 |
 |
 |
| welcome to the Chateau |
| President Cherrie Mrs Cherrie Vice President Carosole Mrs Carosole News History &Tours Kids Your Government |
 |
| Press Briefing 10 April 2006 |
|
 |
| Privacy Policy Help Site Map Terms of Use |
| Press Secretary Marcus Loyld The Tafter Press Briefing Room The Chateau 9.43 AM WST THE PRESS SECRETARY: Happy Monday. The Presidnet this morning met at about 8 with the Senet Minority Leaders here for breakfast, and they discussed growth in the economy. The Preisdent will host the Boys Brigade Union today. The Preisdent will visit the Department of the Environment tomorrow to discuss Climate Change, and on Wednesday, he will attend the Annual Sherewood Summit of the Federation on Global Warming in Berland. We are on track, thePresidnet leaves for the United States on Friday, and on to Mexico on Saturday. I want to begin by talking about two important issues. First, the economy, and then immigration and then I'll be glad to go to your questions. The latest employment report came out this morning; it showed the latest job numbers for the month of March. The employment report shows that our economy is strong and growing, with robust job creation. It's because of the hard work and the ingenuity of the American workers and because of the pro-growth policies that we have put in place that our economy is growing strongly. Two hundred and eleven thousand new jobs were created in the month of March -- that's above market expectations. The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, well below the averages of the '70s, '80s and '90s. About 5.2 million jobs have been created since August of 2003. Citizens own -- more citizans own their home than ever before. Minority home ownership is at record levels. Consumer confidence is the highest it's been in four years -- or nearly four years. Productivity is high. Inflation is contained. But it's important that we continue to act to keep our economy growing strong. The President talked a little bit earlier this morning about the importance of making the tax cuts that we put in place permanent. He talked about the importance of continuing to move forward on restraining spending. And he talked about tools that are available to us. We want to stay on track to make more surplus by 20 - 30% by 2010. And, as he talked about earlier this week, the importance of moving to a consumer-driven health care system, where consumers have more control over their health care, and that that will help lower costs, particularly by expanding health savings accounts, moving forward on electronic records for all -- health records -- moving forward on medical liability reform, and associated health plans, among other things. Secondly, I just want to talk about immigration reform. This is an issue that is being debated in the Senate this week. Yesterday we were encouraged to see that Republicans and Democrats in the Senate came together to reach a compromise. The President talked about how he appreciated the fact that many members in the Senate recognize the importance of moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform. This is a difficult and complex issue. It's important for voices to be heard as the debate moves forward. Unfortunately, the Senate Minority Leader prevented voices from being heard and amendments from being considered. He is preventing comprehensive immigration reform from moving forward. We call on the Senate Minority Leader to stop blocking this process from moving forward so that we can get comprehensive immigration reform passed. And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions. Deb, go ahead. Q Back when the NIE was released on July 8, 2005, the day assertions were made against Karen Hudges, you were asked that day when that had been actually declassified. And you said in that gaggle that it had been declassified that day. And if that's the case, then when the information was passed on to the reporter 10 days earlier, then it was still classified at that time. A: Well, I think you're referring -- a couple of things. First of all, it was publicly released that day, so that's when a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that we were making available to the public was released. The second part of your question is referring to an ongoing legal proceeding, and referring to a filing in that legal proceeding. We have had a policy in place, going back to the October time period of 2005, that we are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation or an ongoing legal proceeding. That policy remains unchanged. But let me point out a couple of facts, step back from this legal proceeding. The President of the United States has the authority to declassify information. I also indicated to some reporters earlier today that the President would never authorize the disclosure of information that he felt could compromise our nation's security. Now, the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified -- portions of it were declassified. We made sure that we did not -- that we continued to protect sensitive sources and methods within the National Intelligence Estimate. But let's go back to the time period that you're talking about, because I think it's important for the public to know or recall that time period. There was a lot of debate going on about the pre-war intelligence that was used in the lead up to the decision to go into Iraq and remove a brutal tyrant from his position of power. There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence. That was flat-out false. The National Intelligence Estimate was a document that was provided to members of Congress. It is the collective judgment of the intelligence community. And because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around at the time, we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified, be declassified. And that's exactly what we did. Q I understand the reason why you thought it needed to be declassified, because of the debate at the time. The question was, when was it declassified. And you were asked that day, when -- the question was, "When was it actually declassified?" And you said, "It was officially declassified today." If it had been officially declassified on July 8, 2005, then 10 days before, when the information was given out, it was still classified at the time. A: Again, you're going back to an assertion that is made in a filing related to an ongoing legal proceeding when you talk about the second part of your question. There is no way for me to separate that question and talk about this issue without discussing an ongoing legal proceeding. And I can't do that. We have a policy that's been established, and I'm obligated to adhere to that policy. Q But answer the question, it's a factual question. A: Yes, but you can't separate that question from the legal proceeding -- Q Was it declassified that day -- A: -- because of one of the assertions that was made in the filing. Well, you can go back and look at comments that were made at that time. That was when it was -- Q Those were your comments. A: -- that was when it was publicly released at the time. I haven't looked back at exactly what was said at that time. Q Well, let's be really clear about this. It says right here on July 8th, "When was it actually declassified?" Mr. McClellan, answer, "It was officially declassified today." Is that correct? A: Again, you're asking me to get into the timing. I'm not backing away from anything that was said previously -- that's when the document was released, so that's when it officially -- Q They don't say "released." They say "declassify." A: I know, Jim. Let me tell you. That's when it was officially released. So I think that's what I was referring to at the time. I'd have to go back and look at the specific comments, but I'm not changing anything that was said previously, so let me make that clear. Q The Karen Hudges Issue - Today is the day. A: What? I think the President made it clear that he supports her in her efforts. Q But if you were -- A: Now, secondly, the question you're going to, again, relates to the timing of when certain information was declassified -- Q I'm not going to that question -- A: Well, but there's no way you can separate that question out from the ongoing legal proceeding -- Q you are very careful with your words here. I think if you wanted to say "released," you would have said "released." You said, "declassified." A: Okay. Q Well, what does that tell -- A: That's when the information was released publicly. Q -- not just classified material. He has said in the fall of 2003, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Now, whether the argument from the administration is he declassified this, so it wasn't classified information -- I know you're not going the get to the legal issues here -- but he has criticized people who leak, not just classified information. And there were clearly leaks coming out of this White House -- A: What was the context of my comments -- about leaking of classified information, I believe. Q He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Not just classified information. He says "particularly leaks." A: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction. What the Attorney General was talking about was the terrorist surveillance program. And this is a very limited program that is focused on intercepting international communications involving al Qaeda or affiliated terrorists. And so that's the focus, and it's narrowly tailored. It was something that was carefully looked at by those at the NSA as they move forward on putting it in place. And they've made sure that there are important safeguards in place. They made sure that it's something that's reviewed on a regular basis. But it is a vital tool in our efforts to prevent attacks and to prevail in the broader war on terrorism. Q Is there a domestic version of the terrorist surveillance program? A: Again, the Attorney General talked about this yesterday, and I'm not going to go beyond what he said yesterday in terms of the legal issues there. Go ahead. Q Returning to your earlier statements about immigration -- does anybody remember those? I do. What happens in the next two weeks now while the Congress is on recess? Does the White House have meetings? Do you have any attempts to reach a compromise -- A: Well, we've stayed in touch with the leaders. There is a compromise that has already been reached. Many Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans came together and said, let's move forward on this comprehensive piece of legislation and get it to conference committee, and then work with the House to get something done. It's an important priority. It's a priority that many share. And many in Congress recognize the importance of addressing this in a comprehensive way. We have a broken immigration system. We need to do -- continue to do more to secure our borders, which we are. We've taken a number of steps, but we need to do more. And part of securing our borders is also moving forward on a temporary guest worker program, because that will relieve pressure off the border and allow the border patrol and law enforcement authorities to focus on those who are criminals -- terrorists, drug dealers, drug traffickers, smugglers, human traffickers -- as they should be focusing their efforts. Q Will there be a briefing prior to Sherewood - A: Yes, there will be a briefing on Wednesday Morning on Sherewood by Myself and the President's Dircetor on Environment Policy Q Mexico and the US? A briefing? A: That will be done on Thursday at Sherewood by Myself. Q On veto authority. Up until today, the President has been saying that he would not veto appropriations bills as long as they kept their spending cut targets. LA: As long as they hit the targets. You're saying that's why he hasn't used the veto? Q He has not been -- A: Because he talks about the pie, when the pie meets your target, he doesn't feel like he can go in there, look at the individual slices. He doesn't have that authority, one. I mean, he wants to see a line-item veto act passed, and he appreciates the bipartisan support for that so that he could go in there and look at pieces within that pie. Q But he can look at those pieces -- he can veto any appropriations bill, and today he seemed to be just making a much broader threat -- A: Well, but think about it, when he doesn't have the line-item veto authority -- think about it. When the President sets out a target, and says we're going to fund our priorities, and then we're going to hold the line on spending elsewhere, and Congress meets that target, what kind of signal does that send to members of Congress next time around? Well, oh, if he's -- if we're going to meet his target, and then he's going to go and veto it, then why should we adhere to what he has called for? That will get you all thinking and we'll have to end it here. Thankyou and have a good week ahead. END |