For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 3, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:30 P.M. EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. The President began his day with a
breakfast with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. They had a good
discussion. The Prime Minister and the Netherlands are a strong ally
in the war on terrorism, and they discussed a number of important
priorities when it comes to foreign policy. And the President,
following that, had his usual briefings.
Then the President met with the Secretary of Defense. This
afternoon, the President will be participating in a signing ceremony
for the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act,
and the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement and Implementation
Act. And the President will talk about the importance of expanding
trade, and the importance of free trade to America's prosperity and to
our economic security.
The President, later this afternoon, will have some congressional
meetings. He will meet with the Speaker of the House and the Senate
Majority Leader, and following that meeting, he will meet with House
and Senate Republican leaders to talk about legislative priorities and
our legislative agenda moving forward, now that Congress has returned
from their recess. I expect that they will talk about some of the
issues I mentioned yesterday, from moving forward on a comprehensive
national energy plan that will reduce our dependence on foreign sources
of energy, and update our electricity delivery systems so that we have
a modernized electricity delivery system. I also expect they will talk
about the importance of moving forward as quickly as possible to get
seniors more benefits and more choices under Medicare, including
prescription drug coverage, so that seniors can have the same kind of
choices and benefits that members of Congress currently receive.
Q Coverage?
MR. McCLELLAN: I also expect -- well, I expect that the members
will -- you're interrupting my opening remarks -- I expect the members
will go to the stakeout, though. I also expect they'll talk about the
appropriations process and moving forward on our important priorities
and making sure that we're exercising fiscal discipline or spending
restraint at the same time. And I imagine Iraq and a number of other
issues will come up in those conversations, as well. So -- and I do
expect members will go to the stakeout.
Now, with that, I will be glad to take your questions.
Q Scott, does the administration envision withdrawing a
majority of U.S. troops in Iraq within 18 months to two years?
MR. McCLELLAN: I saw those reports from various anonymous
sources. The administration, as always, and I would say the Central
Command and the Pentagon is always assessing what our needs are in
terms of troop levels in Iraq, and they believe that the current troop
levels are where they need to be. Obviously, we have a lot of
international participation in Iraq, as well, as I've talked about.
But we will continue to assess our needs moving forward. We will
continue to rely on the commanders in the field in terms of what is
needed to address security and stability in Iraq. And we will also
work closely with Congress as we move forward. But we will make sure
that all the necessary resources are provided to our troops as we move
forward.
Q Does that 18 to 24 month time --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into the position of talking
about troop deployments or troop levels. I think that's best addressed
by the Central Command or best addressed by the Pentagon. But we do
listen closely to our commanders in the field in terms of what is
needed, and then we will make sure that they have all the resources
that they need to carry out their mission.
Q Have they said -- excuse me, one more. Have they said,
suggested that might be the time frame?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I saw the anonymous reports. I don't know
where those are coming from. You're welcome to talk with some of the
military leaders about those issues.
Q Why does the administration reverse course and decide to seek
a new U.N. resolution on Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Bill, first of all, I disagree with the
premise there. I think that this is a continuation of what we have
been doing. First of all, the coalition and coalition provisional
authority and the United Nations have been working very closely
together in Iraq on reconstruction and on humanitarian assistance and
humanitarian relief for the Iraqi people.
The U.N., as the President has said repeatedly, has a vital role to
play in the postwar Iraq, in helping the Iraqi people build a better
future. And so they've been working very closely, coordinating with
the coalition provisional authority on these efforts. And they will
continue to play a vital role.
Q Would the kind of resolution that the administration seeks
give the U.N. more authority in Iraq than it now has?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the resolution that is being discussed,
Secretary Powell has already begun some consultation with members of
the Security Council to talk about ways that we can encourage
additional participation of countries. As I mentioned earlier today,
there are some countries -- well, a number of countries are already
participating in efforts. There are more than 30 countries that are
already participating in Iraq and providing troops, some 23,000
troops. So there is a lot of global participation in what we are doing
--
Q Is there going to be --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- in what we're doing in Iraq. Well, let me --
I'm walking through -- I'm walking through this, Bill. And so,
Secretary Powell has been consulting with some countries already. He's
talked with Secretary General Annan. I think he's talked with his
counterparts in Britain and Germany and France and Russia, as well, and
I'm sure he will continue talking with others. But what we want to do
is take Resolution 1483 and build upon that, expand upon Resolution
1483. So what we are doing is complementary to that resolution that
has already passed the Security Council.
And I would just refer back to that resolution. In that resolution
it said, and I quote: "It's resolved that the United Nations should
play a vital role in humanitarian relief, the reconstruction of Iraq,
and the restoration and establishment of national and local
institutions of representative government.
So we will continue to look at ways that we can encourage broader
participation from the international community, broader participation
from the United Nations, and broader participation from the Iraqi
people. The Iraqi people continue to assume more responsibility.
Q Can I please try once more? It is clear that more troops are
needed in Iraq. It is clear that India and Pakistan, among others,
have declined to send more troops unless the U.N. has a greater degree
of control. Is it not correct to say that you are doing this in order
to persuade India, Pakistan, Turkey to send more troops and, therefore,
must give up some additional control to the United Nations?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think what -- I think the way I would address
that is to say that we are working to address some of the concerns that
those countries you mentioned expressed, such as India. India
expressed some concerns that they felt they needed some additional
authority from the United Nations to be able to participate in the
reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq.
But I would remind you that this is about the Iraqi people. This
is about building a better future for the Iraqi people. A free -- a
secure, free, and democratic Iraq will serve as an example for the rest
of the Middle East. A free and democratic Iraq will help bring about
peace and stability in the Middle East. And when we have a safer
Middle East, we will have a safer world. So the world has a stake in
what is going on in Iraq, and we welcome the participation of those
countries that are already participating. And we want to look at
additional ways to maximize that participation so others can
participate.
Q Can I just challenge your claim that this doesn't represent
the President changing his mind? This proposal for a multinational
force under a blue flag -- the United Nations flag with an American
commander -- has been out there. It was out there since May. The U.N.
taking a more political role in the supervising of elections and the
standing up of a constitution in sovereign authority was also out
there. The administration, specifically Secretary Rumsfeld on the
multinational component under a U.N. flag rejected that. Now we're
proposing it. Isn't that changing --
MR. McCLELLAN: Are you talking about a Blue Helmet peacekeeping
force?
Q Not Blue Helmet peacekeeping force, multinational.
MR. McCLELLAN: He's mentioned a Blue Helmet force. Well,
multinational -- a multinational force was authorized under Resolution
1483. And what we want to do in respect to a new resolution is focus
on working within the Security Council and the United Nations on ways
to build upon existing structures and how the international community
works within those existing structures.
Q Is this -- is the reason the administration -- why is the
administration doing this now? Why not have gone this route six weeks
ago, two months ago, three months ago?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've been in discussions with countries
about -- countries that have wanted to participate in Iraq. And, as I
mentioned, we've walked through this before, Resolution 1483 provided
authority for countries to participate in Iraq. Resolution 1483 -- let
me just refer back to it again -- provided -- it said, "Noting
further that other states that are not the occupying powers are working
now or in the future may work under the Authority; welcoming further
the willingness of member states to contribute to stability and
security in Iraq by contributing personnel, equipment, and other
resources under the Authority."
And it goes on to say that it appeals to member states and
concerned organizations to assist the people of Iraq in their efforts
to reform their institutions and rebuild their country and to
contribute to conditions of stability and security in Iraq in
accordance with this resolution.
Now, there are some countries -- I can mention -- India was one
that was mentioned earlier -- that felt like they needed some
additional authority. So we're working --
Q But they wanted that back then.
MR. McCLELLAN: And we said -- and we said we want to listen to
their concerns.
Q Well, President Musharraf said --
MR. McCLELLAN: They began to express those concerns. We said, we
want to listen to your concerns, we want to work with you. This is an
international issue, and it's important to have an international
response to this issue.
Q President Musharraf said back then that he foresaw Pakistani
troops participating in the securing and reconstructing of Iraq under
U.N. auspices. And the administration wouldn't go for that. Is this
a sign that the administration sees Iraq as out of control, or getting
to the point where we need more help and are willing to pay a higher
price to get it?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, remember that you have a coalition provisional
authority there, and you have a number of nations that are helping with
our efforts there. You have the U.N., the United Nations that is
working closely with the coalition provisional authority in Iraq. And
they're working so closely with us in helping the Iraqi people build a
better future that some of the remnants of the former regime or foreign
terrorists, whoever it was, decided to attack the United Nations
headquarters in Baghdad. They were simply there to provide
humanitarian assistance and provide assistance with reconstruction.
That shows you the type of people that we are up against. These are
cold-blooded killers. They're enemies of the Iraqi people. They're
enemies of the international community, and they're enemies of a better
future for the Iraq.
Q Scott, how would this broader multinational force differ from
the force that is there now?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, that's why I said that we're -- that
we want to build upon existing structures, build upon Resolutions 1483
and expand upon it.
Q I'm not talking about 1483. I'm talking about the force that
is there on the ground, how would the new force envisioned and
authorized under this U.N. resolution that you're about to put forward,
how would it be different than the current force?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think some of the ideas that are being
discussed there -- and again, I think that this is something that is
going to be addressed in consultation with other countries, so we need
to let those consultations take place -- but some of the ideas that
have been discussed there, you're talking about multinational force
being still under the unified command which is called for in Resolution
1483. So those are ideas that are being discussed with other
countries.
Q So you're saying, in other words, a multinational force, but
still under U.S. command?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, let's let the consultations -- let's
let the consultations take place. But, yes, we want to build upon the
existing structures to encourage more people to participate.
Q But U.S. command is not on the table as an issue, as I
understand it. The administration is not suggesting that it would ever
have anyone other than the U.S. in command, right? So that's not an
issue.
MR. McCLELLAN: Right.
Q Okay. But the other point of this is it is clear that you
will not be able to get the broader support and this additional
resolution without giving the U.N. some sort of broader role. What
kind of broader role are you contemplating?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I go back to --
Q -- on the political side or the military side?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- let me go back to -- the U.N. has been playing a
vital role in close coordination with coalition provisional authority.
The United Nations will continue to play a vital role. But --
Q So you don't plan to give the U.N. any bigger role --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- but our focus here is on working with the United
Nations, working with the Security Council to maximize participation by
the international community in Iraq, to get as many nations as possible
helping with -- helping the Iraqi people build a better future for
themselves.
Q Yes, but we're clearly seeking a change --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- let me go back to, when you're talking about
expanding their role, what we want to do is expand the role of the
Iraqi people. Let's talk about where that stands. The Governing
Council was created to begin moving toward a free and democratic Iraq.
That was an important step. Now, they -- earlier this week they also
announced the cabinet ministers. That's another important step that
will take us closer to a free and democratic Iraq. And they are
working on the constitutional process.
So as time goes on, and as Iraqis assume more responsibility, then
more authority can be shifted to the people of Iraq from the coalition
provisional authority. And that's what's important. And that's a
shared goal of the United Nations, of the international community and
the United States. And so we're all working, in that respect, together
to get to that point.
Q I understand. But are you saying that the U.S. is not
contemplating a wider, larger, more vital role for the United Nations
in this effort that it is now putting forward --
MR. McCLELLAN: We want to the United Nations to continue to play a
vital role within the existing structures. They will continue to play
a vital role in these discussions we're going to have with the members
of the Security Council, listen to their concerns and move forward on
this resolution.
Q But I'm just asking a simple thing --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're trying to ask to get into some of the
negotiations, and I'd love to negotiate from the podium.
Q No, no, no, I'm just asking you, do you anticipate, are you
willing to accept a broader U.N. role, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: I said that what we're working on is to encourage
broader participation from the international community, broader
participation from the United Nations and broader participation from
the Iraqi people.
Q Just to follow on that, you just made clear that the U.S.
wants to maintain military control of this operation. On the political
side, will you also concede that the U.S. going to these negotiations
wants to maintain control --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are a lot of people participating in
the security and stabilization of -- and including the people of Iraq,
some 50,000 Iraqis that are now participating in the security and
defense of Iraq.
In regards to Ambassador Bremer, yes, Ambassador Bremer will
continue to be in his current role as head of the coalition provisional
authority. And we hope to continue working closely with the
international community, with the United Nations to shift more and more
responsibility to the people of Iraq as we move closer and closer to a
more free and democratic Iraq.
Q So how do you -- if I can just follow on Jim. Can you just
at all articulate a little bit how you envision specifically the U.N.
role to change -- I mean, you're talking about continued U.S.
involvement --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that the United Nations -- and I read
from Resolution 1483, which talked about the vital role that they have
to play and some of the areas that they can help. They will continue
to help in those areas. So we want to expand on those existing
structures to encourage broader participation. The United Nations can
play an important role in offering resources that are necessary for
free elections. They can provide an important role in the humanitarian
assistance and reconstruction -- and they have been, and they will
continue to.
Q Just to close the loop on this entirely. The coalition
provisional authority would remain the chief governing body, interim
governing body in Iraq, even with an expanded U.N. role; is that the
administration's position?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me clarify a couple of things there. You
have the Governing Council that's in place, that's beginning to assume
more responsibility in take over more responsibility. So what we're
trying to work towards is shifting more and more responsibility to the
Iraqi people as quickly as possible. But this is an effort that
requires the participation of the international community, and the
international community is participating. It's important the world has
a stake in a free and democratic Iraq, the world has a stake in helping
the Iraqi people build a better future.
Q If I was to try to summarize what it is you've told us now
earlier this morning and today, it would basically come down to, the
President is sending Secretary Powell to get more contributions from a
wider number of countries, but has expressed absolutely no willingness
to give greater authority, political control or military control to any
of those countries. Is that right? Is that where we are right now?
You haven't described one thing yet that I've heard today that he's
willing to offer in return.
MR. McCLELLAN: There is broad authority under existing
resolutions. We want to expand on that because some countries
expressed concerns about that resolution -- about the authority that
was necessary.
Q So name one or two things, just an example of things that we
may be willing to talk about that would help satisfy their concerns.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are some countries that would like to
participate in Iraq and provide more troop support to the -- that would
like to provide --
Q We want them to provide more troops --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that would like to provide more stability -- to
provide help with the stability and security of Iraq. I think that
this is about the Iraqi people. That's what this is about. Let me
keep coming back to that.
Q This is also about answering their concerns that the U.N.
does not have enough authority --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's right. We want to encourage as broad
participation as possible from the international community. So that's
what we're working to do, is to address some of the concerns that have
been expressed through a new resolution that would expand upon existing
resolutions, that would -- that would continue to work within the
existing structures, but expand the participation.
Q -- not give the U.N. greater authority over either political
or military --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the U.N. has been involved. They have been
in close coordination with --
Q Tell me what it did, tell me where you're going.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me continue, let me finish. They've been
playing an important role in the reconstruction efforts and the
humanitarian relief, and they will continue to play an important role.
I mentioned that they -- that under the existing resolution, it also
calls for them to help with moving Iraq towards own-self governance,
towards a democratic and free Iraq. The United Nations -- there's a
lot of ways that they can provide help. And the United Nations remains
committed to working closely with the coalition provisional authority
on our shared goal of moving as quickly as possible to a government in
Iraq that is ruled of, by and for the Iraqi people.
Q Scott, let me try it from a different direction because we're
all trying to ask the same question. You said before that the Indian
government would like to help, but it needs some changes made before it
can. What changes does the Indian government need?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can talk to the Indian government about
what they desire.
Q What are we proposing --
MR. McCLELLAN: They felt like that they --
Q The current situation doesn't work for them. What are we
proposing to change?
MR. McCLELLAN: We've always felt like 1483 provided the authority
for nations to participate in helping Iraq. In fact, a number of
countries are participating in Iraq under Security Council Resolution
1483. And there are others that we've been in discussions with that
will probably provide more support soon, too. But there are some
countries that felt like they needed some additional authority from the
United Nations. So that's what this is about. This is about building
upon Security Council Resolution 1483 and expanding upon Security
Council Resolution 1483. So this effort complements the resolutions
that have already passed the Security Council, and it works towards
maximizing international participation.
Q You say some additional authority for the United Nations.
Can you elaborate what you mean by that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q You just said now that some of them feel they need some
additional authority from the United Nations. What is it specifically
that they're talking about?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those are discussion that we are beginning to
have with countries. We've put forward some ideas. I know that you
all would like to get into the discussion about those ideas here in
this room. I think those are best held through the diplomatic
channels, though. And that's what we will continue to do. But those
consultations are still in the early phases.
Q Under the resolution that the administration envisioned, can
you rule out any diminution in the role of Ambassador Bremer?
MR. McCLELLAN: I made it very clear that Ambassador Bremer will
continue to lead the coalition provisional authority. And the
coalition provisional authority is overseeing these efforts, in close
coordination with the United Nations, who -- the United Nations,
remember -- a special representative was appointed who was tragically
killed in the recent attack on the U.N. headquarters. And the United
Nations also, under Resolution 1500, established a mission, as well.
So the idea that the United Nations has not been playing a vital
role, it's just not there. The U.N. has been playing a vital role. We
want them to continue to play a vital role, but there are some other
countries that feel like they just need more authority from the United
Nations to go in there and participate. And so that's -- we're trying
to address some of those concerns in this process.
But when you talk about Ambassador Bremer's role, we want that role
to diminish over time as the Iraqi people take over responsibility for
their future. And the Iraqi people are doing more and more of that,
both in terms of security and in terms of moving towards a democratic
society.
Q So can I say that you ruled out any diminution of Ambassador
Bremer's role under the resolution?
MR. McCLELLAN: What I said was that we will continue to move as
quickly as possible to shift authority over to the people of Iraq. We
want that role to continue to diminish over time as Iraqis assume more
responsibility.
Q So you're not ruling out the possibility that this process
would --
MR. McCLELLAN: The focus of this is on encouraging more
international participation within existing structures. I'm very clear
about that.
Q Scott, could you explain the philosophy, the driving force,
if you will, behind all the rule changes that the administration has
enacted over the past couple of weeks, the latest dealing with the
emergency rooms; prior to that, a number of actions that have been
taken in the last couple of weeks by the EPA?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know if you want to address specific
issues. First of all, let me see if I can finish on the United Nations
here and this idea of a second resolution. I promise I'll come back to
you. But I think we probably have some more on this topic. Let's try
to finish on this.
Q Scott, to what extent was the President's inability or
unwillingness to build a larger coalition before starting the war now a
hindrance on having a broader coalition to go in to the reconstruction
phase?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that we've always reminded people, no
matter where you stood on the decision to confront the threat and
remove this threat, that we now all have a stake in helping the Iraqi
people, in helping the Iraqi people build a future. We all have a
stake in a free and democratic Iraq, because of the importance it will
be to the rest of the Middle East, which will help bring about a safer
world, as well. So, regardless of where you stood on that issue, we
all can provide help to the Iraqi people in building a better future.
Q So this larger attempt at outreach you're saying is not
different from the prewar approach?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you go back to the approach beforehand, we made
a concerted effort to reach out to the international community. We
worked through the United Nations and passed -- what was it -- the 17th
or 18th resolution in regards to Iraq.
Yes. Wait, is this U.N.? Go ahead.
Q Yes, sir. Tell me, if the policy that has taken place and
now isn't working as was expected, what's so wrong with changing course
or modifying course and admitting it? What's the problem with
admitting that you're making some changes to the policy because you --
shouldn't the policy always be analyzed and could be changed?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we continue to build upon the work that is
going on in Iraq to help the Iraqi people. It's what -- that's what --
this is continuation of our efforts to help the Iraqi people realize a
more free and a democratic society.
Q But you know a lot of the countries in Europe would ask as a
price or political concession to be given more of a leeway in the
political and economic sense. Since they are going to retain the head
of the military --
MR. McCLELLAN: We want and we welcome the participation of other
countries. Other countries are participating. They're participating
in the reconstruction efforts, they're participating in stabilization
efforts, and they will continue to help -- participate in other ways.
Q They'll probably ask for a more political role than they are
being given -- keep the military, keep the temporary authority.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we want to build on those existing structures.
There are already Security Council resolutions that provide for
authority for the United Nations to play a vital role, and they have
them playing a vital role, and for countries to participate in the
reconstruction and stabilization efforts.
Q Scott, is the President going to get personally involved in
the effort to get a new resolution, or is it going to be mostly up to
Secretary Powell?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, right now where things stand, we're just
beginning the consultation phase, so take one step at a time. But
Secretary Powell, as I mentioned, has already been reaching out to --
remember, we've been discussing this with countries for some time now.
This is kind of the formal consultation process about some proposed
ideas as we move forward on a new resolution.
Q Can we do a new topic?
Q U.N.? Scott, last week --
MR. McCLELLAN: You're first and you're second, after this topic.
Q -- India's role in the U.N. Scott, last week the President
made a phone call to India's Prime Minister in reaction to the bombings
in Bombay. Two things. One, what sort of help President offered India
in fighting this terrorism? And if there was a discussion on India
authority in the U.N., what sort of help President seek from --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we continue to work closely with India and
many other countries in fighting this global war on terrorism. There
is a tragic -- those were tragic attacks in India recently, and the
President called to express his condolences, and expressed that we
stand with you in our fight against terrorism, and that we will
continue working together in those efforts.
Q On a U.N. role, was there any discussion as far as India's
role in the U.N. --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those -- we've been having discussions with
India about ways that they can participate. And as I mentioned, they
were
a country that expressed some concerns about wanting some
additional authority. So we're working to address some of those
concerns as we move forward.
Q I missed a little bit, I'm still unclear. I know there's
been so many answers on this -- maybe it's just my fault. Why wasn't
the consultation process, the formal consultation process that's
starting now, why wasn't it started several months ago, since these
discussions have been ongoing? And, secondly, is the President
disappointed that his Treasury Secretary was basically rebuffed when we
went to China?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, remember that Resolution 1483 was passed in
May, and that provided authority. So when you're talking about months,
I mean, that's just a short time ago, which provided authority for
nations to participate and help with the stabilization and
reconstruction efforts. Over the course of time, there was some -- a
number of countries began participating under that resolution, but
there were some others that expressed some concerns. We had some
discussions with them, had some initial discussions. There have been a
number of ideas that have been discussed. Now we're looking at moving
forward in a more formal way on a new resolution that would build upon
our efforts and provide for broader participation from the
international community.
So I don't know -- when you say "months," I mean, it's, what, 120
days or so since the end of the major combat operations.
Q Something happened on September 2nd; what?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Something happened on September 2nd --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Secretary Powell went and visited with
Secretary General Annan a couple weeks ago and talked about some of
these issues. The Secretary General has made known his views and what
role he sees for the United Nations in helping Iraq move forward and
helping the Iraqi people. And so those discussions have been ongoing.
And now we're at a point where we want to talk in a more formal way
about how we can move forward.
Q And also, on the China question, was the President
disappointed that his Treasury Secretary was rebuffed when he went to
Beijing?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said yesterday, I think it was
important that -- just in and of itself, that we're bringing this issue
up and that we're raising the issue, and that's progress, in of
itself.
Q Can I follow on that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do we have anything else -- do we have anything
else on U.N. first, and then I'll -- Ken.
Q Given the position that you've sketched out this morning and
again here this afternoon, which involves no real change in the
military command structure in Iraq and apparently no real change in the
political structure, as well, why would this be satisfactory or of any
interest --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me say, it builds on existing structures and
provides for ways for broader international participation within those
existing structures.
Q How would this meet the objections of countries like the
French and the Germans --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why we have consultations. That's why we
talk with them -- okay, you've expressed your concerns. You know how
this process works at the Security Council. We've been through this a
number of times, and we will consult. That's what's beginning now, is
the consultation process, so that we can maximize that participation,
build upon the broad coalition that has already participated in Iraq.
Did you have anything else?
Q You're suggesting that there is some maneuvering room in the
American position.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're going to consult closely with these --
with the Security Council members about how we move forward. But our
shared goal remains the same, to return to the Iraqi people their
country as quickly as possible, so that they can have a self-governing
-- a self-governance.
All right, now are we through with U.N.?
Q Scott, what is the -- getting back to the question I was
trying to ask earlier, a domestic issue -- what is the President's
philosophy or the administration's driving force between the recent
series of rules changes on a number of issues -- the environment, the
latest thing dealing with the emergency room issue -- why this seeming
thrust --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President's driving force behind the
President is results; what is the best way to approach these issues
that achieves the best results for the American people. That's what's
behind the President's -- the driving force.
Q I mean, is there some philosophy --
MR. McCLELLAN: The President focuses on results, and is this
working the way it's intended to work. If you go back to the -- you
want to talk about the emergency care issue, those regulations, the
Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act regulations were established
in the 1980s to ensure that low-income individuals who did not have
insurance would receive emergency medical care, just as if they had
insurance. The rules require hospitals to treat and stabilize and
admit patients who have emergency needs.
And under the rule issued by HHS, those low-income individuals will
retain all of the protections of the Emergency Medical Treatment and
Labor Act. The regulations were proposed nearly a year-and-a-half ago,
and they were established following a thorough review by Secretary
Thompson's task force on regulatory reform. In addition, the
department held extensive public hearings and several months of -- and
received several months of public comment so that they could devise
regulations that protected patients, but cut down on the unnecessary
bureaucratic red tape.
Q Is it just a matter on all of these issues that it's easier
to do it this way rather than going some legislative route?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we want this -- in this instance, we want it
to do what it was established and to work the way it was supposed to
work. And so that's why we've taken this way. The new rules continue
to provide protections to patients and will, indeed, improve the
ability of patients to receive appropriate emergency care.
Q Scott --
Q Scott, wait, wait, wait.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll answer. I promised Keith.
Q Just to follow on what, the question that Corbett snuck in
about the Treasury Secretary --
MR. McCLELLAN: Very creative, very creative.
Q It was. The President sent his Treasury Secretary to Beijing
to try to get some results for manufacturers who are suffering now in
the short-term. He effectively got nothing for the short-term. The
President's not at all disappointed about that?
MR. McCLELLAN: There is -- first of all, there is a lot we have
done to act and to improve our economic situation.
Q -- exchange rates --
MR. McCLELLAN: I understand. But we have urged the Chinese to
take advantage of its strong growth and foreign exchange position to
accelerate trade liberalization, to permit the free flow of capital,
and to take steps to establish a market-determined, floating exchange
rate. And we continue to emphasize and believe that the best system is
one based on free trade, free capital flows and market-determined
floating exchange rates.
So I think they've had some positive discussions. It was a good
first step, and we will continue to encourage the Chinese authorities
to move toward freer trade and capital flows in a market determined
exchange rate. Remember, Secretary Snow said in Beijing that we remain
encouraged by the Chinese government's reaffirmation of its
longstanding goal to move toward greater flexibility in its exchange
rate.
Q So what was achieved for manufacturers in the short-term?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think in terms of what was achieved from this
trip, you need to talk more specifically to the Treasury Department
about any further details. I've kind of given you a broad overview.
Q But in terms of exchange rates, nothing was done,
essentially, correct? Nothing --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think it was a good first step and we felt
that the discussions were positive.
Q On free trade in general, many countries, as you know, are
pressing for a free trade zone, including Australia and New Zealand and
others. How serious is the United States pressing for the other
countries? Are they likely to get one this year?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, I think you should listen to the
President's remarks this afternoon. He's going to talk more about how
we're working to expand free trade that today's signing implementation
ceremony serves as an example of what we're trying to do to expand
trade and open markets to American producers and products, which would
mean a brighter economic future for America.
Q Are other countries on the docket for this year?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are a number of discussions that are ongoing
with countries, other countries about some bilateral agreements,
regional agreements and so forth.
Q On a different subject, on AmeriCorps -- you're probably
aware there is a hearing going on, on Capitol Hill, a hundred hours
straight of testimony by supporters of AmeriCorps. Their point is that
they're underfunded, they say the programs have been cut. They say
they need an infusion of emergency funding -- $100 million. What is
the President's position on that $100 million request?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President remains very committed to
AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps provides vital help to people across America,
and the President is continuing to work closely with Congress and his
fiscal year '04 budget calls for expanding Medicare -- expanding
AmeriCorps significantly, and that's what we are continuing to do.
We're now almost in the fiscal year '04 year, so we'll continue to work
closely with Congress. It's a high priority for the President, and
that's what we will continue to do.
Q But they argue that they need this money for the '03 fiscal
year. Before you get to FY '04, they really need this $100 million
because programs are being shut down.
MR. McCLELLAN: We are continuing to work. We took some steps to
improve the accounting procedures within AmeriCorps so that we could
address some of those issues that involved the past. Now we continue
to work with Congress to build upon that and expand AmeriCorps. The
President is very committed to expanding AmeriCorps and expanding the
number of members within AmeriCorps, because of the vital role they
play in helping people all across the country.
Q Just to be clear, he'd rather wait for the '04 budget to deal
with some of --
MR. McCLELLAN: We continue working closely with Congress and move
forward on the President's -- on the President's request to expand
AmeriCorps.
Q Overnight it was reported that Yasser Arafat declared that
the road map is dead and that Israel killed it. Would you comment on
that, please?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that, one, we remain fully engaged in our
efforts to move toward the two state vision of Palestine and Israel
living side-by-side in peace and security. And I think that the
parties remain committed to that effort. We continue to work closely
with them on our efforts.
What needs to happen is we need to continue to fight the
terrorists, continue to dismantle the terrorist organizations; there
needs to be a consolidation of the security forces within Palestine.
This is about a better future for the Israeli people, about achieving
the aspirations of the Palestinian people. And there is a commitment
from the parties to move forward on that effort, and we are going to
remain closely engaged with them in those efforts.
Q Scott, as former governor of Texas, the President knows all
or most of those Texas Democrat state senators who have fled to
Oklahoma and have now also fled to New Mexico in an attempt to stop the
constitutional process of congressional redistricting. He knows these
people, doesn't he? And I have one follow-up.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't know the exact list of names of who
those people are, but if they were there when the President was
governor, I'm sure, yes.
Q If House Majority Leader DeLay and Speaker Hastert, who he's
speaking with this afternoon, if they were to organize a House majority
vote to expel all Texas Democrats from the House until their fellow
Democrats in Texas stop their anti-constitutional fleeing, the
President would have no objection to that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Very nice try to try to draw us into a Texas state
legislative matter. Very nice try. Very nice try. He's always
concerned about Texas. It's his home. It's a matter for the state of
Texas.
END 1:10 P.M. EDT
|