President
|
Vice President
|
First Lady
|
Mrs. Cheney
|
News & Policies
History & Tours
|
Kids
|
Your Government
|
Appointments
|
Jobs
|
Contact
|
Graphic version
Email Updates | Español | Accessibility | Search | Privacy Policy | Help
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 25, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:45 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I'll give you
a report on the President's day, then I'll be happy to take any
questions you have.
The President this morning had a briefing with the Central
Intelligence Agency and the FBI, to go over the latest developments on
the war on terrorism. On national security matters, convened a meeting
of the National Security Council.
Early this morning, the President held an event on the South Lawn,
where he promoted several energy efficient vehicles that are hybrid
uses of cars. It's part of the President's overall energy
program, which focuses on both conservation and on increased production
of domestic energy sources.
Later today, the President will travel to participate in a live
radio address in honor of the 60th annual celebration of the Voice of
America. That will be an event here in Washington, at the
Voice of America headquarters.
And the final public event on the President's schedule today is in
the East Room, the President will meet with the governors, who are here
for their annual National Governors' Association
conference. The President's remarks will focus on the
efforts the federal government is hoping to help states
with -- homeland security, as well as focusing on education
reform and on welfare reform.
That's a summary of the President's day. Helen.
Q Ari, why would this administration choose
a man for couterterrorism who is so associated with the dark side of
the Iran Contra scandal, Admiral Poindexter?
MR. FLEISCHER: When you say, choose him for
counterterrorism, can you be more specific?
Q He's in the Pentagon, he's been appointed
head of DARPA, which is a counterterrorist office, developing plans,
demonstrations with information.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of any appointment.
Q Yet.
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just say about Admiral Poindexter,
Admiral Poindexter is somebody who this administration thinks is an
outstanding American and an outstanding citizen who has done a very
good job in what he has done for our country, serving in the military.
Q How can you say that, when he told Colonel
North to lie?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think your views on Iran Contra
are well-known, but the President does believe that Admiral Poindexter
served --
Q It isn't my view, this is the prosecutor
for the United States.
MR. FLEISCHER: I understand. The President
thinks that Admiral Poindexter has served our nation very well.
Q Really?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the President's thoughts.
Q Do you know his record?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sure you will inform me.
Q I don't have to, all you have to do is
look it up.
Q There are several manufacturers of hybrid
vehicles in the United States. Two of them were
conspicuously absent from the South Lawn this morning
-- Toyota and Honda. They actually have vehicles
in showrooms today, not in 2003 or 2004. I'm wondering if
you can tell us why they were excluded from the event?
MR. FLEISCHER: My understanding is this event was set up
in connection with domestic producers of automobiles. I
don't think it's any reflection beyond that. It was just the
hosts of this event were the domestic producers.
As far as the President is concerned, the consumer should have the
choice of whichever vehicle the consumer wants to
purchase. And the President wants to generally promote the
use of hybrid-fuel vehicles as a way of promoting conservation.
Q When you say "set up by" the domestic
manufacturers, they had free rein here at the White House? I
mean, the White House had no say in who would or who would not be
here?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, but I think the event was set up
through their good offices, and so they involved domestic automobiles.
Q So this was in no way sending a signal
visually that the President only wanted to emphasize domestic
manufacturers, as opposed to outside manufacturers?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I think that's who was at
the White House, who joined the President for the event
today. But more broadly speaking, no. As you
know, the President's position on trade is very clear, and the
President thinks that trade benefits the consumer and empowers the
consumer to make choices, so that they have as many options at as low a
price as is possible.
Q Is that really about trade,
though? Aren't these other vehicles manufactured in this
country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Major's question was about other
manufacturers.
Q Yes, but the vehicles are manufactured in
this country.
Q Some of them are manufactured here.
MR. FLEISCHER: But they're
domestic -- the group that helped sponsor today's
event in collaboration with the White House was domestic manufacturers,
regardless of location of plants. Obviously, it's a very
integrated world when BMW, for example, has a plant here and the United
States has plants overseas. It's actually a very integrated production
operation.
Q I mean, you see the issue there,
Ari? When the President stands by any car, it sends a very
powerful signal to Americans who are watching it. Is it
customary for the White House to give such free reign to someone who
has such a particular interest in the President standing by their car
as opposed to somebody else's?
MR. FLEISCHER: If the interest is promoting
conservation, the answer is, yes. The President thinks
that's a worthwhile goal, and that's why the President welcomed those
groups to the White House today, to promote vehicles that focus on
conservation. It's an important national priority.
Q Just not all of them.
MR. FLEISCHER: The ones that were
there -- like I said, you understand the
President's position on trade.
Q Ari, the President's special envoy to
Afghanistan said yesterday that U.S. troops might be needed to help
police the country if they can't set up a military soon enough to
control warlord chaos. And Secretary Rumsfeld said as much
last week. What's the difference between keeping control
over warlord fighting and peacekeeping?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't believe Zal talked about policing
the country. I think what he referred to is the United
States is considering, as we talk to our allies in the region, several
options for how to strengthen the security forces that are currently in
Afghanistan. And toward that end, the United States is
training the Afghanistan Army, is providing help, is providing
weaponry, is providing training to the government of Afghanistan so
they have a well equipped army, a well trained army, capable of
policing the country.
The President's position is unchanged about the use of the United
States combat forces. The President continues to believe the
purpose of the military is to be used to fight and win wars, and not to
engage in peacekeeping of that nature. Having said that, the
United States is committed to the long-term of Afghanistan, including
its security and its safety. That's one of the reasons that
the United States is providing the amount of
aid -- funding aid we are to Afghanistan, the
training aid that we're providing to Afghanistan. And the
United States will continue to work with Afghanistan toward helping
them to secure their --
Q But Rumsfeld did use the words, "police
the whole country" when he talked last week about setting up the 30,000
American troops there to control chaos among the
warlords. Are you saying there's a difference between combat
and non-combat forces?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's a big difference between
police and combat. And the President has said and the Secretary
knows -- and it's the Secretary's position as
well -- that the purpose of the military is to
fight battles, win wars. And in the process of doing that,
we are making Afghanistan safer.
Now, I think it is also fair to say that it's not going to be an
easy process, and it's not going to happen overnight in
Afghanistan. The President --
Q But military troops can be used to police
Afghanistan
-- U.S. military troops can be used to police
Afghanistan? I'm trying to understand the distinction you're
making.
MR. FLEISCHER: The purpose of the troops there is to
fight and win wars. And in the process of doing that, it certainly has
made Afghanistan a safer country than it was. For example,
it was under Taliban control just several months ago.
But the broader point I was just about to make is, after 20 years
of domination from outsiders -- 10 years of
Soviet domination and 10 years of Taliban
domination -- the situation in Afghanistan is
fragile. It is difficult. And it's not going to
become an instantly peaceful nation overnight. There still is a
problem of warlordism in Afghanistan. And that's why there's
an international security force there. It's why the United
States is going through the steps it's going to, to help train an
Afghanistan army which will be the first real Afghanistan army in some
20 years.
Q And in the meantime U.S. troops can be
used to police what you just called warlordism?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I did not indicated
that. I said the purpose of America's military is to fight
and win wars.
Q Then what is Rumsfeld talking about with
these 30,000 troops that could be used to police the whole country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, if you can give me the full
context of the quote, I think it's something you may want to address to
the Pentagon. But I can't imagine that his position is any
different from the President's.
Q The President said today he's fully
satisfied with the support, the help President Pervez Musharraf has
been giving the U.S. government in the investigation of the kidnapping
and the killing of Danny Pearl. You said this morning that
the U.S. government is pursuing the extradition. And the
question is, if you do you know have an extradition treaty with
Pakistan, how are you going to get him extradited?
MR. FLEISCHER: I said this morning that the United
States would very much like to get our hands on Omar Sheik and the
others who are responsible. And there is a judicial system
in Pakistan that has cooperated with the United States. And
one further point on it, even without an extradition treaty the United
States can work productively with other nations, as other nations make
their decisions about justice, pursue things through their courts,
often in cooperation with the United States.
But since the gaggle, I've talked with some of the lawyers inside
the White House and there is some updated information on a treaty,
because there is actually a treaty dealing with extradition with
Pakistan that was signed in 1931. It went into effect in
1942, prior to Pakistan becoming a sovereign state
-- because that was at a time when Pakistan was under the
British empire.
But it's interesting to note that the lawyers say that treaty does
remain in effect, even though it was signed with the predecessor of the
Pakistani government.
Q How can that be? There was no
Pakistan in 1942.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's an interesting question, Bill, but
that's the lawyers' point, they do believe it remains in effect even
though it was --
Q The treaty was with the British?
MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty was with Pakistan, which was
under British rule.
Q But there wasn't any Pakistan, as such.
MR. FLEISCHER: It was with the Pakistani authorities
under British rule. So I think probably --
Q There were no Pakistani authorities.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- that time. Of
course there were Pakistani authorities; it was under British rule, but
you still had Pakistani authorities.
Q Nineteen forty-nine.
Q It was part of India.
MR. FLEISCHER: You can argue it with the lawyers if you
choose, but I can tell you --
Q Bring them on. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Lawyers like to argue these type of
points about 1932.
Q Does Pakistan agree with that
interpretation?
MR. FLEISCHER: You'd have to ask Pakistan.
Q Do you have any communication from them
one way or the other? On this broader issue, or on the
specific issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just -- the
lawyers just filled me in on this point,
and -- so there is a treaty.
But as I was making the point, even without this, as I indicated
this morning, it does not change the United States's fundamental
determination to bring justice to the people who killed Mr.
Pearl. And in that measure, whether there is or is not an
extradition treaty, the President has said that he is satisfied with
the actions of President Musharraf and of the Pakistani government
helping to bring about that result.
Q But they are extraditable?
MR. FLEISCHER: Connie?
Q Why would we want them back
here? Wouldn't we be just as happy to have them executed in
Pakistan rather than put Americans at risk?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I've told you what the government's
position is. Pakistan, of course, does have its own justice system,
and I can't predict what Pakistan will decide to do; they are a
sovereign nation.
The United States has made clear to Pakistan our position, that we
would be interested in having him sent to the United States, Sheik Omar
to the United States, and the others who are responsible for the
killing.
Q I have two follow-up questions, one on the
cars and one on Pakistan. On the auto issue, do I understand you
correctly to be saying that Honda and Toyota are not considered to be
domestic producers, but Chrysler is?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. My understanding is this
is just the logistics of the event that was held at the White House
this morning, that was put on with a group that sponsored these three
cars and not others.
Q And on the Pakistan issues, there have
been some reports suggesting that there were calls from the kidnappers
back to Canada that might have suggested that there was an al Qaeda
link to the kidnapping. Do you have any evidence to that
effect?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't have any information on that,
David.
Q Ari? Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: We have an orderly process of working in
the front and making our way to the back. We're going to get
there.
Q Ari, is there any indication that this
kidnapping was part of a larger plot for more
kidnappings -- I'm talking about Dan Pearl
now -- that there is a larger plot underway to
kidnap Americans?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's hard to tell. The fact of
the matter is the government receives bits of information from time to
time, and it always is evaluated to determine what risks are.
I have said from this podium on several times, particularly with
regard to journalism, that this is a reminder, what's happened, about
the risks that journalists take in serving a cause and serving our
country so that people in our country can read the truth and read the
facts. Travel to different parts of the world can be
risky. There is no shortage of people in al Qaeda and other
organizations who would seek to do harm to
Americans. Americans who do business abroad, for example,
have had to take into account the risks of kidnapping and terrorism in
their plans for several decades, unfortunately.
That's a long way of answering, in an inconclusive fashion, but
there are reports that we get, and the President has said that this
remains a dangerous period in Afghanistan and the region.
Q How about links between al Qaeda and Omar
Sheik, are those becoming more thoroughly known and more clearly
established?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's nothing concrete I can point to,
Major.
Q Ari, what can the White House say about
this report on anthrax, that there's been a suspect for three months?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've noted that report and I've done some
digging into the topic. I wish it was that easy and that
simple right now, but unfortunately, there still are several
suspects. There's not as if there's only one. And
so the FBI is continuing its investigative efforts. That
story, I think, was a little overreaching in saying there's just
one. The FBI has not narrowed it down to just one; they are
continuing their investigation.
Q Well, is it an American, and is it a
scientist from Fort Dietrick that is being looked at out of the group
that you're saying, possibly?
MR. FLEISCHER: All indications are that the source of
the anthrax is domestic. And I can't give you any more
specific information than that. That's part of what the FBI
is actively reviewing. And I just can't go beyond that.
Q And on a personal note for the victims,
some of the victims who are still alive who suffered from the anthrax
have not heard from the Homeland Security Director, have not heard from
the President, have not heard from
congressional -- like the ones who represent the
Brentwood Postal facility. And some say there's insensitivity on the
part of the federal government. What do you say about that,
for these victims who are still suffering, who still can't read well,
who are still going through years of possible rehabilitation after
this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would hope that's not the case.
Q Well, it is the case. They have
not been contacted.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that in all instances that
the appropriate health authorities, whether they were federal
government or state government or a collaboration of both, have been in
touch. Very often, in the case of people who are
hospitalized, the federal Centers for Disease Control was intimately
involved in all areas involving the anthrax that
was -- the anthrax
attacks. So it's been a very difficult chapter for all
concerned, particularly the families of those who lost their lives in
the attack. It was difficult moments for the government.
Obviously, anybody who would engage in that type of terrorism
through the mail puts people in a position where it becomes very
difficult not only for them, but for local communities, for all the
people who were affected by all the hoaxes that followed those
attacks. But I think the federal government responded as
well as it could, given the knowledge the federal government had, as
quickly as it could. And if any individuals who were
involved had anything more specific where they want to talk to anybody
in the federal government, I know the federal government throughout the
various agencies would want to respond.
Q Ari, does the White House hold the view
that Osama bin Laden is still alive?
MR. FLEISCHER: The simple answer is we do not
know. There have been no indications that he is
dead. And, therefore, the most likely suspicion is that he
is alive. But, of course, in the absence of any type of
proof, you can only deal in likelihoods. But that is the
most likely scenario, based on the reports that we've received
Q Ari, can we go back to the treaty that you
brought up? What will be the next step if, in fact, White
House authorities have now determined that there may be an
agreement? What are you folks going to do now?
MR. FLEISCHER: The step remains the same, even without
it. And that is we have been in contact with the government
of Pakistan, the embassy in Islamabad has been in touch. And
Pakistan understands that we would like to have Omar Sheik brought to
the United States.
Q So the White House is on the same page as
the Justice Department. The Justice Department apparently
has sought, successfully, an indictment for a '94 case, actually, and
this is why you want him back?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House is on the same page with
the Justice Department, that's correct.
Q Ari, Prince Abdullah has put forward a
peace plan which he apparently is going to take up also at the Arab
League meeting later this year. This met with a very
positive response from our various Arab governments. I was
wondering, what is the U.S. attitude to the peace plan and are you
working together with Prince Abdullah to try and work out the details?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President welcomes all initiatives
whose goal is to bring peace to the Middle East. The
President continues to believe that the Mitchell accords represent the
best path to achieve that peace, and that begins with the two sides
sitting down for security talks -- which has
begun and then halted, and then has begun, halted. And it's
important for the parties to continue the security talks, which
hopefully can then lead to more political negotiations to resolve the
outstanding issues in the Middle East, between Israel and the
Palestinians.
So the President welcomes the thoughts of Arab
leaders. We want to contribute to that
process. The President believes the Mitchell accords are the
best path to pursue.
Q Is there any -- to
follow up, Ari, is there any idea of getting together with Prince
Abdullah or with representatives of him to discuss the
details --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the Vice President
will be in the region in March. And I anticipate that peace
in the Middle East will be one of the issues on the agenda.
Q Back on to anthrax for a minute, what's
the sense here about the pace of the investigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that the experience that we're
seen in this investigation is that these things are often very
difficult to catch who did something like this. Obviously,
the person who did this is very smart, has employed means that are very
difficult to track. The block handwriting on the letters was
chosen most likely by design, knowing how hard it is to track that type
of handwriting.
And so the President would like to get this, obviously, resolved as
quickly as is possible. The pace of justice is a methodical
one. It's very important for them to build a case that will
stand up in court, that is thorough, and is conclusive. And
that's the effort of the FBI, and the President believes the FBI is
doing a good, solid job.
Q Does the White House feel the government
has a full handle now on the inventories of anthrax at universities, at
military facilities?
MR. FLEISCHER: To the best of all the information that
we have received here, that was never a question. The
military laboratories, other laboratories accounted for their
anthrax -- the military laboratories accounted
for their anthrax, those under federal purview. And so that
has not been a question, the best that I've been briefed on that
topic.
Q Ari, on the Superfund, if the
administration is opposed to reauthorizing the Superfund tax, then how
does the administration expect these cleanup sites to funded, or how
would you expect to fund them?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the most likely way, Paula, is to
emulate the successful reform that was put into place through the
brownfield program, which was done after some 10 years of
inaction. The President working together with Democrats and
Republicans in Congress, was able to get it done last year. People
used to think that brownfield legislation could never be taken care of,
to clean up abandoned urban sites. There were legal
liability provisions that were put in place that allowed that program
to go forward.
But the Superfund program has not been as successful as it should
be, because too often Superfund cleanups become a matter between
lawyers and not a matter between cleanup crews. And that's
where the Superfund program has languished, and that's why there was
bipartisan opposition to reauthorizing the Superfund program without
reform.
The President would like to see the brownfield legislation, which
created some reasonable caps on legal issues, serve as a precedent for
a successful Superfund reform. And that way sites can be
cleaned up.
Q Ari, can I follow that? Does
the President believe, as a matter of policy, that the federal
government should take over the role of paying for cleaning up the
Superfund sites, instead of the industry?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's a formula in place, it's a
70/30 formula. And it deals with a couple of the complicated issues
involving Superfund cleanup. For example, if it's known who
the polluter is, the polluter cleans it up. There's no
question about that; the industry should pay.
Where it often gets very complicated is where it is not known who
is responsible for pollution of a site, and somebody wants to purchase
that site. It's an old, abandoned site that contains toxic chemicals,
and a purchaser comes along who wants to buy that land that is
currently desolate -- they had nothing to do with
creating the pollution in that land.
The President wants to make certain that we have a system that is
not unfair to a potential new purchaser, who had nothing to do with
creating the pollution, yet allows that site to be cleaned
up. The problem right now is because of some of the
liability issues, those sites are languishing. Nobody would
be crazy enough to purchase them, because they get stuck with bills
having nothing to do with their own pollution, and therefore nothing
gets cleaned up.
So the President wants to have a reform that's put in place that
allows for cleanup with a fair spread of the costs, that includes the
industry.
Q But by specifying the President did not
want to renew the tax that had been used to build up the Superfund, is
the President saying the government should take this
over? Is he looking to Congress to take the burden of
reenacting the tax, which it has so far been unwilling to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the message is clear that the
program needs to be reformed, just like the brownfield legislation was
successfully reformed. And if Congress pursues that path,
then I think it's fair to say that there can be a Superfund program
that's in place that works. But in the absence of reform,
the existing program was not working. Lawyers were getting
rich, but sites were not getting cleaned up.
Q But where would the money come
from? You say the program needs to be
reformed. In what manner? Where does the
President believe the money should come from, from the government or
from industry?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the EPA is currently taking a look
at exactly how to improve for the future of the program, make a
recommendation. So that is underway. But in the
meanwhile, it has not stopped this administration from engaging in
cleanups. For example, as you know, the Environmental
Protection Agency has announced a major cleanup of the Hudson River,
that's fully paid for by the responsible party, which is General
Electric. That was a rather controversial
issue. The administration took action, held
the -- in this case, the industry, General
Electric, liable, and proceeded with the cleanup.
But this has been a vexing issue for people in both parties for
many a year. And in the meanwhile, the existing program was
not leading to cleanups. And that's why the President wants to reform
it, like the brownfields.
Q Last week the Treasury Secretary said that
he'd like to preside or at least see happen fundamental tax
reform. Where does that rank on the White House's list of
priorities? What principles would be embodied in this idea,
and what would the time table be?
MR. FLEISCHER: From time to time the President reflects
on the question of how to make the tax code fairer and simpler, to
fundamentally reform it. I can tell you he has no one
leading candidate in mind. That's an issue that has been
divisive in the Congress. While there have been a great
number of people who talk about how to fundamentally reform the system,
it's fair to say there's a great division among Republicans between
flat tax supporters and creation of perhaps some type of national sales
tax. I'm not really sure -- Democrats
have some of their ideas, although most of this debate seems to be on
the Republican side.
That's really where it stands for the President. The
President likes to hear the ideas that people have about the
topic. But I think it's a little early in his mind to begin
the debate.
Q -- timing, the Treasury
Secretary seemed to be saying that nobody should hold their
breath. Is that what you're telling us, that this is
something --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no one idea that has
coalesced. As I said, the President likes to reflect on this
topic, but he hasn't decided on one approach, himself. He
listens when people bring up different ideas to him. But if
you were to try to propose something to the Congress right now, I think
you would find a fairly large split in the Congress, even among
Republicans, on what the best type of reform is. And so
there's really no consensus behind any one type of
approach. And there's no consensus by the President about
what an approach should be.
So I think it's something that's on the horizon, that interests the
President, but I can't tell you it's anything closer.
Q In the past, has he taken a position, flat
tax versus sales?
MR. FLEISCHER: He has not.
Russell, you have not joined us for a while, welcome back.
Q Thank you. The Wall Street
Journal reports this morning that Secretary O'Neill is heading the task
force on corporate reform, and that they're exploring ways to make it
easier for the government to punish corporate officers and
direct -- and misleading shareholders.
The question, is the President going to take a position on
corporate reform?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President created that task force, so
the answer is, yes. They're working right now on a range of
options for what to do on the corporate governance side. As
you know, in the collapse of Enron, raised a series of issues about how
to protect people's pensions, what pension reforms should be required,
as well as what areas involving corporate governance, particularly
involving accounting, honesty in statements, transparency, any type of
wrongdoing, that all needs to be explored.
The pension side came to a conclusion and the President has
submitted a proposal to the Congress that he continues to urge the
Congress to pass, to take care to protect people's
pensions. On the corporate governance side, the task force
is still meeting. I cannot give you a specific date on when
they will have the recommendations. The President is looking
forward to receiving them. He thinks that's something that can and
should be done by the Congress this year.
Q Ari, the Supreme Court today declined to
take a case involving the 10 commandments. I know you don't
comment on every court case or court issue, but does the President have
a public position on whether the displaying of the 10 commandments on
public property is an improper mixture of church and state, or is
acceptable?
MR. FLEISCHER: If I recall, there was a case where there
was a judge in a courthouse who had the 10 commandments posted on his
walls. And the President thought there was nothing
inappropriate about doing that.
Q Does he believe it should be handled at
the state level or federal level?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know that that's something I've
heard the President reflect on, about the appropriate
level. I know that that was the President's sentiments when
he heard the case in that one courthouse.
Q Louisiana Senator Breaux has called for
the Federal Trade Commission's funeral practices rule to apply to
crematories and cemeteries, as well as at the funeral
homes. Does the President agree, and what was his reaction
to the 285 uncremated bodies found in sheds, pets caskets and
underbrush near that non-working crematory in Noble, Georgia?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's reaction was that it was
a horror. I think the --
Q So he supports Senator
Byrd's --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on your question, I think it's a
serious one. And I'll take it and let you know.
Q Okay. The President's good
friend, Oklahoma's Governor Frank Keating, told a news conference on
Saturday that he agrees with Dr. Coburn, the co-chair of the
Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS, that condoms are not
safe. He emphasized that. And my question: does
the President disagree with Governor Keating as well as Dr. Coburn, who
is an OB/GYN, while agreeing with Secretary Powell, who, without any
medical training I know of, urges condom use?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, the President's position, as I
explained it some 10 days ago, is very clear. The
President --
Q Does he disagree with both of
these --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the federal
government needs to have an increased focus on abstinence education
programs, which have too often been lacking as part of the
curricula. But the President does believe in a balanced
approach for people who are not going to engage in abstinence, to
provide for safe sex.
Q In other words, condoms?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes in a balanced
approach, as I indicated.
Q Ari, on Angola?
MR. FLEISCHER: Bill?
Q The President this morning said that he
has not yet made a decision on steel imports. Has he been
having meetings? Do you anticipate that he will have people
in to talk about this? Is he aware, for example, of the
argument that higher steel prices domestically will result in more jobs
lost than are already lost to the steel workers?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Under Section 201 of the
International Trade Commission, the President has until March 6th to
make a determination on the steel case. And he is listening
carefully to all sides of this issue. It's a very
complicated one. It has implications for the
domestic industry, which has been, according to the EITC finding, hurt
as a result of steel imports. But the President is keenly
aware of all sides which involve prices to consumers, prices to
manufacturers, of steel imports. And so it's an issue that
the President is looking at in its entirety. He has not made
any determination, as he indicated today in the Oval Office.
Q Do you anticipate further meetings here,
other groups coming in to see him over the next two weeks?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's possible. He has had a
number of meetings on the topic already. He may have
more. There's some two weeks before that deadline, and so I
don't rule that out.
Q I just have a
clarification -- I'm going back a little bit to
what we were talking about earlier, the extradition
treaty. You had said that U.S. officials had talked to
Islamabad. Did they specifically talk about what you learned
from the lawyers today, that in the view of the U.S., this extradition
treaty should apply?
MR. FLEISCHER: You may want to address that to
State. The conversations were held by the State
Department. I don't have every detail of what the
conversation was. I can report to you the bottom line of the
conversation was that the United States made clear to Pakistan that the
United States would be interested in having the Sheik sent here.
Q Can I just try again on Wendell's attempt
to pin down this funding on the Superfund? We understand the
President wants the reforms. But that's a separate issue
from the funding. He is opposed to the corporate tax, and
could you explain why? And if you're going to have
funding -- and they're down to $28 million
now -- the funding, it seems to me, has to come
out of the general Treasury, so is that the President's wish?
MR. FLEISCHER: You cannot separate it from
reform. The reason that the tax was not reauthorized was
because it was a bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill, going back to
1995, seven years, that the program needed to be reformed. If they
were able to reform the program, the funding would have taken care of
itself. So you cannot separate the two. And
that's why the EPA is taking a look at this issue.
But the way it was successfully reformed in the brownfield
legislation was they imposed realistic and reasonable caps on legal
liability provisions, and that prevented some of the brownfield cases
from being tied up in court when the real work should have been spent
on the ground, cleaning up the sites. And that's the
President's approach.
Q Even with the reforms, the President is
opposed to the old corporate tax, is that right?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not necessarily.
Q Not necessarily?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. As I indicated in the case
of General Electric, General Electric is doing the cleanup under the
EPA-ordered cleanup of the Hudson River, General Electric is paying for
it.
Q Corporate tax, I'm not talking about
corporate penalty. Corporate tax. He's opposed to
corporate tax, is that right?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, because, again, as I indicated, if a
responsible party is known, then under the Superfund strict liability
provisions, they have to pay the entire cost. And that's
under the 70-30 formula. The other 30 percent was a general
revenue tax on the industry.
Q That's what I'm talking about.
MR. FLEISCHER: On the 30 percent, the President is not
locked in stone on what the appropriate percentage is. But
the President wants to make certain that it's not done in a way that
prevents sites from being cleaned up because a purchaser comes along,
buys land that was a Superfund site -- or wants
to buy the land -- that pollution is found on
that site and that new purchaser had nothing to do with the creation of
the pollution, so therefore, they don't want to buy the
site. At the same time, the President wants to make sure
that whatever funding is put in place is equitable.
And that's why it lapsed in 1995. If it worked so well,
it wouldn't have lapsed. And that's why Democrats and
Republicans joined in letting it lapse.
Q If he gets his reforms he is not adamantly
opposed to the corporate tax, he would consider that along
with -- taxes on the --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is open for how best to get
it done. But, again, there is -- there
is a healthy, successful precedent that was created in the brownfields
legislation which the President thinks could serve the Congress well in
looking at what to do with Superfund.
And, again, I point out, that that bedeviled Congress for 10
years. And then the President was able to work that out with
the Congress. So there is a good precedent in mind.
Q Ari, last week Dr. Lindsey said that the
White House would not support naming Chairman Greenspan's successor
ahead of his announcement that he was going to resign, yet that's what
he did when he came into office. And I was wondering if you
could articulate why you think that such a stability enhancing move
would not be supported by the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is by far one of the most clever
attempts I've ever had to get me to speculate about a personnel choice
that has not even come open, may not even come open. So I
just don't engage in any speculation about any appointments, as you
know.
Q In abstract of, you know, naming whoever
it is -- (laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: So it's not a hypothetical, it's an
abstract?
Q Right, exactly.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you for the honor. If
you're going to get me to speculate about any one personnel position,
it will not be that one. (Laughter.)
Q Ari, on Angola?
MR. FLEISCHER: Connie? Then we'll come back
to Major.
Q Thank you. What impact do you
think the killing of Jonas Zavimbi will have on the talks tomorrow with
dos Santos? And does the White House think that the dos
Santos government set Zavimbi up for assassination, in effect, to get
him out of the way before dos Santos gets here?
Q Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the United States is still
committed to achieving peace -- development
through equitable solutions in Angola. And the President
calls upon all Angolans to fulfill their obligations to peace there.
As you mentioned, President dos Santos will be here tomorrow, along
with President Chissano of Mozambique and Mogae of Botswana, for a
meeting with the President. So I think you may have more on
this topic tomorrow. And I would also refer you to the
statement put out by Richard Boucher last week on the death of Mr.
Zavimbi.
Q Any coincidence about the time?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q Any speculation about the coincidence of
the time?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have no speculation on
that. Major?
Q Ari, on Thursday on the 700 Club, Pat
Robertson said -- and I quote him directly
here -- "I have taken issue with our esteemed
President in regard to his stand in saying Islam is a peaceful
religion. It's just not, and the Koran makes it very
clear." Pat Robertson and Franklin
Graham -- both of whom are not, incidentally,
known here at the White House -- have said more
or less the same thing.
So I wonder if you could offer the President's reaction to their
assessment that Islam in its totality is not exactly a peaceful
religion, and how it conflicts with what the President has tried to
say, both publicly and worldwide about Islam?
MR. FLEISCHER: Major, I haven't talked to the President
directly about what Pat Robertson has said. But I would
refer you to the visit the President took to a mosque on
September -- I think it was the
17th. Within one week of the attack on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania, the President visited a
mosque here in the Washington community to send a signal that Islam is
a peace-loving religion. And throughout the various meetings
that the President had with members of Congress, even in the week prior
to that, right after the attack, the President urged members of
Congress to remind Americans that Arab Americans love our flag just as
much as anybody else and that Islam is a religion of peace.
Q Does he believe these comments from
someone who is as well-known and as widely watched as Reverend
Robertson undermined that attempt by the President to send this
message?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think all Americans, virtually all
Americans, agree with the President on that
position. Anybody who doesn't is stating an unfortunate
view.
Q Ari, as the President does this Voice of
America event, what's the administration's philosophy on the news
gathering and news reporting independence of the Voice of
America? I'm thinking specifically of the earlier airing of
a certain mullah's voice that some in the administration took exception
to?
MR. FLEISCHER: You will hear that in the President's
remarks, so you will be able to get that directly from the President
himself shortly. But the President --
Q -- on the independence of
VOA?
| Printer-Friendly Version |
| Email this page to a friend |