Text 844, 790 rader
Skriven 2005-04-27 23:33:12 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0504272) for Wed, 2005 Apr 27
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 27, 2005

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan



PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT McCLELLAN

President's speech on energy.................1-2, 8, 12, 16 Security scare
at the White House.......................2-3 New refineries/military
bases...........................4-7 Gasoline
prices...........................................4 Filibuster/nuclear
option...............................8-9 John
Bolten....................................9-10, 15, 19 Putin/Middle East
road map...........................10, 12 Iraq/new
government......................................11 White House role in
training volunteers...............13-14 North
Korea..............................................15 United Nations
reform.................................16-17
Syria....................................................17
China/Taiwan.............................................18 Social Security
legislation..............................18

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

___________________________________________________________ For Immediate
Release April 27, 2005

PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT McCLELLAN

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:30 P.M. EDT

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everybody. The President looks forward to
speaking at the Small Business Administration's conference this afternoon,
here in Washington. The President will talk about his comprehensive energy
plan and the need for Congress to get it passed. Today's remarks focus on
the importance of harnessing new technology to make us more
energy-independent. And the President will talk about the need to address
the root causes of high energy prices. The fundamental problem we are in is
that our supply of energy is not keeping up with the demands of our growing
economy. And the global demand is also exceeding the global supply and that
is contributing to higher energy prices.

We've seen dramatic advances in technology over the last 25 years, and even
more dramatic change will occur in the next 25 years. And these incredible
advances in technology will help -- will make our energy supply more
abundant and affordable and cleaner, while helping us to continue to grow
our economy, protect our environment and make us more energy independent.

And the President, in his remarks, will highlight four essential steps that
have really formed the foundation of his comprehensive plan to promote
greater energy independence. We need to use new technology to increase
domestic production, to create new sources of energy, to expand
conservation and energy efficiency, and to work with other nations to make
sure they are taking advantage of new technology to reduce their own
demand. And there are several new measures you all are aware of that the
President will talk about in his remarks. All of those fit within the areas
I just talked about.

One issue that we were discussing earlier today was the President's plan to
call on federal agencies to work with states and local communities to
encourage construction of new refineries on closed military sites. As you
all are aware, one of the problems we have is that there has not been a new
refinery built since the '70s. And we -- with the increase in demand, there
is a capacity -- refining capacity problem. And I know some of you had some
questions earlier about whether or not any new incentives would be
provided, and we're not talking about providing any new incentives. And
previously passed legislation already provides for the authority needed to
transfer these military sites for such use.

And you all are aware of the other new steps that he's going to be talking
about, as well. So with that, I will be glad to go to whatever questions
you have.

Terry.

Q Before we talk about the energy, can you tell us about the security scare
here this morning, what happened?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. And I think the Secret Service has talked about it, as
well. There was a report, or an indication, that an aircraft had entered
restricted airspace around the White House, and so there were some
precautionary measures that were taken. It was quickly learned that it was
a false alarm and that all was clear in a very short amount of time. And
everything is fine.

Q Was there, indeed, no plane? Or had the plane been cleared?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the Secret Service is still looking into that, so
you might want to talk to them about that matter.

Q They give a one-sentence thing and say they can't comment beyond that.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sure if they have additional information, they will be
glad to provide it. But the last I knew was that they were looking into it
to determine exactly what it was.

Q How long was the President in the PEOC?

MR. McCLELLAN: Very short amount of time.

Q Was it one or two planes? Some reports said two planes.

MR. McCLELLAN: There was an indication that an aircraft, so I'm referring
to one, but they're looking into exactly what it was at this point.

Q The Vice President --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Both the President and the Vice President were moved?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, that's correct.

Q But, Scott, some of the Secret Service are saying that it might have been
a radar anomaly. And it's happened before where nothing is --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said they're looking into it to determine
exactly what it was.

Q But is there a concern that if there is a radar anomaly that you're
jumping every time, and it might be nothing? Is there concern that the
system is flawed?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we appreciate the precautionary steps that the Secret
Service took. They do an outstanding job and they took some precautionary
steps. And I think you saw what a great job that they do.

Q Was this the President's first time in the shelter since 9/11?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll have to double-check that. I don't recall another --
you mean being moved there? I don't recall another time, but I think so.

Q Was the Vice President here at the time?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was at the White House, yes.

Q Because there was a motorcade that arrived right as this was all ending
that we thought was his.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that was his.

Q On the refineries, how would this work? I take it this is all U.S.
government land still? But would the oil companies be given title to that
land?

MR. McCLELLAN: Right, the sites would be transferred to the companies.
That's what we're talking about doing. That's why we want to work closely
with state and local communities. A lot of these closed military sites are
being redeveloped or used for other purposes to help create jobs, and this
is one area we think that they ought to -- that we ought to look at for
these closed military sites. It addresses a pressing problem that we face.
And it will also address an economic need in these communities, as well. So
we want to work closely with those communities and we think that by doing
so, we will help encourage people to look at the long-term benefit in
investing in these sites and building refineries.

Q That would involve a fee, wouldn't it? Or do they get the land free?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. No, I don't -- yes, I expect that it would be just the
same as with any other transfer of a military site.

Q So they get the land free, then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me look into that, Roger. I'll get back to you on
that question.

And let me back up, because what we're talking about doing is working with
the state and local communities, so I think that you have to take that into
account when you're talking about transferring these military sites. I'm
sure that the local communities would want to have some input into that, as
well. But I'll look into it to see if there is any additional information
to provide you on that.

Q Scott, as it relates to the gas situation, short-time gas situation, what
does the White House consider affordable for all socioeconomic levels in
this country as you're talking about possible -- to have affordable
gasoline? It sounds like you're looking for a rollback in prices. What is
the price that's --

MR. McCLELLAN: As you're aware, the government doesn't set the price. What
we have is a shortage of supply, and that's why energy prices are so high.
That's something I addressed at the beginning in my remarks. And what we
want to see is those prices come down. We want to see more affordable gas
prices for Americans, because it is something that has a direct impact on
families who are struggling to make ends meet, and small businesses that
are working to grow and hire new people. It is something, as I have
previously said, is a drag on our economy.

Q But coming down to what? What is -- $1.46 for 2000 was the price of gas
in America when President Bush took office. Was that affordable? And what
are you looking for in 2005, with inflation going up -- what do you look at
as affordable? You keep talking about it's too high; give us your scale,
give us your ratio, what's too high versus what's affordable.

MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe you didn't hear me a minute ago, but the government
doesn't set the price.

Q I heard you, but what is affordable?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, John.

Q The reason why there hasn't been a refinery built since the early '70s is
because of environmental regulations. (Laughter.) How would this offer of
land on old military bases change that situation at all?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think, as you are aware, when military sites are
closed, any environmental exemptions related to that military base end at
that point. But what we have here is a growing problem with our dependence
on foreign sources of energy. It goes to our economic security, it goes to
our national security. It's a matter that we need to address. And one of
the areas that we need to address is to expand our refinery -- refining
capacity by encouraging the construction of new refineries.

And this -- so this is really something I think that the President
believes, and one of the new measures he's talking about is -- makes a lot
of sense. It's common sense and there are ways that we can harness that
technology to make sure that we are going about this in environmentally
responsible ways.

Q Understood, but if the reason why the oil companies haven't built a new
refinery in so long is because of the environmental regulations and
restrictions and hurdles that they would have to jump, how does this change
that situation at all, and why would they be encouraged to build a refinery
if they --

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, there's a lot of advances we're seeing in
technology and I think that the action that he's talking about today will
make it easier for a refiner to build a newer, cleaner facility, which
would make it more economic for them in the long-term and address some of
these environmental issues, as well.

Q How does it do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry -- new technologies?

Q No, I mean, how does what he's announcing today do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because if they can work with the state and local
communities, they can work to make the permitting process smoother. I think
that's how it would do it.

Q Are you talking about waiving environmental restrictions as a part of
this?

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q Are you talking about --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's why I was pointing out -- I think one of the
things we were talking about earlier was that military sites do have some
environmental exemptions, but you should note that those exemptions end
when that military site is closed. And so what we're talking about doing,
again, and I emphasize, is working with the states and local communities to
move forward in a way that would encourage building of more refineries and
use these closed military sites to address this important need, as well as
other needs in the community.

Q By that are you suggesting then that the state and local jurisdictions
request exemptions or waivers of some kind you might consider?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not suggesting that at all.

Q I don't see how it facilitates the construction when apparently
environmental concerns and restrictions have held up construction in the
past. Why does it facilitate the construction of new refineries to put them
on old military bases where the environment --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I just pointed out, we'll work with those
local communities to transfer these sites and make them available to
refiners. I think that if you look at what the President is talking about
today, this action will encourage refiners in the way that I described
earlier because it will be more beneficial to them over the long-term to go
ahead and make use of these sites.

Go ahead, Connie.

Q Thank you, another topic. The equivalent of presidential debates are
coming up in Great Britain and Tony Blair's political future is at stake.
Is the President watching this at all? Is he in contact, giving any advice
to Tony Blair?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a matter for the people of the United Kingdom to
decide, as I've said previously. We don't get involved in the internal
politics or elections of other countries by endorsing specific candidates.

Q Do you know if he'll watch them or get readouts?

MR. McCLELLAN: He'll follow the election, sure.

Q Scott, the Republican-majority Texas House of Representatives on Monday
voted 101 to 29 to allow voters in November to decide whether the state
constitution should ban same-sex marriages and civil unions. And my first
question, the President supports this Texas Republican vote, doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Les, the President believes that we need to protect
the sanctity of marriage. This is something that he believes goes to one of
the enduring values of this country. The President believes marriage is a
sacred institution between a man and a woman. And as you are aware, he's
called for a constitutional amendment to address the issue that we're
seeing because of activist judges or local officials trying to redefine the
institution of marriage. And the constitutional process, we believe, gives
states all a way to have their say, have their voice in that debate.

Q New York Democrat Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, with 12 co-sponsors,
has introduced HR501, which would restore the so-called Fairness Doctrine,
which was vetoed by President Reagan and which I seem to recall was
described by Edward R. Murrow as "equal time for Jesus Christ and Judas
Iscariot." And my question, the President does not support this, does he?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, but I'm not quite familiar with HR501 as a
number. The Fairness Doctrine of --

Q The Fairness Doctrine, which you know applies only to electronic media,
not to The Washington Post and The New York Times and other such
Democrat-dominated papers --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me take a look at the specific legislation. I think the
President kind of expressed some of his views recently at the newspaper
editors convention that was here.

Q Scott, are there costs associated with the President's proposals to be
announced this afternoon?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, there will be some costs when you're talking about the
risk insurance proposal and so forth. I don't know that we have exact
figures on that, but I'll see what else. I'll see what else we can get you.
I don't --

Q The House-passed energy bill had $8.1 billion in incentives, and that
went beyond the $6.7 billion the President wanted. So I'm wondering how
this squares with added costs now, compared with the House-passed --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President in our proposal focused those incentives on
renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency. And we did express our
view in terms of that part of the House legislation. The House legislation
is largely consistent with the comprehensive plan that the President
outlined. But we do have concerns about that number, where it is right now,
because the President has put forward a plan that would cut the deficit in
half by 2009, and we believe that's important. So everything we're talking
about here would fit within what the President has proposed as we move
forward.

Q Scott, could you comment on something Senator Schumer said this morning
on the Senate floor with regard to the filibuster? He said, "Mr. Rove can
order senators not to compromise. I hope and pray that the senators will
not take direction from the White House on something where the White
House's interest, whatever party the President might be, are different from
the senators, and, frankly, different from the Republic's."

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that there are some news reports that
mischaracterize exactly what he said. He said what we have said before --
I'm talking about Karl -- he stressed that we believe all judicial nominees
deserve an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. The
President has a constitutional responsibility to appoint -- or nominate
qualified individuals to the bench. The Senate has a constitutional
responsibility to give those nominees an up or down vote. It is a tradition
that has gone on for some 200 years, and Senate Democrats have taken the
unprecedented step of blocking those nominees from receiving an up or down
vote. They are playing politics with the judiciary. Some of these vacancies
are judicial emergencies. These are individuals who have received high
marks from people that know them well and from organizations, and they
deserve an up or down vote.

In terms of the Senate and their procedures, the President has made it
clear that that's for the Senate to decide, and that remains our view.

Q Do you believe that the Senate has a responsibility to give an up or down
vote to John Bolton?

MR. McCLELLAN: John Bolton is someone we are very confident will be
confirmed. This issue is boiling down to a vote for reform at the United
Nations or a vote for the status quo. John Bolton is someone who has
focused on reforms and results throughout his 25 years in public service.
He is someone who has gone through four Senate confirmations previously,
including four years ago before the very committee that is looking at his
nomination now. We urge the Senate to move forward quickly on his
nomination so that he can get about doing the much-needed business of
reform at the United Nations.

Q Can I follow up on that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q What about the reports that he was abusive to staff members? Does the
White House see any truth to these reports?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again -- and we've talked about those issues. I think that
these are side issues that distract from the real issue. The real issue
here is, are we going to move forward on reform at the United Nations, or
are we going to accept the status quo. There is a lot of talk about reform
at the United Nations. We believe it is much needed. John Bolton is someone
who brings a lot of experience and a lot of passion, and sometimes a blunt
style to this position. But those are exactly the kind of qualities that
are needed in an agent of change to get things done, particularly at a
place like the United Nations. So we hope that the Senate will move forward
quickly on his nomination.

Q Can I follow up on that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me go back here to the back. I don't want to -- I
allowed Connie to have a follow-up, but let me keep going to some of the
others in the room and then I'll try to come back to the others who haven't
had a question, like Ed Chen. Let me go back here and then I'll come to
you.

Q President Putin is visiting Cairo and he has already asked for a summit,
international summit, attending with the Quartet, regarding the Middle
East. How do you see Russia's role now? Is it trying to compete with the
U.S.?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't think so. We appreciate President Putin's
commitment to the road map. Russia is a valued member of the Quartet and we
appreciate their support for the road map. We have worked closely with
Russia to advance the President's two-state vision. And the road map is the
best way to get there.

In terms of an international conference, we have to look at where we are
right now. The road map does call for an international conference. We
believe there will be an appropriate time for an international conference,
but we are not at that stage now and I don't expect that we will be there
by the fall. We need to continue to focus our efforts on the disengagement
plan. We all need to do what we can to support the Palestinian leaders as
they move forward to put the institutions in place for a viable democracy
to emerge as Israel pulls out of those areas in Gaza and the areas of the
West Bank that they have talked about.

So that's where the focus needs to be right now, is doing all we can to
make sure that that disengagement plan works and that it is a success, and
that the Palestinian people are getting the support they need to build a
viable democratic state.

Q -- both Iraq and Lebanon forming a new government, and just your comment
on that, if you think this is --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of Lebanon holding elections?

Q -- forming a government, both Lebanon and Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Lebanon and Iraq?

Q Lebanon and Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Iraq is moving forward to put their new government in
place. It appears from reports that they're making some important progress
and that they're close to announcing the new government -- the prime
minster and the cabinet. And we appreciate that they're moving forward
quickly to get that done. It's important that we continue to do all we can
to support the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government as they move forward
on the political front, the economic and reconstruction front and the
security front.

There's been a lot of progress made on the security front. You heard from
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General
Myers, yesterday talk about the training and equipping of Iraqi security
forces. And that's important so that the Iraqis can eventually provide for
their own security and that our troops can return home with honor.

So we appreciate that progress has been made. There are obviously difficult
challenges that remain and we're doing all we can to support to Iraqi
people as they work to address those challenges, and we'll continue to do
so.

Q Can I follow the Putin thing, Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me do one follow-up on Putin, and then I'll come to you.
Sorry. You may. Although I don't usually reward people who are trying to
jump in, but -- (laughter.) You did it in a nice way. Others take note.
(Laughter.) I'm not looking at you, John. (Laughter.)

Q In what is tantamount -- address Vladimir Putin --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, start again, Ivan. I'm sorry. See, he just did --
he just did what I told him not to. It's a side conversation here. Could
you start again? I'm sorry.

Q Three, two, one. (Laughter.) Russian President Vladimir Putin, in what is
tantamount to a State of the Union address, said he, in effect, mourned the
loss of the Soviet Union and thought it was a catastrophe, in a sense. With
the President going to Moscow, is he concerned about Putin looking to the
past and would he lecture at all about --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that if you look at his remarks, they did
offer a positive vision and a forward-looking vision that was based on the
values that we believe very strongly in of freedom, democracy and justice.
And he talked about how they would move at their pace. And the President
has consistently emphasized that there is more than one path to freedom and
democracy and that different areas of the world will progress at different
paces.

But I think President Putin emphasized positive changes that would be
needed to make Russia also more attractive for foreign and domestic
investment. So we view this as a forward-looking speech and we look forward
to actions that will be translated into reality to meet what he was talking
about in his remarks.

Now, obviously, the way you described the demise of the Soviet Union, we
take a different view of what that was. We have no regret that the demise
of the Soviet -- of the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold
War. That was an important moment in our history that has led to the
advance of freedom and democracy. But I think we understand the personal,
social, and financial dislocations that affected Russians in the '90s, and
I think that's much of what his remarks were focusing on. So just to keep
that in perspective, as well.

Q Back to the President's proposals today. Can you point to any specific
events or market forces that have changed in the last few days that
triggered these proposals, including the meeting with the Saudis a few days
ago?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. I think how you should view what triggered these
proposals, you should look at that we have continued to act and look at
ways we can address the root causes of the high energy prices that we face
year after year, and that we're facing this summer, as well -- this spring
and this summer.

And the President asked his senior staff to go back and look if there are
any additional measures that we can take to meet the objectives that he
outlined in his comprehensive national energy strategy. All of these new
measures fit within the four essential areas that he has talked about as
part of his comprehensive energy plan and they make a lot of sense. And
that's why he's moving forward on them after the staff reviewed these and
made some recommendations and he made the decision to move forward on
these.

Q When did he ask the staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: This has been -- one, it's an ongoing process. So this is --
I don't think it has ever stopped. We put forward a comprehensive national
energy plan four years ago, and Congress has yet to act on that plan.
That's why the President is emphasizing the importance of Congress acting
now. So I don't think we've ever stopped looking at ways. But the President
wanted to know in more recent weeks what additional measures can we move
forward on to meet our objectives and to address this problem.

Q Not on Tuesday?

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q A couple of other matters. Back on --

MR. McCLELLAN: It was before that, Ed.

Q Back on March 21st, the President was in Denver doing an event. At that
event three Denver residents were removed by somebody working on behalf of
the President who is now being investigated for impersonating a Secret
Service officer. I understand the White House knows who this person is.
Will you tell us who this is? And will you, more importantly, explain what
role the White House has in recruiting --

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q -- and training volunteers at these events? Is the White House
encouraging people to screen or expel people from the President's events
based on their point of view?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me -- and I think I've talked about this issue before.
But, first of all, let me just walk back through it because I think that's
the best place to start. My understanding that a volunteer at this event --
and let me -- I need to back up before that. We use a lot of volunteers at
events to help us in a number of different areas because you obviously have
-- you tend to have a lot of people come into the event, a lot of
logistical support that you need, and so we do rely on volunteers to help
in a lot of different ways at events.

Now, in terms of this issue, my understanding is a volunteer was concerned
that these three individuals were coming to the event solely for the
purpose of disrupting it. And if people are coming to the event to disrupt
it, they are going to be asked to leave. There are always protest areas set
up outside the events where people can express their views.

These three individuals acknowledged that they were coming to the event to
disrupt it. They stated that publicly in some of the initial reports. And
so my understanding is the volunteer was concerned about these individuals,
and that's why he asked them to leave.

Q Does the White House have any role in telling volunteers at these events,
screen people that you think might be disruptive?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know if I'd view it that way. If we think people are
coming to the event to disrupt it, obviously, they're going to be asked to
leave. And if they do disrupt it, they will be asked to leave, as well.
There's plenty of opportunity for people to express their views outside the
event. That's why areas are set up for that sole purpose.

But again, these three individuals acknowledged that they were coming to
the event to disrupt it. And in terms of who this individual was, I don't
think that really serves any purpose to get into that publicly, other than
to help advance the political agenda of these three individuals.

Q If I could get your comment on another matter, somewhat off the news.
Yesterday on the radio network Air America, there was a skit that went like
this -- an announcer said, "A spoiled child is telling us our Social
Security isn't safe anymore so he's going to fix it for us, well here's
your answer you ungrateful" -- and there was then an audio sound of four
gunshots. "Just try it, you little bastard," the announcer continued. And
there was the audio of a gun being cocked. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard anything about it until you must mentioned
it, but it sounds very inappropriate and over the line to me from the way
you described it.

Let me go here to the back -- Steve. And then I'm going to get a few here.

Q Just a couple quickly on Bolton. Are you saying that Senate Democrats are
opposing Bolton because they oppose U.N. reform?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what this issue boils down to. A vote for John Bolton
is a vote for reform at the United Nations. A vote against him is a vote
for the status quo at the United Nations. John Bolton is someone who shares
the President's commitment to making sure the United Nations is effective
and to moving forward on much-needed reform at the United Nations. It's
time to get him in this position because this is a critical time at the
United Nations. He is the right person at the right time, and we want the
Senate to move forward quickly on his nomination.

Q To follow up on that, Scott, to follow up on that.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, let me go to the back. I promise, I'll start over here
and then work my way across.

Q Thank you. In case North Korea refuses again to return to the six-party
talks, the United States intends to bring the case to the U.N. Security
Council. Can the United States do this alone, even if South Korea or China
object to the U.S. --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, can the United States do what?

Q Do this alone?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I think we indicated before -- Secretary Rice
indicated, I've indicated -- if North Korea refuses to come back to the
six-party talks, then we will consult with our partners in the region about
next steps. But our focus remains on getting North Korea back to the
six-party talks. That is the way forward to resolving this issue and
achieving the shared goal of our partners in the region, who want to see a
nuclear-free peninsula. It's time for North Korea to come back to the
talks. We believe there should be no pre-conditions and we hope that they
will fulfill what they have said earlier, which is fulfill their commitment
to come back to the talks so we can talk about how to move forward on the
very practical proposal that we put on the table at the last round of
talks.

Q Two quick questions. Of the concerns currently on Americans' minds, where
does the President think high energy prices ranks?

MR. McCLELLAN: Very high, because it's affecting the pocketbooks of
everyday Americans. It's affecting people out there in the country who are
trying to make ends meets. It's affecting small business. It is one of the
key areas that we need to address as we move forward to strengthen our
economic growth even more. Our economy has been growing strong because of
the pro-growth policies that we have been putting in place, but this
creates a drag on our economy and the economy is at the top of the
President's agenda and energy security is key to economic security.

Q Secondly, what's wrong with the United Nations that needs fixing?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are some reforms that they've talked about. We
want to see them be a more effective organization, an organization that
means what they say and that follows through on what they say they are
going to do.

There are a number of areas where we work very closely with the United
Nations to promote development and to provide aid to countries who are in
need and to people who are in need. But there are other areas where we
believe that the United Nations could be much more effective. The United
Nations put out a report on ideas for reform; the Secretary General talked
about it. We appreciate that he is committed to acting on some reforms.
That's why I say this is a critical period at the United Nations. We need
to make sure that those reforms that are put in place make the organization
more effective and help the organization achieve results to accomplish what
its original mission was.

Q Let me ask you, are these reforms so important that if not made, the
United States might re-think its participation?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think we ever characterized it that way, Ken. We
believe that the United Nations is an important organization and we want to
make sure that it is an effective organization, as well. And there have
been a number of areas -- the oil-for-food program -- where we've seen some
of the corruption, and other areas that we can address to make it a more
effective organization and to end any abuses within the United Nations. I
think that's what the American people want. The American people want to see
reform at the United Nations. That's why we need John Bolton there, because
he is an agent of reform.

Q A Saudi official told us in Crawford that they think the Syrians should
be given a clean slate after withdrawal from Lebanon. Were there such
mediations between the Syrians and the Americans by the Saudis? Did the
Saudis ask the President to soften his position on the Syrians?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think our views are very clear. And I think those
views that we state publicly are what we state privately, as well. We put
out a joint statement which talked about Lebanon and the need to move
forward on free and fair elections without any outside interference or
intimidation. We appreciate Saudi Arabia's efforts to support the people of
Lebanon.

Syria has taken an important step by pulling their military forces out of
Lebanon. The U.N. verification team is in Lebanon to verify that they have
completely withdrawn not only their military forces, but their intelligence
forces, as well. That's important to fulfilling the resolution that was
adopted by the international community at the United Nations, 1559. We also
welcomed the announcement that Lebanon is moving forward on elections on
the May timetable. And we want to do all we can to support the Lebanese
people to make sure that they do have free and fair elections as they move
forward.

In terms of Syria, and we've talked about concerns that we have with the
government in Syria, and those are concerns that remain.

Q Did he ask you to return, like Saudi ambassador, and try to normalize
diplomatic relations again --

MR. McCLELLAN: You might talk to the State Department about that. As you
know, she returned for consultations and that continues at this point. In
terms of any other update on that, you ought to talk to the State
Department.

Q Is anyone following the Taiwan opposition leader's trip to mainland
China? Are developments on this Taiwan issue important or even relevant to
this administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: We, obviously, follow developments very closely in the
region. We welcome dialogue between Beijing and Taiwan, major figures in
Taiwan, because we believe diplomacy is the only way to resolve the
cross-strait issue. But we hope that this is the start of Beijing finding
new ways to reach out to President Chen and his cabinet, because any
long-term solution can only be found if Beijing negotiates with the
duly-elected leadership in Taiwan.

Let me keep going. Paula, you had something, I haven't gotten to you. And
then Terry, and if we have time --

Q The President has been promoting his Social Security personal accounts
all around the country, yet at the Senate Finance Committee hearing
yesterday, they examined proposals that did and did not include personal
accounts. Is there any concern by the administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we appreciate Senator Grassley and others in the Senate
moving forward on legislative efforts to strengthen Social Security and get
legislation passed this year. This is a high priority for the President,
and we appreciate the leadership of Senator Grassley. It's important at
this stage that we be welcoming of all ideas to find a solution. And that's
the approach that the President has taken because he wants to advance a
bipartisan solution. That's why he's been reaching out to members of
Congress and to the American people so that we can move forward on getting
something done this year and do so in a bipartisan way. And we hope others
will come to the table with their ideas instead of standing in the way of
solutions.

Q Back on Bolton, are you saying that the same characteristics that have
raised questions about his conduct -- abrasiveness, bluntness -- are
exactly the qualities that you need in a U.N. ambassador?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that the qualities he brings to this position are
exactly the kind of qualities we need for getting much-needed reform in
place at the United Nations. He is someone who gets results. He is someone
who has great experience. And I remind you that he has been confirmed on
four occasions previously by the United States Senate. He was confirmed
just four years ago by this very committee. And he is exactly the kind of
person we need at the United Nations during this critical time.

Q Some people feel, though, that he has -- that he's run roughshod over
people and he's been abusive. Do you think --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think he's addressed those issues. I think the State
Department has addressed those issues, as well, in his hearings and in his
written responses, as well. And if there are additional questions that
members have, we're glad to answer those questions. And we have been.

Thank you.

END 1:08 P.M. EDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050427-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)