[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2006, Book I)]
[February 21, 2006]
[Pages 310-313]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Interview With Reporters Aboard Air Force One
February 21, 2006

    The President. Thank you all for coming. A couple of points I want 
to make to you. First, I'm excited about the energy initiative. American 
people are beginning to see that we've made good progress on research 
and development. We've got more to do. We're close to some breakthroughs 
that will achieve an economic and national security objective.
    And I've enjoyed traveling around and talking to these scientists 
and engineers that are really excited about how close we are to some 
technological breakthroughs. Today, talking to the two scientists 
involved with the cellulosic ethanol projects was exciting. These guys 
are pretty fired up about it all, and they realize we've got a chance to 
change our driving habits.
    I do want to talk about this port issue. A foreign company manages 
some of our ports. They've entered into a transaction with another 
foreign company to manage our ports. This is a process that has been 
extensively reviewed, particularly from the point of view as to whether 
or not I can say to the American people, ``This project will not 
jeopardize our security.'' It's been looked at by those who have been 
charged with the security of our country. And I believe the deal should 
go forward. This company operates all around the world. I have the list 
somewhere. We can get you the list. They're in Germany and elsewhere--
Australia.
    They--in working with our folks, they've agreed to make sure that 
their coordination with our security folks is good and solid. I really 
don't understand why it's okay for a British company to operate our 
ports but not a company from the Middle East, when our experts are 
convinced that port security is not an issue; that having worked with 
this company, they're convinced that these--they'll work with those who 
are in charge of the U.S. Government's responsibility for securing the 
ports--they'll work hand in glove. I want to remind people that when we 
first put out the Container Security Initiative, the CSI, which was a 
new way to secure our ports, UAE was one of the first countries to sign 
up.
    In other words, we're receiving goods from ports out of the UAE as 
well as where this company operates. And so I, after careful review of 
our Government, I believe the Government ought to go forward. And I want 
those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden 
a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great--
British company. I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to 
people of the world, ``We'll treat you fairly.'' And after careful 
scrutiny, we believe this deal is a legitimate deal that will not 
jeopardize the security of the country and, at the same time, send that 
signal that we're willing to treat people fairly.
    Thirdly, I'm looking forward to my speech tomorrow about my trip to 
India and Pakistan. It's going to be an important trip, one where we'll 
work on a variety of issues with both countries--security, prosperity, 
and trade--working with India, of course, on energy security. It will be 
an important trip.
    I'll answer some questions, and then we're getting ready to land.

Dubai Ports World/Homeland Security

    Q. Mr. President, leaders in Congress, including Senator Frist, have 
said that they'll take action to stop the port control shift if you 
don't reverse course on it. You've expressed your thoughts here, but 
what do you say to those in Congress who plan to take legislative 
action?
    The President. They ought to listen to what I have to say about 
this. They ought to look at the facts and understand the

[[Page 311]]

consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll 
deal with it, with a veto.

Crude Oil Supply/Middle East

    Q. Mr. President, on energy and foreign policy, some Saudi officials 
have said they're unhappy with being targeted about Middle Eastern oil, 
saying that you wanted to reduce dependence on Middle East oil. You've 
got a close relationship with King Abdullah.
    The President. I do.
    Q. He's been to see you. Have you heard something directly, 
yourself, from the Saudis?
    The President. No, I haven't talked to His Majesty, but if I did, I would say, I hope you 
can understand that the relationship between supply and demand is so 
tight that any disruption on the supply side of energy causes our prices 
to go up, and spiking prices hurts our economy. And secondly, there are 
parts of the world where people would--that don't agree with our policy, 
namely Iran, for example. And that it's not in our interest to be 
dependent, when it comes to our economic security, and for that matter, 
national security, in a market that is volatile. And so hopefully, he'll 
understand.
    Q. So you don't think they should take offense at the comments about 
Middle Eastern oil?
    The President. I would think that he would be understanding that new technologies will 
enable us to diversify away from our reliance upon crude oil. As a 
matter of fact, it's not only a message for the United States; that's 
also a message for India and China. In order for these growing economies 
to be able to be competitive, they're going to have to learn how to use 
technologies that will enable them to meet the needs of their people, 
but also the international demands of the world for good environment, 
for example. The Nuclear Energy Initiative I'll be talking to the 
Indians about is an important initiative.

Dubai Ports World/Homeland Security

    Q. The understatement today, and one of the concerns of lawmakers, 
seems to be that they want more of a briefing, and they want more 
details about the things that you know that have given you confidence 
that there aren't any national security implications with the port deal. 
Are you willing to either have your staff or to give any kind of 
briefing to leaders of Congress----
    The President. Look at the company's record, Jim [Jim VandeHei, 
Washington Post], and it's clear for everybody to see. We've looked at 
the ports in which they've operated. There is a standard process 
mandated by Congress that we go through called the CFIUS process. I'm 
not exactly sure if there's any national security concerns in briefing 
Congress. I just don't know. I can't answer your question.
    Q. It seems like--you've already heard from different administration 
officials, saying, not in as strong terms as you have today, that there 
aren't problems with this deal, that the deal should go forward. But 
they seem to want more of a briefing. Would you be willing to give any 
additional briefings, either----
    The President. We'll be glad to send----
    Q. ----either in a classified basis or----
    The President. I don't see why not. Again, you're asking--I need to 
make sure I understand exactly what they're asking for.
    Yes. Oh, you're not the press.
    Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett. I could ask a question. You 
showed some strong leadership today--[laughter].
    Q. Why is it so important to you, sir, that you take on this issue 
as a political fight? Clearly, there's bipartisan----
    The President. I don't view it as a political fight. So do you want 
to start your question over? I view it as a good policy.
    Q. Why is it--clearly----
    The President. Are you talking about the energy issue?
    Q. No, I'm sorry, the ports issue.

[[Page 312]]

    The President. It's not a political issue.
    Q. But there clearly are members of your own party who will go to 
the mat against you on this.
    The President. It's not a political issue.
    Q. Why are you--to make this, to have this fight?
    The President. I don't view it as a fight. I view it as me saying to 
people what I think is right, the right policy.
    Q. What's the larger message that you're conveying by sticking to 
this UAE contract, by saying that you're not going to budge on this or 
you don't want to change policy?
    The President. There is a process in place where we analyze--where 
the Government analyzes many, many business transactions to make sure 
they meet national security concerns. And I'm sure if you--careful 
review, this process yielded a result that said, yes, a deal should go 
forward.
    One of my concerns, however, is mixed messages. And the message is, 
``It's okay for a British company, but a Middle Eastern company--maybe 
we ought not to deal the same way.'' It's a mixed message. You put 
interesting words in your question, but I just view--my job is to do 
what I think is right for the country. I don't intend to have a fight. 
If there's a fight, there is one but--nor do I view this as a political 
issue.
    Q. I say it because you said you'd be willing to use the veto on it.
    The President. I would. That's one of the tools the President has to 
indicate to the legislative branch his intentions. A veto doesn't mean 
fight or politics; it's just one of the tools I've got. I say veto, by 
the way, quite frequently in messages to Congress.

Palestinian Government/Hamas

    Q. Mr. President, Israel is halting payments to the Palestinians--
the tax monies. What do you think about that, and what is the next step?
    The President. I'll just give you our Government's position, and 
that is, we have said that--well, first of all, the U.S. Government 
doesn't give direct grants to Palestine. We go through the Palestinian 
Authority. We go through--we give grants through NGOs from our USAID to 
help people. But my statement still stands, that so long as Hamas does 
not recognize Israel's right to exist, my view is, we don't have a 
partner in peace and, therefore, shouldn't fund a government that is not 
a partner in peace. I thought the elections were important. I was one 
voice that said the elections should go forward on time.
    But I recognized that, one, elections are the first step in many 
cases in evolution of a true democracy; and secondly, that elections 
show--give everybody a true look at how--what people are thinking on the 
street; and thirdly, though, that because the Palestinians spoke, 
doesn't necessarily mean we have to agree with the nature of--the party 
elected. And the party elected has said, ``We're for the destruction of 
Israel.'' And our policy is, two states living side by side in peace. 
And therefore, it's hard to have a state living side by side in peace 
when your stated objective is the destruction of one of the states. So 
my policy still stands, what I said day one after the Hamas elections.

Medicare Reform

    Q. Can I ask you about a domestic issue, the prescription drug 
benefit plan? A lot of Democrats are on recess, and they want to make a 
big campaign issue out of this this year. What makes you think that the 
problems that this program being rolled out has had are something other 
than just the glitches that you've described?
    The President. I'm glad that they're making this an issue. This is--
the reforms that we passed in the Medicare law were necessary and are 
going to change people's lives in a positive way. And I look forward to 
talking about this issue next fall, if that's one of the issues they 
want to talk about, because I understand the impact that this

[[Page 313]]

law is going to have on seniors. And millions have signed up, and 
millions are realizing the benefit of this program. And so it's--we have 
done the right thing in passing this law. Seniors are given different 
options. Seniors are going to get an extraordinarily good drug benefit. 
We have helped modernize Medicare. And looking forward to talking about 
it.
    Good.
    Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Thank you all.
    The President. Pleasant experience working with you all.

Note: The interview began at 2:42 p.m. en route from Golden, CO, to 
Andrews Air Force Base, MD. In his remarks, the President referred to 
King Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia. A tape was not 
available for verification of the content of this interview.