historic and significant moment for the
Palestinian people. The Palestinian people are in a transition to what we
all hope is a democratic state, the two-state vision that the President
outlined. And we are doing all we can to help the Palestinian people as
they move forward on solidifying democratic institutions. And we will
continue to help them as they move forward. These elections -- it's up to
the Palestinian people to make their decisions.

In terms of our views on Hamas, our views on Hamas are very clear. We have
stated our views. Those views are unchanged. We do not deal with Hamas.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. Under current circumstances, I don't see
any change in that. And Secretary Rice put out a statement about a week ago
and referenced back to the Quartet. Our policy is support for the road map
and the two-state vision the President outlined.

Two, we fully support -- because we are part of it -- the statement that
was put out by the Quartet. The Quartet very clearly spelled out that there
is a contradiction here when it comes to a political entity that is also
operating outside of the political process, and engaging in violence, and
has called for the destruction of a neighboring country. So our views
haven't changed on that. And that's a contradiction that needs to be
resolved going forward.

Q The Iranian President?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Iranian President.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we've been through that numerous times.

Q One of the reports on Hamas said the United States would cut aid to the
Palestinians if Hamas becomes part of their government. Is that still --

MR. McCLELLAN: We'll see what the election results are. I'm not going to
play a "what-if" scenario here. Let's see what happens with the elections.
It's an important moment for the Palestinian people.

Q Scott, what is the President's reaction to the armed incursion into
sovereign U.S. territory on Monday, on members of the Mexican military near
the border in Texas, as reported by several news agencies, which included
Mexican army personnel mounting machine guns on our side of the border?

MR. McCLELLAN: Obviously, there is concern about the reports, if that's
what you're referring to. But this is an incident that is under
investigation. The Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border
Protection Agency is looking into this matter, and also coordinating with
federal, state and local authorities. And we've also been in contact with
the government of Mexico, and asked for a thorough investigation and
response from Mexico about this incident you bring up.

Q AP reports from Caracas that Venezuela's Vice President Jose Rangel
declared that Senator John McCain can "go to hell" after Senator McCain
referred to "wackos" in Venezuela. And my question: Does the President
believe that Senator McCain was inaccurate in his referring to Venezuela's
Chavez as a "wacko," and, if so, why?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes Senator McCain is a good friend and
appreciates all that he's doing. We work very closely with Senator McCain
on issues that you bring up, and I think we certainly share the same
outlook when it comes to countries that are moving away from democratic
institutions and principles.

Q In other words, this guy is a wacko, in the President's view, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's a question for Senator McCain.

Q Scott, after Mike Brown was forced to resign from FEMA, he worked as a
paid consultant for two months. And FEMA said his job was to pull all the
documentation together to aid the investigation. Senator Joe Lieberman says
that Mike Brown has refused to answer even the simplest questions. Could
you tell us why Mike Brown is now not cooperating with the investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know whether that's the case or not. I think you'd
have to direct that to either him, or to the Department of Homeland
Security, in terms of what has previously been provided.

Q Could you perhaps find out whether Mike Brown is cooperating?

MR. McCLELLAN: He's a private citizen. I think you need --

Q Formerly of the executive branch.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- to ask him those questions. He's a private citizen.

Q Is he speaking to anybody or is he not talking now?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know of anyone who has had contact with him, from
here, in terms of recently. Maybe they have; I don't know.

Q I just want to button up Martha's point on domestic spying. You mentioned
General Hayden -- well, General Hayden made it clear that this kind of
surveillance has been going on under his authority, because he had the
authority to do that. The difference is that on the domestic side, whoever
was on, say, that telephone call was identified as person one or person
two, and the information about that individual domestically was never
shared throughout the government. With the President's authorization after
9/11, that changed, and then you began more specifically monitoring people
domestically who were in contact with somebody overseas. So how can you say
that that's not domestic? How can you say that that's not a fundamental
shift from what was occurring before?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's an early warning system. It's not aimed at long-term
monitoring, like the FISA court was set up to do for a different enemy in a
different time period when we were in the Cold War, remember. This was set
up as an early warning system to detect and prevent attacks. So you're
talking about for a shorter period of time. Its one purpose is to detect
and prevent attacks.

Q That's totally off point. You're challenging the notion of domestic
spying, when the truth of the matter is that heretofore the person
domestically that was being surveilled was never identified, was never
tracked in any real fashion. That changed when the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me ask you this. Is an international communication
overseas by an al Qaeda member coming into the United States, that is
monitored overseas, is that a domestic communication?

Q Well, first of all, I ask the questions, I don't answer them. Number two
--

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sure you don't want to answer that question.

Q No, because I'm not in the business of setting the rules on this.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a very simple question. I can put it right back to
you.

Q I'm a reporter, I'm not responsible for authorizing these things. You
speak for the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, okay.

Q -- so that's why I ask the questions.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, you don't want to answer that question. Got it.
(Laughter.)

Q Isn't it a fundamental shift in the program that adds a domestic
component to it? Why are you --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's international communications. And I gave you a very
clear example of international phone calls. We're talking about
international communications. So I think I answered that question.

Go ahead, Peter.

Q Scott, how many people did you say -- administration officials had
testified to Congress about the Katrina response?

MR. McCLELLAN: My understanding is that some 120-plus administration
officials have either been made available for interviews or to testify
before the committees.

Q Why is it okay for them to testify, but not okay for Hagin, Card, some of
the people that the senators are vitally interested in hearing from?

MR. McCLELLAN: For the reason I already answered that question.

Q What's the difference between executive privilege for those people and
executive privilege --

MR. McCLELLAN: What's the difference between it for senators and the
President?

Go ahead.

Q Can you please give us a sense of the details of what President Bush
discussed with Mr. Harper in Canada? Did they talk about policies, or just
get to you know --

MR. McCLELLAN: They had a -- it was a good conversation. I think it was
around 15, 20 minutes or so. But I think the two leaders wanted to leave it
where I left it earlier. The President very much looks forward to working
with Prime Minister-designate Harper and the new government. We have good
relations with Canada and we want to build upon those relations and
strengthen our ties.

Q You often talk about bringing people to justice here. Does the President
think that --

MR. McCLELLAN: Not here.

Q Pardon me?

MR. McCLELLAN: Not here. (Laughter.)

Q Bring people to justice. What does the President think of the slap on the
wrist for an Army officer who brutally murdered an Iraqi general during
interrogation?

MR. McCLELLAN: This question came up yesterday, and there's a legal process
in place. There are chain-of-command issues involved here. As you know, the
President is Commander-in-Chief, and I can't get into discussing any
specific --

Q I'm asking you for his opinion.

MR. McCLELLAN: I can't get into specific matters. Well, I answered it
yesterday. The question -- I think Victoria brought it up yesterday. And --

Q You didn't answer that --

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I did. I told you I can't get into discussing
specific cases. But I did point out that when people break the law, they
are held to account. When they violate the policies, they are held to
account. And that's what we will continue to do.

Q A slap on the wrist, a reprimand?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, there are chain-of-command issues here. I just can't
get into talking about specific cases.

Q Why?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because they have rights.

Q If there is no -- for the six-party talks to resume soon, then is there
any possibility for the North Korean nuclear issue will be forwarded to the
U.N. Security Council?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think there have been some indications about North
Korea wanting to get back to the talks. We continue to urge North Korea to
get back to the talks as soon as possible. There was -- the last round of
talks was a good session. There's an agreed-to set of principles to move
this process forward, and to get to our objective of all the nations in the
regions -- which is to make sure that North Korea abandons and dismantles
its nuclear weapons program, and that it quits pursuing its nuclear weapons
ambitions. So we urge North Korea to come back to the talks as soon as
possible without pre-condition so that we can move forward on the
principles that we agreed to.

Go ahead, April. Let me keep going. Go ahead, April.

Q Scott, there are people out there that say that the President is just
paying lip service as it relates to the Katrina aftermath. And do you think
that this administration is somewhat falling into what these people are
saying by not allowing the key officials to testify by interview or what
have you in reference to what happened here in the hours after, or the
hours before Katrina happened?

MR. McCLELLAN: I already answered that question at the top, and I reject
your characterization. This administration is leading the way when it comes
to making sure that people that have been affected by these -- by the
hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast region, particularly Katrina, are
getting the help they need.

There's some -- more than $85 billion in resources that's already
available; some $25 billion to $30 billion of that has already been
allocated and being spent. Now, here in a short -- I think 2:00 p.m. this
afternoon, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Secretary Jackson,
and our federal coordinator, Don Powell, are going to be announcing $11.5
billion in community development block grants that are available to the
states there. And I suspect a large amount of that will go to Louisiana so
that they can continue meeting the needs of the people on the ground.

The President made a commitment that the federal government would do its
part to help with what is going to be one of the largest reconstruction
efforts ever.

Q But, Scott, back on that. That's fine, well and good, the financial part,
but why -- it's almost seems that there's something to hide if people are
not being forthcoming with the information --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, actually the information you cite --

Q -- during and after the --

MR. McCLELLAN: The information you cite has been reported in the news
because we provided that information to the committees.

Q Well, why not the key officials here at the White House who had -- who
were supposed to --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I answered that question at the beginning.

Go ahead.

Q When is FEMA going to come up with these building standards for hurricane
reconstruction down in New Orleans?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll try and check on that, see what I can find out.

Q Also, what's the specific reason that you oppose the bill that proposes
financial assistance for people trying to rebuild?

MR. McCLELLAN: You're talking about Congressman Baker's legislation? First
of all, we share the same goal that Congressman Baker has. We've been
working with him to make sure that the needs -- and other congressional
leaders -- to make sure the needs are met, as I talked about. We work very
closely with him. We appreciate his leadership on these issues. But we have
expressed serious concerns about creating an outside entity that -- instead
of the approach that we're talking about. We believe a more direct, better
approach is to provide assistance directly to the local communities so that
they can get that to the people through things like community development
block grant.

And I hear a helicopter coming, so that means I have to depart. And I
appreciate it, and I'll see you later.

END 12:14 P.M. EST

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060125.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)