|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 17, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:05 P.M EST
MR. FLEISCHER: What happened to the front row?
Q They're camera-shy. (Laughter.)
Q That will be the day.
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me give you a rundown on the
President's day, and then I have a couple of announcements to
make. The President this morning called Prime Minister Blair
to discuss the war on terrorism. They also spoke about
developments in South Asia, India and Pakistan. The
President noted and praised President Musharraf's speech over the
weekend, which has succeeded thus far in reducing
tensions. And they also discussed Prime Minister Blair's
visit to the region last week, and Secretary Powell's current meetings
in India and Pakistan.
The President then convened a meeting -- was briefed by the Central
Intelligence Agency, the FBI, and then convened a meeting of his
National Security Council. He is having lunch with the Vice
President as we speak. And then the President will depart the White
House to visit a group of labor leaders, the Teamsters, the Carpenters,
the Seafarers, and the building trade's people of the AFL-CIO, to talk
about the importance of the Senate taking action on energy legislation,
which the President believes will create jobs for workers in America,
as well as provide greater energy independence to our country.
Then the President will, later this afternoon, sign into law the
Safe and Stable Families Program. This bipartisan act of
Congress will strengthen families, promote adoption and help vulnerable
children, principally through a program that provides a brand new $25
million federal grant to help mentor children whose parents, typically
fathers, are in prison. That's a program the President
talked about extensively throughout the campaign. The
President believes very deeply in the need for the government to help
children of prisoners. They've done nothing wrong,
themselves, yet they need a helping hand because they are among
society's most vulnerable.
The President will then meet with the President of Lithuania, and
he will do a drop-by and visit with his Bioethics Commission, which
will have its first meeting today. And the President has
charged that commission with a high moral calling to review how those
wonderful breakthroughs in science and medicine will have an impact in
relieving suffering, curing disease, while at the same time protecting
life and human dignity.
That's a description of the President's day. Two other
announcements --
Q Coverage?
MR. FLEISCHER: No word yet. We'll have that
announced by lower press a little later.
Two other announcements for you. The President wants to
express his appreciation to the United Nations for the vote yesterday
in the Security Council which updated and expanded and focused the
sanctions against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and the
Taliban. The resolution requires United Nations states to
expand financial sanctions or to impose asset freezes, and to impose a
travel restriction and an arms embargo. The resolution also
has the effect of lifting the ban on Ariana Airlines, the Afghan
national airline. The United States worked hard for the
passage of the resolution, and the President is very pleased that the
United Nations has taken a strong vote, once again, with the United
States and the rest of the world, against terrorism.
Finally, the President will welcome to Washington Uruguayan
President Jorge Batlle on February 15th. With that, I'm
happy to take your questions.
Q There's a report, Ari, that the U.S.
special forces have arrested two Bosnian Serb leaders, Radovan Karadzic
and Ratko Mladic. Do you know anything about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: First I've heard on that
report. So I don't have anything on it.
Q Ari, a spokesman for Congressman Waxman,
reacting to what you said earlier, called it a disappointing
reaction. He said, we had hoped for better from this White
House. And he said that he and the Congressman, they don't
want to draw conclusions, they would much rather have the White House
release the information they're seeking. So, a, your
reaction to Congressman Waxman's spokesman's comments; and, b, why not
release, to put any questions to rest about if Enron had undue
influence over the White House energy plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the second point, there's nothing new
here. On the first point, Congressman Waxman has produced a
study which -- in which he alleges that the energy policy review that
was carried out by this administration had provisions in there that
somehow uniquely benefited or benefited the Enron Corporation, as
opposed to the country or the nation, which is in need of a
comprehensive national energy policy.
One of the provisions that Congressman Waxman cited in there is a
provision called PUHCA, which is a provision which the administration
believes should be repealed, because it prevents more efficient
operation in the energy market, as companies work with each other or
are able to purchase other electricity companies.
That PUHCA measure has been passed previously by House committees
in overwhelming bipartisan votes. So I think that alone
tells you that there is widespread bipartisan support for it, for good
and valid reasons, because it makes economic sense, it makes energy
sense, and that's why the President's energy policy recommended it.
The recommendations in the President's energy plan were made
because the President and the Vice President believe very strongly that
they are the best policies to help make America more energy-independent
and to reduce the likelihood, which all Americans have suffered, or
many Americans have suffered, of blackouts and brownouts.
We are a nation without a comprehensive energy plan. The
allegation by Congressman Waxman that anything was put in that plan for
political purposes is, of itself, a partisan waste of taxpayer
money. Taxpayer money needs to be invested in an
investigation of criminal wrongdoing, and that's why the President's
Department of Justice is reviewing whether or not anybody at Enron or
anywhere else engaged in criminal activity. That is a wise,
good use of taxpayer money and the President is dedicated to it.
Taxpayer money will be used to get the Cabinet Secretaries to
complete the review the President has authorized them to begin to
determine how other actions can be taken to protect people so this
never happens again and to protect people's pensions and review any
changes that need to be made on pension laws.
But if others want to pursue politics, if others want to play the
blame game, that is their prerogative. It happens in this
town from time to time, and it's always a waste of taxpayer money.
Q Can I just quickly follow? They
say it's not partisan, that they're just asking
questions. And the Vice President's office revealed there
were six meetings between either the Vice President or aides on the
task force and Enron officials, and so they're just asking for more
information about those meetings, again to answer the question with
Enron out there --
MR. FLEISCHER: If they're alleging that the PUHCA
provision, for example, was put in there at the behest of Enron
Corporation, then why did it enjoy such bipartisan support on Capitol
Hill when it was voted on previously by many Democrats? Is
Mr. Waxman going to suggest that those Democrats were influenced?
Q Ari, but all that said, you know the
political environment you're operating in, given what's going on with
Enron right now. So why take the position -- and even if
you're right, this is presidential prerogative, why not -- why are you
appearing in sort of taking the same tack that the Clinton
administration did on similar issues? Why not fully
disclose, put it all out there, and have it be resolved once and for
all?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, there's nothing new
here. The administration is going to continue to pursue this
to get to the bottom of any criminal wrongdoing at Enron or anywhere
else that could have been involved -- and that's through the Department
of Justice. The policy reviews will continue, and the
administration will continue to be forthcoming in answering questions
and providing information.
But I think everybody has seen the way this town operates.
Washington, D.C. must fully investigate what's taken place with Enron.
Washington, D.C. must fully move to protect people's
pensions. But if Washington goes down the usual path of
partisan fishing expeditions, I think they're going to lose the support
of the public. The public wants to know that people here in
this town are focused on the wrongdoing where the wrongdoing occurs,
and not engaging in wasteful fishing expeditions.
Q I mean, why not, then, just say okay,
there's no "there" there, let's just put it out here and end this, so
that we're not going down this --
MR. FLEISCHER: You say why not put "it"
out? Would you define "it"?
Q The task force information, the documents
they have requested. I mean, why take on the
GAO? Why allow this to happen if that's what it's all about,
is partisan politics?
MR. FLEISCHER: So you're asking that uniquely about the
energy review that was taken on by the administration. Is
that correct?
Q Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. On that topic, there is
a very important principle involved here. And that is the
right of the government and all future presidencies, whether they're
Democratic or Republican, to conduct reviews, to receive information
from constituents regardless of their party or their background in a
thoughtful and deliberative fashion.
And it has always been the right of people in our country to
petition their government, to talk to their government, no matter what
their background or who they are. The suggestion that any
contact with the government is somehow sinister and, therefore, it
should be examined to determine exactly what conversations that you
have with anybody on any topic in conducting an energy review, which is
a vital policy issue and a legitimate one in the eyes of, I think,
Democrats and Republicans alike, is a principle that has big
implications beyond what we're talking about today.
The White House is keenly aware of the political demands from
some. But there are also principles involved in having a government
that is able to thoughtfully, fully and deliberately gather information
from all types of concerned Americans.
Q And at what point is that principle
outweighed by the need to reassure the public that everything has gone
on the up-and-up?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the public is very uneasy about
what happened with Enron and they want it investigated. And
it will be. This Justice Department has announced a criminal
investigation of Enron, and that will be pursued fully.
I think the public is very uneasy about their
pensions. The public wants to know if what happened to Enron
can happen to them. People who work in other companies who
have pensions worry about their 401Ks. Properly so. And the
President directed a review of the Cabinet Secretaries to see if
anything could change.
Bill, I really think the public does not share the judgment that
there is somehow some political malfeasance here. I think
the public has heard that cry from politicians in Washington where
politicians turned to partisanship, one-party investigations, the blame
game. What they have seen in the Bush administration is,
whether it was former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin or Ken
Lay ask for something similar, this administration did the right thing
for the right reasons because they acted on the basis of policy.
Q If the public were to be reassured that
nothing that happened behind closed doors in the meetings of the energy
policy deliberative committee, whether it was with Enron officials or
the officials of any other public company, wouldn't that simplify your
job of reassuring the public that nothing untoward happened?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, Bill, because I think really you're
asking to prove a negative. And I remind you that as part of
what is going on, the Department of Justice is investigating from a
criminal point of view, from a wrongdoing point of view, so the reviews
are being done. And if there were to be something, there is
an avenue that people could look into that is a thoughtful,
deliberative government angle. Nothing like that has taken
place here.
So the answer is to the release, nothing new. You're
asking for us to prove a negative, and that's a road that we're not
traveling.
Q So you won't release the
records? I mean --
Q When you say nothing new --
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing new. That's what we've
always indicated. We'll stand on that principle.
Q In other words, you won't release the
records?
Q That's actually what I want to ask --
there's no way you're going to bend from it? You guys have
made a final decision and are no longer reviewing the question of
whether or not you release the records? You won't release
them, period, because of what you just outlined?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, Ron, there's nothing moving now to
do that. That's correct. We will always continue to work
with the Congress and work closely with the Congress. I
can't make to you one hundred percent guarantee blanket predictions
about all events in life to come, but I can answer your questions
faithfully about the status today.
Q Ari, just to follow on Kelly's original
question. Are you saying specifically that nothing was put
in the energy plan at Enron's request?
MR. FLEISCHER: What was put in the energy plan was put
in at the need to help address an energy shortage in America, not as
the result of a request of any one company or any one
person. It was done because it's the right policy for the
country. In fact, if you really want to take a look at some
things, some of the things that Enron wanted the most, they didn't get,
such as a global warming agreement by the United States. The
previous administration, of course, did enter into an agreement on
global warming, which I think was very pleasing to
Enron. This administration took a look at that matter and,
on policy grounds, decided that would not be the most helpful step to
protect America's workers, America's economy.
If you look down the list of things, several things that were
sought by Enron that the administration did not include because it was
reviewed for policy reasons, things that were in there were all put in
there because they were the best energy policy for our country that has
severe energy problems.
Q Okay, and also, do you deny the assertion
that for whatever reason a provision might have been put in the policy,
that one or more of them may uniquely benefit Enron?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know about uniquely benefit.
Q Primarily benefit --
MR. FLEISCHER: I have no idea how to measure
it. Our nation is a nation that has energy needs and there
are regions of the country that have blackouts, that have
brownouts. There is a need to move to change the
infrastructure in the United States. Certainly, when
California was suffering from the brownouts and blackouts it had last
summer, one of the steps that could have been taken to alleviate
California's problems was to make it easier to move energy from one
region of the country that has surplus to California, which had a
deficit. That is designed to help people in
California. If anybody else would have benefitted as a
result, that's tangential. There is a problem that had to be
addressed.
Q Can I just follow up on a couple
things? First of all, you said you would work with
Congress. But this is Congressman Waxman's
report. He says he identifies 17 specific Enron lobbying
proposals which he says ended up in the energy plan that the President
rolled out. Now, are you saying you would call this a waste
of taxpayers' money? It is completely illegitimate for a
United States congressman, in the wake of this gigantic bankruptcy by a
company apparently acting in a rogue fashion when it came to accounting
and other matters, it's completely illegitimate for that member of
Congress to inquire whether or not this company, which had given a lot
of money to the administration, got anything in the return?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would never use that word in describing
the actions of a member of Congress. What I have said is
when you take a look at what the facts are in this case, that we are
nation that does indeed have energy problems -- particularly last
summer where the fears of blackout and brownout were most pronounced,
and last winter as the Clinton administration worked with California
officials to begin addressing their energy problems -- there is a
recognition that the country has an old energy infrastructure which
needs to be modernized to help consumers, to help the public.
When you take a look at the things that this administration has
done in saying no to things that would have definitely been sought by
Enron, such as global warming, such as elimination of carbon dioxide as
part of the pollutant strategy, and which Enron would have wanted to
trade carbon credits -- and then you take a look at the things that
were included in the energy plan, based on policy and based on energy
needs, I think the conclusion is that the administration acted on the
basis of sound policy because our country has an energy problem.
It put things in and it left things out based on a policy review,
again just as the administration acted when it got a phone call from
Bob Rubin or Ken Lay. The reaction was policy. The review
that Mr. Waxman has suggested, which ignores the facts that many of his
colleagues voted to support a repeal of the PUHCA provisions that he
cited were put in here, is a partisan waste of money.
Q So the answer it sounds like to
Congressman Waxman's inquiries is, we're good; we discharged the public
trust in accordance with the highest standards of morality, and trust
us on that. And you don't need to look into any of the
actual context, the content of the conversations between Enron
executives and members of the task force, who, from Enron, actually
showed up and talked to members of the task force. Trust
us.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the American people want this
invested fully and entirely. They want to know about any
criminal wrongdoing. They want to know what can be done to
protect their pensions. As I said before and I'll say again,
we're pleased to leave the politics to others.
Q Ari, not releasing the documents from the
GAO you said is the right of the government and all future Presidents
to conduct reviews in a thoughtful manner. Can you just
articulate why you think releasing it would hinder that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think on any number of issues
on which there are reviews being done by the administration on
anything, if the standard was that anybody and everybody who comes in
to talk to anybody in the White House, any conversation they have must
be released, I think it has a potential to tell people, well, you know,
I want to go in there and just talk to the government, I want to go be
able to meet with my congressman, give my thoughts to the congressman,
but if a new standard is put in place where to do so would require any
conversation, anything that anybody ever says to anybody in government
life must be publicly reported, I think people will say, I -- you know,
I'll keep my advice to myself.
It's a principle. It's a principle, Bill. And
once the principle changes in one case, it makes it easier to change in
the next case, not only for the President. Congress, of
course, has its own rules. People can always go in and see
their congressman about any issue, about any grant, about any proposal,
about any legislation. And I think if you were to ask those
members of Congress, will you release every conversation you had, will
you release every email you had, will you release every piece of paper
you had about those meetings, they would suggest to you that absent a
compelling reason, a suggestion of wrong doing, they probably would
not.
Q First question. Have you
discovered any new contacts recorded by any other governmental agencies
between Enron and members of the executive wing? And I have
a second question for you.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have nothing new to report.
Q Second question I have for you, this
morning you said that the economic team had discussed among themselves
when the Enron situation started getting dire, I think you said, and
after it became public that Enron was really in deep water, and you
said -- what is it exactly that they discussed or analyzed and did not
inform the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, what's your question?
Q My question is, what did the economic
analyze --
MR. FLEISCHER: That was put out at length in writing
last night. You have the statement from last night that
described it all.
Q Did they inform the President at all of
their discussions?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. Larry Lindsey was asked
that on CNN's show, Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields last Saturday, and
he said no, there was nothing -- no determination made, because, he
said, as it were, the impact more broadly on other markets was a
non-event. There was no impact on other markets.
Q I know the administration has said that
the President wants to make sure that no one ever loses their pension
again in 401Ks. But has the administration done any kind of
outreach to the people who have lost their pensions, or has Larry
Lindsey or anybody taken a look at what can be done to help those
specific people?
MR. FLEISCHER: The specific employees of Enron?
Q That's right.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Immediately upon the
declaration of bankruptcy, the Department of Labor sent a team down to
Houston to meet with Enron employees and to provide them information
about benefits that they're entitled to under the law. That
was an immediate reaction by a team at the Department of Labor.
Q Has the President done any outreach, or
anybody else here, to them, to follow that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that would be done through the
President's agency here, which is the Department of Labor.
Q I wanted to follow up on
Ellen. We think the same way. How strong is the
administration's commitment to doing this quickly, without having the
litigants go through long, expensive legal trials? Can you
immediately freeze the assets of those who made millions and somehow
channeled the money to those who were defrauded?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's all being reviewed, anything of
that nature, by the courts. Bankruptcy proceedings are in
the hands of the courts, and that's where those matters will be
solved.
Q But are you asking them to speed it
up? This could take months or years.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think it would be appropriate for
the White House to direct a court to speed up or slow down any actions
that are legal.
Q Ari, did Enron come to the administration
during its review of energy policy and make specific proposals about
what should be included?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you need to address that question
directly to the people who were involved in the policy. I
can't tell you if they did or if they didn't. As you know
from the letter that was released by the Vice President's office, they
were met with on several occasions.
Q Right. But how would we get an
answer to that question?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just pose it to the people on the
review. I'll try to ask that, as well.
Q Any results on the meeting between
President Bush and the Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis last
Thursday, January 10th?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that was reported after the
meeting. Yes, there was a readout given by the spokesman for
the National Security Council after the meeting took place.
Q Ari, a number of politicians in both
parties are disgorging the contributions that they have received from
Enron and, in some cases, from Arthur Andersen, as well, and contribute
them to the fund that's been established to help Enron
employees. Is the President going to do that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, what many of them are
doing is in the context of the current election cycle, and the
President, of course, running for a presidential office is under a
different set of rules from the Congress. The President
receives federal matching funds for his race, so if reelection were to
become the issue, that is all through federal matching funds, no
private contributions.
Q But he received, before he got the
matching funds from the general election, he received large amounts of
Enron money for the primary --
MR. FLEISCHER: And that's why I drew your attention to
the analogy that most Congress members are doing it for their upcoming
election.
Q Well, but they're saying that they're
doing this, in some cases -- Schumer, for example, said he was doing
this to clear the air and to make sure that no one could question his
motives. Is the President not interested --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ken, if there's any action on that, I'll
report it.
Q Ari, we hear a lot of stuff from the
podium about the political ramifications, the legal ramifications about
Enron. The President is a man of means who has had
means. These people who lost their money through Enron have
no life savings now. What has the President said privately
to you on a human standpoint about these people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, frankly, what he has said privately
is the same thing that he's said publicly. If you will
recall, he was asked that very question at the ranch when General
Franks was visiting him in December and early January, and the
President said that his heart goes out to the employees of Houston.
These people who worked for Enron have not only lost their
paychecks, but they have lost a considerable amount of their retirement
checks. And that's why this is such a serious matter, and
that's why the Department of Justice is investigating how it could have
come to be that people were unsuspecting, had no knowledge, the price
dropped and the blackout period was imposed. And the
President wants to make sure that any action is taken so that others
can be protected so it does not happen to them.
Q Has he tried to reach out to any of these
families or any of these people? I mean, we've heard stories
of people who are having it hard to go to the grocery store, to
calculate how much money they have to spend.
MR. FLEISCHER: Through the Department of Labor -- the
Department of Labor is the appropriate agency that is --
Q No, has the President reached out?
MR. FLEISCHER: Through the Department of Labor.
Q On bioethics, certainly the council will
have a number of subjects to address. But on the issue of
human cloning, what does the President hope that the council can
accomplish, given the fact that both he and the council's chairman are
opposed to that procedure?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is looking forward to
having his first meeting with his bioethics panel today. And
the President is opposed to human cloning. He thinks that it
is wrong, and he thinks that as the breakthroughs take place in science
and in medicine which have the potential to cure diseases, it is vital
for the nation to have a full understanding and a rich reflection and a
discussion of the ethical implications of some of the breakthroughs.
Diseases are going to be cured. People's deepest
problems have the potential to be solved that have really haunted many
a family. But in so doing, the President thinks it's
essential for the fabric of our country to listen to the ethical
considerations, the ethical reasons that at all times have to guide the
progress and the path of science. And that's what the
President looks forward to hearing from this commission as they conduct
their works.
But there is no -- make no mistake about it, the President has
taken a position on human cloning. He stands by
it. He opposes human cloning. And he believes the nation
will benefit from a review of a diverse group of ethicists, so that all
the implications of it can be discussed in a thoughtful fashion.
Q Are you satisfied there is enough
diversity on the panel to have that sort of discussion?
MR. FLEISCHER: He is. He believes that the
panel represents that diversity.
Q Tomorrow the Republican National Committee
is going to elect Governor Racicot as Chairman of the
Committee. Governor Racicot has done some lobbying for
Enron. Is the President concerned that this revelation, or
this connection would taint the Republican Party, going into an
election year?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q What has the President said in private
about Ken Lay? Does he still consider him a good
friend? And would he take money from him in the future?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think he was asked that question
-- a similar question in the Oval Office. Ken Lay is and was
a supporter of the President. And it doesn't
matter. A criminal investigation is going to
proceed. And the President wants to make sure that that
criminal investigation will take itself wherever it needs to go, and
that justice should be done. And it doesn't matter who was
involved, whether they knew the President or didn't know the
President. The Department of Justice is undertaking a
criminal review.
Q In 1984 -- it seems just like yesterday --
(laughter).
MR. FLEISCHER: What year was that -- '84.
Q Walter Mondale at the Democratic
Convention, said that if elected, he would raise federal
taxes. Don't you see a distinction between that kind of a
statement and what we heard from Senator Kennedy yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: I thought Senator Kennedy's statement
yesterday that he wanted to raise taxes was an echo of something from
16 years ago. It reminded me very much of Walter Mondale's
statement at the convention that he would raise taxes.
Q Let's draw a distinction. As a
consequence of getting elected in 1985, Americans would have seen their
federal tax bill go up, assuming Congress would have agreed with
Mondale's plan. As a consequence of Congress agreeing to
what Senator Kennedy said yesterday, isn't it fair to say that no
American would see his current federal income tax liability go up?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is no question about it,
what the President -- what Senator Kennedy called for yesterday is a
tax increase, plain and simple. When the government promises
somebody there will be more money in your upcoming paycheck, and the
government says we didn't mean it, we're taking that money back from
you, that's a tax hike.
Q Ari, yesterday, the President's Budget
Director made a comment about the need for corporate statesmanship in
this country. That was in response to a question he was
asked about Enron executives cashing in $1 billion of stock while the
workers got nothing. I was wondering whether the White House
was thinking about this topic at all, especially since we're in a
recession -- whether there was a message going to be coming out from
the President about the need for chief executives, themselves, to be
an example to forego salary increases and bonuses and all the other
wonderful perks they get, and not only just to talk about sympathizing
with workers, but to require sacrifice among the country's chief
executives.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one of the things that the
President has asked the Department of Labor, Treasury and Commerce to
review as far as what policy changes can be made, learning the lessons
of Enron, is to take a particular look at the blackout period that is
imposed, and to determine whether or not workers should be given an
advanced notice of the blackout period coming so they're not just
slammed down on so they can't diversify or sell if they so
desire. And the President thinks that the way to help people
is to make sure that people who are punished through no action, no
fault of their own, cannot be put in a similar position, and that's
where the President has directed the review.
Q Ari, after Mr. Lindsey's panel determined
that Enron would have little impact on the markets, who did he report
that information to, beyond the members of the Economic Council?
MR. FLEISCHER: I couldn't tell you fully who he reported
it to. Larry is on record himself as saying he did not inform that to
the President. Again, as Larry said on CNN last Saturday,
some five days ago, he said that the review showed that they would not
have any broader impact on overall markets. I think he said
it was, as it were, a non-event, because it did not have such an
impact.
Q So there were no internal communications,
either written, electronic, or spoken?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I didn't say that. The
economic team surely talked among themselves.
Q Shouldn't he have reported to the Chief of
Staff, for instance, just to at least say this is not going to be a
problem?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have no idea if he did or if he
didn't. The point of the matter is, as he said, it was a
non-event.
Q In the meeting with the labor union
leaders, is the President ready to disclose to those guys the --
position to the -- and also their position on legalization of Mexican
immigrants in the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is going there with
a certain list of items that he wants to talk about and that includes
job creation for America. But it is going to be an open
session. I think he is going to hear what's on their
minds. The President and these unions don't agree on every
issue. I won't be surprised if some of the union leaders
bring up some issues with which they disagree with the
President. After all, that's the purpose of getting together
with them.
The President wants to convince them to agree with him in the
issues he believes in; they will probably want to convince the
President to agree with them on their issues. That's why
they're having the meeting.
Q Are you worried that the frustration on
the Hill over Enron is going to hurt your ability to get votes on the
energy report when it comes out next month, since it's going to be out
at the same time there's hearings going on on Enron?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the frustration on the Hill about
Enron is wisely and properly focused on Enron, on the people who are
associated with Enron in terms of the auditing and how it could have
happened, and on policy reviews.
Q Has the President questioned the
legitimacy of claims that Clark Bowers is being held hostage in
Afghanistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: Of who, now?
Q Clark Bowers, the Alabama
man? His wife claims he is being --
MR. FLEISCHER: The State Department is looking into
that. I asked for an update yesterday and the State
Department is looking into that. I have not received an
update since yesterday.
Q During his trip to East Asia next month,
how hard is the President going to work for the promotion of free trade
in the region, in the interest of creating more jobs in this country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Free trade is always an issue that the
President raises when he meets with people, particularly in an area as
important economically to the United States as Asia, as Korea, as
Japan. And interestingly, now China, China being a member of
the World Trade Organization, the President views that as an essential
to job creation, to growth and to economic health.
I also want to raise -- you mentioned Japan. And, of
course, there will be an important conference this weekend led by the
United States, the European Union, Saudi Arabia and Japan on the
reconstruction of Afghanistan, a very important meeting on the future
of developing a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, and I think there will
be an announcement there about assistance from Afghanistan from a
number of these nations to help Afghanistan be free from terror.
Q Can you clarify what you said about the
release of documents to the GAO? When did the administration
decide to definitively not release that? You had been
telling us you were reviewing it.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there has been no
change. The Vice President's office is the one who has been
addressing this issue. There has been no change in that to
report.
Q Are you still reviewing it or you aren't
going to release it?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no change in our status on
that.
Q Clarify the status.
Q Is there a review underway or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: It means that the administration will
continue to stand by the principle that I enunciated earlier.
Q And, as you know, frequently these
standoffs are resolved through the principle of comity between the
branches; that if there is a way without harming future -- this
administration or future Presidents' right, as they see it, to candid
advice, they may be able to share it. GAO specifically
requesting the documents seems to be one of the sticking points with
the Vice President's counsel who says GAO doesn't have the statutory
authority. Is there some way, perhaps, to work around that
if it was a member of Congress, him or herself or a committee, rather
than the GAO which seems to be an institution that the Vice President
--
MR. FLEISCHER: There was a similar question that came up
earlier in the briefing and I answered that question, saying there is a
principle here and the administration will continue to adhere to the
principle. There is no change today. I told you
that I can't speak for every action conceivably that could possibly
ever be taken in the future. But there is no change to be
reported today. There is no change today.
Q Can you clarify something for
me? The average American, if they receive a lot of money
from someone in support of something, they consider that person a
friend. Does President Bush consider Mr. Lay a friend, or
just someone who --
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question, Ken Lay is and was
a supporter, friend of the President's. But I think it also
is no surprise to anybody that companies like Enron Corporation play
both sides of the street. They give money to candidates and
politicians in both parties. That is what Enron has done in
many cases, and I think the numbers are half the Senate and
three-quarters of the House, or vice-versa, have received funding from
Enron.
Q When you say "supporter, friend," what
does that friendship entail? Hanging out, Rangers games,
what?
MR. FLEISCHER: Hanging out -- that's not something I've
really seen President Bush do very much.
Q Oh, yes, he has, trust me.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's hard to hang in a
bubble. (Laughter.)
Q I mean, you know what I'm
saying. But what does it mean? What does his
friendship entail?
MR. FLEISCHER: April, I don't know how to make a linear
description of friends.
Q Ari, can I ask you about free
trade? The speech the President gave last night at the OAS,
have you had any reaction out of the State Department so far?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is nothing that has crossed my
radar screen. That might be something that State has put a closer ear
to the ground than I have this morning.
Q The second part has to do with he said the
Senate needs to give him free trade authority or permanent trade
authority. What is he going to do about it? The
House has already approved it. He has had a little fight
with some of the members of the Senate, but he ratified Otto Reich or
gave him the recess appointment. Does he still expect to
have the votes in the Senate for passage of world free trade?
MR. FLEISCHER: Based on the history of the United States
Senate, you would expect that the votes would be there in a healthy,
bipartisan way for free trade to pass. The President hopes
that will be the case this year, as well.
Thank you.
END 12:42
P.M. EST
Return to this article at:
/news/releases/2002/01/20020117-8.html
