Text 2177, 971 rader
Skriven 2006-02-22 23:36:16 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0602225) for Wed, 2006 Feb 22
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 22, 2006

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
James S. Brady Briefing Room


  þ President's schedule
  þ Port decision
      þ Reference B
  þ Katrina/lessons learned review
      þ Reference B
      þ Reference C
  þ Trip to India
  þ Veto threat
  þ Hamas government
  þ Iran
  þ Iraq/boming of mosque

12:54 P.M. EST

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone. We've got a couple things to begin
with, and then I'll go to your questions.

Tomorrow, the President is going to be holding a Cabinet meeting at 8:45
a.m. in the morning to discuss the results and recommendations of the
Hurricane Katrina lessons-learned review process that has been led by his
Homeland Security Advisor, Fran Townsend. There will be press coverage of
that at the end in the Cabinet Room. It will be pool coverage.

As you all will recall, the President was not satisfied with the response
from the federal government. And at the September 6th Cabinet meeting the
President ordered this review. The President's most solemn obligation is
the safety and security of the American people. And this lessons-learned
review has identified 125 recommendations in 17 general categories where we
can improve the federal government's capability to respond to a
catastrophic event like Hurricane Katrina, or a future terrorist attack.
The President has also made a commitment to the citizens of the Gulf Coast
that we will be a full partner in the rebuilding and recovery effort, and
that process continues to move forward.

But tomorrow is going to be focused more on preparing for the next event.
And with hurricane season just a little over three months away, it is time
for that action to be underway. We have already taken a number of steps,
and we need to continue to move forward on these recommendations.

And following the Cabinet meeting, the President's Homeland Security
Advisor will be conducting a briefing here, at approximately 11:00 a.m.
tomorrow morning, in the Briefing Room. And the reports are going to be
released about 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Now, I've one additional update on the President's schedule. The President
will host Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi at the White House on February
28th. Italy is one of America's closest allies and is making extraordinary
contributions to peace and security. Under Prime Minister Berlusconi's
leadership, Italy has provided vital assistance in building secure and
prosperous societies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans. The President
appreciates Prime Minister Berlusconi's deep commitment to spreading
freedom and democracy around the world. The President and Prime Minister
Berlusconi will discuss a range of issues on the transatlantic agenda,
including peace and security in the Middle East region, energy security,
and assistance to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And then one final statement. Just a short time ago this statement was
released by the President:

"On behalf of the American people, I extend my deepest condolences to the
people of Iraq for the brutal bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one
of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. The terrorists in Iraq have again
proven that they are enemies of all faiths and of all humanity. The world
must stand united against them, and steadfast behind the people of Iraq.
This senseless crime is an affront to people of faith throughout the world.
The United States condemns this cowardly act in the strongest possible
terms.

I ask all Iraqis to exercise restraint in the wake of this tragedy and to
pursue justice in accordance with the laws and constitution of Iraq.
Violence will only contribute to what the terrorists sought to achieve by
this act. The United States stands ready to do all in its power to assist
the government of Iraq to identify and bring to justice those responsible
for this terrible act. And the American people pledge to work with the
people of Iraq to rebuild and restore the Golden Mosque of Samarra to its
former glory."

And that, again, is a statement by the President. And with that, I'll be
glad to go to your questions.

Terry, go ahead.

Q Scott, you said this morning that the President wasn't made aware of the
ports decision until the last several days, until after the decision had
been made. Does the President wish that he'd been brought into the
deliberations sooner, that he knew about it before it became a big
political controversy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me mention a couple of things. First of all, there is a
congressionally mandated review process that is put in place for
transactions like this. It is a national security review process. It's
called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States -- the
CFIUS process -- that oversees such transactions. And you have some 12
departments and agencies that are involved and thoroughly reviewing such
transactions and closely scrutinizing such transactions to make sure that
it meets all national security concerns, to make sure that there is no
national security threat.

So this was a transaction that was closely scrutinized by the experts -- by
the counterterrorism experts, by the intelligence community, and those who
are responsible for protecting the American people. No one in those
departments objected to this transaction going forward.

Now, we have seen some concerns expressed by some members of Congress and
others, and that's understandable, given that they have seen some coverage
that has seemed to suggest that this company, an Arab company, would be in
control of our ports. And that is a false impression. That's why it's
important that we continue to talk with members and others about the facts,
and that they understand the safeguards that are in place, and they
understand how closely scrutinized this was. And that's what we will --
that's what we will continue to do.

I mean, in hindsight, when you look at this and the coverage that it's
received and the false impression that it has left with some, we probably
should have briefed members of Congress about it sooner. And we are talking
with members of Congress about it. There were some briefings last week; I
know there are some additional briefings occurring today and there will be
some additional briefings in the days going forward, so that they can have
a full understanding of the facts, because when you look at the facts, we
believe it should be clear to people that all the national security issues
were addressed during this review process that was mandated by Congress.
That is our top concern, the safety and security of the American people.
And that's why it goes through a process like this.

Q But Scott, does the President think that he should have learned about it
sooner in the process?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one thing that the President did, Terry, one thing the
President did -- and even after all this press coverage of this transaction
-- was go back to every Cabinet member whose department is involved in this
process and ask them, are you comfortable with this transaction going
forward? And each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with
this transaction going forward. We are confident in the congressional
process that was put in place, because it looks at all these security
issues relating to a transaction like this.

Last year -- I think in any given year, there's some 50 to 300 transactions
that go through this national security review process. And this process is
designed with one thing in mind: to make sure that there are no national
security concerns. Last year, there were some 65 transactions that went
through this process. This was a matter that was reported in the press
going back to, I think, late October. The financial press was covering this
possible transaction. And despite the fact that it's been covered in the
press and that there are some 65 transactions that go through this process
every year, we feel like Congress probably should have been briefed on this
matter sooner, particularly in light of some of the false impressions that
have been left in the minds of members of Congress.

Q Scott, you talk about false impressions and that the coverage, the media
coverage somehow drove that. The reality is, you had members of Congress --
like Peter King of New York and others -- who are familiar with the
process, who knew about this, who didn't necessarily sound misinformed,
who, nevertheless, still object to the deal. So was it a case of leaving a
false impression, or the fact that you just have people who are opposed to
this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it could be both. But clearly there are some
that have been left with a false impression, because you have some people
that have gone out there and said that the Arab company would be in control
of our ports and be in control of security of our ports. That's not the
case. This is not about control of our ports. This not about the security
of our ports. And let me be very clear: One thing we will never do is
outsource to anyone the control and security of our ports, whether that's
Dubai or any other entity that operates terminals at our ports.

And let's put this in a different perspective. If this transaction were
blocked, this would not change port security one iota. The Coast Guard and
the Customs and Border Patrol remain in charge of our security. The Coast
Guard remains in charge of physical security. The Customs and Border Patrol
remains in charge of cargo security. And there are a number of safeguards
and security measures that we have put in place to make sure that cargo is
screened before it reaches our shores.

Q Let me just follow on this point. There's bipartisan consensus that
monitoring the ports, the seaports, is very difficult, and it's a
vulnerable area of our homeland security strategy. Karl Rove said,
memorably, recently, that Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world;
Republicans and this President have a post-9/11 view of the world. So a lot
of people wonder on both sides of the aisle, how is it the President could
allow a sale like this to go through with country that has clear ties to
terrorism?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President doesn't view it as a political issue. The
President views it as the right principle and the right policy. We should
not be holding a country from the Middle East or a company from the Middle
East to a different standard from a company from Great Britain. And the
President believes very strongly that all these issues were addressed
during the review process. That's why he checked with his Cabinet
Secretaries -- all the national security issues. We shouldn't -- so it's a
matter of principle. It's a principled position that the President is
taking.

We also have to take into account the broader foreign policy implications
something like this could have. The United Arab Emirates is a strong ally
and partner in the global war on terrorism. General Pace, just yesterday,
talked about how the UAE is providing superb military-to-military
cooperation, and how they are a very solid partner in the global war on
terrorism. They provide access to their ports for our aircraft carrier,
they provide access to our Air Force planes over their airspace and at
their airports. The UAE is someone we have worked very closely with to
crack down on terrorist financing. They work very closely with us in
sharing important intelligence. And so I think you have to also look at it
in that context. But the principle --

Q But if we don't go through on this and they could retaliate, that
relationship would be harmed --

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't describe it that way. I mean, first of all, this
is about a principle. And the principle is that we shouldn't be holding a
Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company. They
went through a very thorough review process before this transaction was
allowed to proceed forward. And let me also mention that when it comes to
Dubai Ports, there are security safeguards in the agreement that they
signed with us. They committed to enforcing security standards under the
Container Security Initiative, and under the Customs Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism.

Now, let me mention what those are. The Container Security Initiative
allows for the Customs and Border Patrol to inspect 100 percent of all
high-risk containers at foreign ports before they are loaded onto vessels
and headed into the United States. The Customs Trade Partnership Against
Terrorism is a public/private partnership with some 7,000 companies, that
do regular business with the United States. And what they must do is
increase their security to prevent terrorists from compromising their
shipments. That's not only the company that's shipping this cargo, but the
company that is providing the services, as well.

And I would also point out that Dubai Ports was the first Middle Eastern
entity to join the Container Security Initiative. So the Customs and Border
Patrol work very closely with Dubai customs to screen containers that are
coming to the United States. And this is a company that operates in many
countries around the world. It's a company that we are very familiar with.

Q Scott, one more about the review process; then I want to ask you about
lessons learned. Out of the 65 or so similar transactions that were
reviewed last year, how often is one turned down?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you can probably direct that to the Treasury
since they're the chair of that process at this time. And --

Q -- not very often --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think it's not often, but there are some that are
denied. And I think you should direct that to the Treasury Department. They
can probably provide you additional information on that.

Q A follow-up on the lessons learned. What is the -- how effective can a
review be when it's conducted -- of the administration -- when it's
conducted by somebody who is a member of the administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: You'll see how thorough it is tomorrow. It is a very
comprehensive review. Every Cabinet department and agency was involved in
this review. Everybody had a part in this. And what we want to do is take a
close look at what worked and what didn't work, and then apply those
lessons to the future. The number one priority for this President is the
safety and security of the American people. That's why this lessons learned
review is so important.

There was some great work done by many people in the immediate aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. The Coast Guard comes immediately to mind. They were
sitting there rescuing people off rooftops and rescuing people in the
floods. They saved some 33,000 people, and they should be commended for
that. But there are other areas where all levels of government fell short
-- the federal, the state, and the local. And what the President wanted to
make sure happened was that we take a very close look at this and that we
learn the lessons so that we can apply those to future responses and do a
better job in the future. This was a hurricane of unprecedented scope and
magnitude. It covered some 90,000 square miles. The devastation was
enormous, not only to property, but to the people who lost their -- people
lost their -- a number of people lost their lives.

Q But why have someone in-house do that --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's her responsibility. Well, there are two things. One,
we've worked closely with Congress also on their investigations and
provided them all the information they need to be able to do their job. And
so that -- we'll take a look at the Congress' review, as well, and their
recommendations. But it's important that we move forward and apply these
lessons learned. And I think you will see tomorrow that this is a very
comprehensive review that has been conducted. And the recommendations are
very sound recommendations. So I think if you look at the report, it will
stand on its own.

Q Scott, when did the President actually learn of this transaction? And why
don't we own our own -- I mean, why don't we control and run our own ports?
Isn't that more -- in terms of security.

MR. McCLELLAN: We do. We do. That's not correct. We do control our ports,
and we do oversee --

Q I don't think many people knew that the British were running our --

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, this is what I'm talking about. Some people have left
-- been left with the wrong impression. And that's why it's so important to
understand the facts and understand that there is a process in place to
look at this --

Q -- that somebody else is going to run our --

MR. McCLELLAN: The one that you just stated, that someone else would be in
control of our ports and oversee security. That's not -- that's not
correct.

Q Managing --

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, in terms of the President, the President --

Q Why aren't Americans managing the ports?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me answer your first question, and then we'll get
to your next two or three questions. The President learned of this
recently, he became aware of it.

Q How recently?

MR. McCLELLAN: And there was no objection raised by any of the departments
during the review process, or any concerns expressed about potential
national security threats. And that's why it didn't rise to the
presidential level.

Q When did he find out?

Q Scott, talk a little bit about -- one of the problems here is it's a
secretive process, and understanding that some things concerning national
security are done in secret --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's not just that. I mean, there's proprietary
information, as well. And I think that what we're working to do is make
sure that we can provide as much information as possible about this
transaction. Because, as I pointed out, one thing that is key is that this
company agreed to additional security measures that they would take beyond
what some others do in transactions like this. And I pointed out what those
are.

Q You talked about checking cargo and that they say they'll allow cargo to
be checked. There's clearly not the manpower to check cargo. About 5
percent to 7 percent coming in this country are ever checked. So what does
the U.S. need for this company to do? Hiring and firing? Do they vet
people? Do you know all that?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is the company that manages the terminals. They'll
manage the terminals --

Q So can they hire and fire?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the forklifts that lift the cargo off or load the cargo
on to ships. And that's what their responsibility is. But that's why I
pointed that there were additional security safeguards that were put in
place in an agreement with Dubai Ports. And that's important to understand.

And in terms of -- let me back up and make sure that people have a clear
understanding of the security measures that are in place, because I think
in your question you ignored some key aspects of this. First of all, we
secure cargo before it gets to our shores. The Customs and Border Patrol
and the Coast Guard are in charge of security for our ports, and they do a
great job. And there are a number of steps and measures that we have put in
place over the last few years to improve security at our ports and to
strengthen security at our ports -- as I pointed out, the Container
Security Initiative.

Under the Container Security Initiative, the Customs and Border Patrol
inspects 100 percent of all high-risk containers. And they do that at
foreign ports before they're loaded on to the ship and headed to the United
States. A hundred percent of all cargo is screened, using intelligence and
using cutting-edge technology. Technology is very important. Technology is
very important --

Q -- all of it --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, 100 percent of cargo is screened. There's a 24-hour rule
in place. The Customs and Border Patrol is required to screen manifest a
day before cargo arrives. So what we're doing is pushing out the security
before that cargo comes to our shores. And then I also mentioned the
Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, how that's been implemented
and how we have more than 7,000 companies participating in that.

And then, finally, the technology that is used by the Customs and Border
Patrol -- they use large-scale x-ray and gamma ray machines and radiation
detection devices to pre-screen cargo coming into this country. So there
are a lot of security measures that are put in place. It is the top
priority for this administration.

Q Scott, would you just go back to the hiring? So who is running the
forklifts? Do we have any control over that, or does that matter?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why the agreement was signed with this company.
That's why I just pointed that out. Sure, it matters. And that's why it was
looked at very carefully during this review process. This review process
looked at all the national security issues relating to this very matter.

Q When specifically did the President -- how did he find out about this --
and when specifically? Was it last week when this blew up? He read it in
the paper?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it was coming out last week, and he learned about it
over the last several days. I couldn't pinpoint the exact time, but last
several days, recently.

And -- but I think it's important to keep in mind when you're reporting
back to the American people what I just said. This transaction was closely
scrutinized to make sure that there were no national security threats.
There were no objections raised by any of the departments that are charged
with being involved in this process. And that's why it didn't rise up to
the presidential level. But even in spite of that, with all the attention
that this transaction has received, the President felt it was very
important to go back to each Cabinet Secretary who has responsibility for
this process, and ask them, are you comfortable with this transaction
proceeding forward. And they all said, yes. And I'm sure it's for the
reasons that I spelled out to you in this very room, because of the
agreements that were put in place, because of the working relationship that
we have with this company, and because there were no national security
threats raised.

Q So he found out through the news coverage, is that what you're saying?
How did he find out about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think, initially, Steve, when this was becoming more
-- it was getting more press coverage, that's how he found out about it.

Q Scott, top Republicans turned on the administration faster than Nancy
Pelosi. What do you make of that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you have to ask people their reason for
opposing this transaction. It's up to them to explain their reason for it.
The President does not think we should be holding this company to a
different standard from the British company that currently manages these
terminals.

Q Politically, your own party turned on this White House aggressively --

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't look at it that way. You're looking at it in the
political context. The President is not looking at it in the political
context. I understand and appreciate you looking at it in that context, but
the President is looking at this as what I said it is -- this was the right
principle, and it's the right policy.

Q Scott, it sounds like the President has lost control of the party on the
Hill. It sounds like they're campaigning against George Bush.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't think that's accurate. You're talking about this
specific issue? This specific issue -- let's clarify that -- no, I think --
the President just came back from a House Republican conference just a
short time ago, and they talked about important national security
priorities, and they talked about the tools we're using to protect the
American people like the terrorist surveillance program. And at the end of
that comment -- end of those remarks, he received a standing ovation. So I
think there is strong, united support for the policies that we are putting
in place and that we are pursuing to make America more prosperous and to
make America safer.

This President has made his number one priority winning the war on
terrorism. And so let's keep in mind that the United Arab Emirates is a key
partner and ally in the global war on terrorism. They work very closely
with us. Partnerships are key to winning the war on terrorism. And they
have followed the rules. They went through this review process, a thorough
review process, that involved national security experts, that involved
counterterrorism experts. They looked at all these issues and they said
they were comfortable with this transaction going forward.

And we shouldn't be creating a different standard here. But if you're going
to try to block something like this, you also need to look at it in the
context of those broader foreign policy concerns. It could have a real
negative impact on our relations with countries like the UAE, and other
allies who are following this issue very closely -- allies who have helped
us to save lives and prevent attacks.

Q Scott, at any point has the administration or administration members of
the CFIUS process briefed members?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Briefed members. Has the administration -- other than discussions that
have ensued since this controversy has erupted, did the administration or
any of the administration interaction with the CFIUS process actually brief
members of Congress? And insofar as there are a lot of ports that are
pretty important to economic --

MR. McCLELLAN: You're talking about in this transaction?

Q Absolutely.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think there were some briefings that occurred last
week to some members, or at least to their staff. And there are some
additional ones that are going on, I believe, today, and then I think
Senator Warner has a hearing tomorrow, and his committee.

Q -- prior to last week?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll have to double-check that, Carl. The ones I know of
were some last week and then again some additional ones this week. And
there are additional discussions going on. It's important for members of
Congress and governors and others who have raised concerns to have a full
understanding of the facts. Senator McCain said we shouldn't be rushing to
judgment here; we should understand what the facts are. As he said, he
supports the President and he knows fully that this President is going to
do everything he can to make sure that the American people are protected,
and that includes in a situation like this. And that's why -- and Congress
shares that concern. I mean, this is a shared issue here when it comes to
the overall concerns. Congress is the one that mandated this process, for
this very reason, and it's a process that we take very seriously. And
that's why you have those departments involved in it, and that's why you
have the counterterrorism experts involved in looking at these issues.

The intelligence community did an assessment to make sure that there were
no national security threats with this transaction going forward. It
wouldn't go forward if we had concerns to our nation's security.

Q So insofar as the Speaker yesterday suggested a moratorium on this deal
and that Senator Frist has also spoken out in opposition to it, are they
just ill-informed?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you have to ask them their reasons for
opposing it. I'll let them explain that. I'm not going to try to speak for
members of Congress. Members of Congress have the right to do what they
feel is necessary. But that's why I said we are going to continue talking
to them and providing them with the facts and making sure they have a clear
understanding of the facts here.

As I indicated, I mean, it's understandable why people have expressed some
concerns when they feel like an Arab company is going to control our ports,
or they see a headline to that effect. And that's why we're going to
continue reaching out to members and briefing them about it.

Q So is the administration concerned that the rancor on the Hill over this
sends an inappropriate message overseas and that the U.S. government is
divided?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President is concerned about the mixed message that
could be sent on this matter. He said that yesterday. It sends a terrible
message to our allies when you say a company from the UAE, an Arab country
that has been a good ally in the war on terrorism, should be held to a
different standard than a company from Great Britain, particularly when it
followed all the rules, and when it went through this review process.

Q So insofar as the President heard about it just recently, and the Cabinet
Secretaries and the CFIUS process led the no objections, does the White
House feel let down that nobody spotted a potential political pitfall here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, I mean, we're looking back in hindsight on
this issue. And there are some mischaracterizations of what this
transaction is about. There is a false impression left with people. All you
have to do is look at their comments to know that there were false
impressions left. I mean, we had one in here earlier, we had a reporter
earlier in the day suggesting that this company would be in control of the
ports. That's just not the case. And that's why it's important to
understand the facts. And that's why I said that we probably should have
briefed members of Congress sooner, but that's looking at it in hindsight,
given the attention it has received.

Q Scott, there were some questions raised about information flow to the
President during Hurricane -- after Hurricane Katrina and questions about
when he learned that the Vice President had shot a man. And now there are
questions about when the President learned about this. Is there some sort
of systematic issue here where information --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think there's a systematic over-analysis sometimes in this
room, and I think that's over-interpreting things and drawing the wrong
conclusions, Peter.

Q Will that be --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- false impression on each of those issues. I'll be glad to
address each of those issues individually, but I think it's totally wrong
to try to draw conclusions and over -- overanalyze this thing in that
manner.

Q -- should be looked at in the report coming out tomorrow about
information flow to the President during Katrina?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you will have the report tomorrow, and you'll hear the
briefing tomorrow from Fran Townsend. You'll have an opportunity to ask her
questions about it.

Q Scott, you've said on several occasions, in hindsight that you could have
alerted Congress earlier. Is that a view that the President shares? And
when did the White House come to that conclusion?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it's clear from the concerns that have been
raised by members that they didn't have a clear understanding what the
facts are. That's why we're trying to provide them with the facts. And,
yes, that's the view that we're expressing from the White House, and I'm
expressing on behalf of the President.

Q And also, you said that part of this process is not political, but you're
looking at ways to be fair to Arab allies in the war on terror. But at what
point does it begin where there are American sensibilities that have to be
recognized, that there should be somebody who brings up, perhaps, the
alarms that might go off? Do you believe that there --

MR. McCLELLAN: They were during the review process. They looked at all the
national security issues. You're leaving a false impression that would
suggest that these issues weren't looked at, because they were looked at
very thoroughly.

Q But do you believe that there should be a point person or a part of that
process to bring this information to the White House and say --

MR. McCLELLAN: The White House agencies are part of this process, like the
National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. So there
are 12 departments and agencies that are involved in this process, and
there are representatives who are in place to look at all these issues. And
there are counterterrorism experts and intelligence experts who look at
these matters to make sure all the national security concerns are
thoroughly looked at. And no one raised any objection about this
transaction going forward, after looking at all these national security
concerns to make sure that they were met.

Q -- national security concerns, the people in the White House or NSC who
saw this and said this might be a political problem, this might be a
perception problem? You talk about the fact that people are not
understanding this. Do you believe that there should have been --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think anybody during this process was looking at it
in any way other than the national security standpoint because that's what
they're charged with doing under this process that was mandated by
Congress. This was created by members of Congress to make sure that these
issues were thoroughly looked at before approval was given for the
transaction to move forward. And as the President indicated yesterday,
that's part of the reason why he believes the transaction should go
forward.

Q In light of that fact, then, do you believe it was a mistake that that
wasn't examined, that wasn't looked at? Because obviously members of
Congress are very --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you heard from the President yesterday. He's not
looking at this from a political context. But with that said, we -- as I
indicated -- should have been briefing members of Congress sooner, given
all the attention that has been focused on this, and given the fact that it
has been mischaracterized.

Q Has the President reached out to Frist or Hastert?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we stay in touch with their offices. We stay in touch
with governors and mayors, as well. And we will continue to, but there's no
update in terms of any legislative calls he's made.

Q Scott, this morning, the President spoke at the Asia Society about his
upcoming trip to India and Pakistan. Yesterday Indian Ambassador, Mr. Ronen
Sen was guest speaker at the National Press Club and he reviewed the visit
and he said that India is ready to welcome the President. And also it will
be a different region than in the past by President Clinton. My question is
that I'm also, of course, looking forward that my friend is visiting my
land of birth --

MR. McCLELLAN: What is your question? We look forward to visiting your
country.

Q The question is how the President feels himself this visit will be
different than President Clinton? And if he's in touch in anyway with the
President? Also as far as India and Pakistan --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think he spelled it out in his remarks earlier today. Our
relationship with India has never been stronger. We have a very good
strategic partnership. We have worked very closely with India over the last
few years to strengthen our relationship. And there are a number of areas
where we're working together. The President talked about those areas
earlier today. He's going to be talking with some additional media later
this afternoon, some media from India, and he'll be talking about how he
very much looks forward to going to India. This will be his first visit to
India, and there are a lot of areas of common concern where we need to
continue to work together and build upon our great relationship.

April, go ahead.

Q Scott, going back on the issue of the mixed message that the President is
concerned about, is that mixed message bigotry or racism coming from both
sides of the aisle from U.S. leaders?

MR. McCLELLAN: April, you'd have to ask those who oppose this transaction
what their reason is for opposing this. I'm not going to try to question
motives.

Q Well, but, Scott, the President said it sends a terrible signal to
friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to
manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a
good track record from another part of the world. And, I mean, reading
between the lines, it sounds like that's what he's saying. And I'm trying
to hear from you, what is this mixed message and what does this signal?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he's stating a fact. I mean, he's stating that this is a
principled position on his part. It is the right policy, it is the right
principle to stand on. We shouldn't be creating a different standard for a
country from the Middle East, or a company from the Middle East, than a
company from Great Britain. And that's what --

Q Okay, what about discrimination?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- some are suggesting here. This transaction was very
closely scrutinized to make sure that all national security concerns were
met. The company agreed to additional security measures that they would
take beyond what some others have had to in the past. And I spelled out a
couple of areas that they would be addressing as part of those --

Q -- discrimination, then, beyond bigotry and racism? Is one country being
discriminated against over another?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Is it an issue of discrimination? Is one country being discriminated over
another?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President said he doesn't believe we should be
setting a different standard, and that's the principle that he was talking
about yesterday. You would have to ask others their reason for opposing
this transaction going forward. And as the President said yesterday, they
should explain their reason why they believe this transaction should not go
forward, given the facts that I have just provided to you all in this room,
and given the facts we've been providing to the American people over the
last few days about how carefully scrutinized this transaction was.

The top and only concern when it came to this transaction was the safety
and security of the American people. Are there any national security
threats for this transaction going forward? And every department that
looked at this and had their experts look at it determined that there was
not.

Q But Democrats are very familiar with national security, saying this sends
a very, very bad signal, as far as heightening the anti-American sentiment
in the Arab and the Muslim world. Do you agree with that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure who you're referring to and what they said.

Q I just told you what they said.

MR. McCLELLAN: Who is it?

Q I don't want to tell you who it is, I cannot do that. But this person --
believe me, is very familiar with these issues -- and they said, this sends
a very bad sentiment right now at this time when you have the Muslim world
dealing with the issue of the cartoon of Allah, which is blasphemous to
them, and this is sending -- there's this heightened anti-American --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as the President said yesterday, what it does is send
a terrible signal to a good ally in the war on terrorism, and to others who
are allies in the war on terrorism.

Q Scott, who's briefing the Senate Armed Services Committee tomorrow? Do
you know?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think our Deputy Treasury Secretary. There are probably
others involved in that, too. But you ought to double-check with the Armed
Services Committee. They're the ones who schedule those people.

Q And on the Katrina lessons learned, were the contents of all the
documents and the emails that were not provided to the House and the Senate
Committees that were investigating Katrina taken into account in the White
House's own lessons learned --

MR. McCLELLAN: As I indicated at the top here, the briefing for that will
be tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. in this room. I would encourage you to come back
and ask those questions at that time.

Q Scott, briefly back to this report and the President's veto threat. I
gather it's still --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q Does it apply to any measure that would block the deal, or one that would
just delay --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's talking broadly about legislation that would prevent
this transaction from going forward, and I think he was pretty clear in his
remarks yesterday.

Q Legislation that would delay it --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the question that was asked was specifically about the
legislation that Senator Frist was talking about, and that's how I
responded to that comment. So, yes.

Q Scott, are there -- is there anybody in the administration that's talking
to company representatives about extending the date before the closing of
this transaction at all?

MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I know of. I mean, once the process is complete,
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States process is
complete, all the national security issues are addressed and the
transaction is approved to go forward, my understanding is that the only
way it can be reopened is if there were false or misleading information
provided during this review process, or important information omitted
during that process. So that's the process that Congress put in place.

Q And a follow-up to Suzanne's question. I take it that on the political
review at the White House, I take it people such as Karl Rove did not take
a political look-see at this for any implications at all?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. His office was not involved in this process.

Q A two-part. Didn't the 9/11 Committee report document how al Qaeda and
the 9/11 terrorists used Dubai as a banking facility, as well as a country
of transit?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can go look at the 9/11 Commission report and see what
it spells out. I don't think that issue is what we're talking about here.

Q I think that was reported --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are other companies, foreign-owned companies
that manage ports around the world, including here, where citizens from
their countries have been involved in terrorist acts. Is that correct?
Okay, thank you.

Q For the first time in his five-year presidency, the President has now
threatened to veto what is strongly supported by his own party's Speaker of
the House, Senate Majority Leader, Governor of New York and Governor of
Maryland, among many others -- Republicans and Democrats. Can you tell us
of any such major split before in American history?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Les, I don't know if those individuals you mention
have had an opportunity to learn all the facts relating to --

Q They speak out without learning --

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, don't put words in my mouth --

Q -- are you contending that they just shoot their mouths off?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- you're putting words in my mouth. Well, there have been
individuals who have spoken out and expressed things that simply aren't
correct about this transaction. And so that's why we want to make sure that
they have the facts. We want to make sure that they know the safeguards
that are in place. We want to make sure they understand how carefully
reviewed this transaction was to make sure that there are no national
security threats with it going forward.

Go ahead, Sarah.

Q Thank you. Scott, my question is, was it really necessary or wise to
issue the ports contract to a UAE company? Isn't it risky and taking a
chance since many terrorists are believed to be in the UAE?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the first part of your question.
Isn't it risky for this transaction to go forward, is that what your
question is?

Q Yes, is it wise?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, for the reasons that I've stated throughout this very
briefing. The President believes it should go forward because all the
security issues were looked at. There are additional security measures that
this company is going to put in place. This is not voluntary additional
security measures, this is mandatory additional security measures. I've
touched on what those were. Let me go back through them. They are going to
have to enforce security standards under the Container Security Initiative
and enforce security standards under the Customs Trade Partnership Against
Terrorism. And they're also committed to cooperating and disclosing of
documents, procedures, security measures and employee backgrounds, as well.
That was part of the additional security measures that they agreed to.

Q When the President yesterday described what Dubai Ports World would be
doing he used the phrase several times "manage our ports." Is that the
wrong impression? If he used that, would that incorrectly be describing
their duties --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me tell you what he's referring to, that they
would be involved in managing the terminals at the ports. I think you know
very clearly what he is referring to in those comments and what this
transaction is about. There's a clearer understanding now that we've had an
opportunity to explain it in more detail and talk about the facts
surrounding this.

In terms of the ports, this company won't control our ports. It won't
control security at the ports. The security is under the control of the
Coast Guard and under control of the Customs and Border Patrol, and it will
remain that way. As I indicated, if this transaction were blocked, it would
not change security at our ports one iota.

Q Scott, are there any American companies managing port operations in any
Arab countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't taken a full look at that. You can probably go and
get that information from various companies or departments involved in
that. I'm sure -- I hesitate to speculate about it, but --

Q You can't name one, can you? Isn't that true?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I haven't looked into it. I haven't look into that
matter. But I would point out that Dubai is involved in a number of
countries in terms of operations of ports, whether they be airports or
ports. Australia, China, Hong Kong, the Dominican Republic, Romania,
Germany, India, Venezuela, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia. So this is a company
that we're very familiar with.

Q Scott, why was an American company not chosen for this job?

MR. McCLELLAN: This was a transaction involving a British company and a
company from the UAE. And this company wanted to purchase this
British-owned company, or purchase the terminal -- management of the
terminals at these sites. And now they made a number of agreements in this
process, too, as I pointed out. But you'd have to ask those American
companies if they didn't want to purchase it. It doesn't change -- it
doesn't change who controls the ports or who's in charge of security. So
let's be clear on that.

Q I want to get back where we started and the question asked by Kerry, who,
unfortunately, in his advancing years continues to have trouble making
himself clear, apparently. (Laughter.) The question, very simply, was --

MR. McCLELLAN: Happy birthday. It was yesterday. (Laughter.)

Q But the question very simply was, do you now think the President should
have known about this sooner? I ask this in the light of the many times
you've just told us the extraordinary was this was handled, the
extraordinary --

MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking in -- you're asking to look back in hindsight,
Ken. And looking back in hindsight, we believe members of Congress should
have been briefed on it sooner. But the President is confident in the
process that has been put in place to review these matters. He's confident
in those who are charged with looking at these issues and looking at the
national security concerns in this. And that process was carefully
followed. This was thoroughly reviewed. And that -- but, with that said,
the President went back and made sure every single Cabinet Secretary that
is involved in this process was comfortable with this transaction going
forward. I'm not going to try to play too much Monday morning
quarterbacking from this podium.

Q But in hindsight, Congress should have known, but the President
shouldn't?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, let's point out that -- I said they should have been
briefed sooner, is what I said.

Q And the President shouldn't have been?

MR. McCLELLAN: And -- well, I think we can look at it in hindsight, Ken,
and I'm sure you will look at that. But there's some 65 transactions --
you're not letting me have a chance to respond here -- some 65 transactions
over the last year that went through this process. Not one person involved
in this transaction objected to it going forward. If there had been an
objection, then I'm sure it would have risen to the President's level. Let
me point out to you that once this has gone through the process and the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has received a
complete notification, it goes through that thorough review of the notified
transaction, and in some cases it is necessary to undertake an extended
review or investigation. An investigation, if necessary, has to begin no
later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required
to end within 45 days. And then the President would have to make a
determination on that transaction. So that's the process that was put in
place by Congress, by statute, back in 1988 was when it was passed.

Q Scott, can I follow on --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are other people that still have questions. I'll come
back to you in a minute.

Q Scott, on Katrina, is the President confident that the recommendations
that are in this report being released tomorrow can be put into place
before the hurricane season begins?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are a number of them that can. Some of them are
going to be longer-term recommendations. But one of the most important
objectives that we have is to make sure that we rebuild the levees stronger
and better than before. And that's why we've provided -- or proposed
significant funding to make sure that the levees in New Orleans were
stronger and better than before Katrina hit. And the Corps of Engineers is
already moving forward to