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
March 26, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:35 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give
you a report on the
President's day, and I'll be happy to take your
questions. The President this morning had his intelligence
briefings on the war and on the homeland front from the CIA and the
FBI. Early this afternoon the President will make an
announcement about his nominees to the United States Senate for the
positions of Director of the National Institute of Health and Surgeon
General of the United States.
And later this afternoon, the President will meet with the Prime
Minister of New Zealand. I anticipate that in that meeting
the President will offer thanks for the support in the war against
terror that New Zealand has provided, as well as discussing areas of
cooperation on counterterrorism, regional issues, as well as some trade
issues.
And with that, I'm more than happy to take your questions.
Q Ari, a wire just crossed that said Sharon
has said on television that conditions are not ripe for Arafat to
attend the Arab summit in the Middle East. Have you spoken
to him --
MR. FLEISCHER: I cannot confirm that, and any
information, as you know, that would develop during the course of my
briefing I'll go back and take a look at. But I cannot
confirm that. I inquired shortly before I came
here --
Q Has the President spoken with Sharon, and
since we heard from you this morning, has there been anything?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the communications were conducted at
the level that I've indicated -- the Secretary of
State and others, the normal diplomatic channels made the position
clear. The President has said it, I believe publicly, about
what our position is, and so our position is clear.
Q Does the President think that Israel has
the right to decide who makes a move in Ramallah? Is it
under military occupation? Has it been
annexed? What right does Sharon have to tell Arafat where he
can go?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the President's position is simple
and clear; the President thinks that --
Q Well, obviously he has no power with the
man.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's position is simple and
clear, and we're dealing a sovereign government and governments have
the right to make determinations. The American position is
clear. The American position is that Israel should seriously
consider allowing Chairman Arafat to attend.
Q Ari, have you had a chance to work up a
response to Mubarak announcing that he isn't going either?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm not entirely clear on
that. I think that's something for Egypt to decide about a
meeting that it wants to attend or not attend involving the Arab
League. I don't know that that's an issue for the United
States to enter into.
Q What concern, if Mubarak doesn't go, if
Arafat doesn't go, how concerned is the administration that the Saudi
Arabian peace plan will just fall apart?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President hopes that the meeting in
Beirut will focus on ways to find peace, as opposed to take
attendance. The President believes that no matter who goes,
the ideas that were advanced by Crown Prince Abdullah can be very
helpful in creating a consensus among Arab nations that there needs to
be a path to peace in the Middle East.
That path to peace has got to begin with a recognition of Israel's
right to exist in security. And the President has always
said that the Palestinians have a right to a state. And the
President believes that this summit in Beirut can help accomplish that
goal of the Crown Prince's ideas.
Q There's another problem, which is that
Crown Prince Abdullah's original proposal spoke or normalization of
relations with Israel. That doesn't seem to be in the text
of the resolution that's going to be offered in Beirut and, in fact,
other nations have said they have no intentions of normalizing
relations. What's the President's reaction to this watering
down of the original proposal?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me tell you what the President
thinks, and why the President, the day that it was announced about the
Crown Prince's ideas, welcomed them the way he did. The
Mideast has been marred by violence, and in so many occasions, by a
lack of hope. The Crown Prince's ideas broke with that, and
represented a gleam of light, a ray of hope, in a Mideast that has too
much violence and not enough of a focus by people on how to stop the
violence.
So what the President was encouraged by was a leading Arab nation
coming out, as Jordan has, as Egypt has, suggesting that there was a
way to achieve peace in the Middle East through the recognition of
Israel's right to exist. And in the midst of all the
setbacks and the violence, along came this notion. The
President wants to create an environment where the Crown Prince's ideas
can be developed further.
So whatever the exact language -- and it will
be important to see what exact language will
be -- the President wants to move the process
forward. And that doesn't mean it all has to be done in one
fell swoop, but it does mean advance a good idea when a good idea is
offered. And that's what the President hopes will happen in
Beirut.
Q If I may follow up, doesn't it seem as if
the process is in retreat, though, from the original proposal which was
bold, a normalization of relations, now stepping back and farther back,
and more conditions being added. Doesn't it look as if this
is not going anywhere?
MR. FLEISCHER: The breakthrough in the Saudi idea was
the recognition of Israel's right to exist, whether that's in the form
of full normalization or in any other form. It's a
recognition of Israel's right to exist. And that is a
centerpiece of the international effort. And that's the area
that the President referred to.
What the President hopes will happen in Beirut is that all the
nations that are there, regardless of who is there, will put their
shoulder to the wheel to try to achieve an environment for peace in the
Middle East that involves a recognition of Israel's right to exist.
Q But isn't the administration concerned
that if Arafat isn't there, that becomes more of the focus, and
criticism of Israel more likely because Arafat is not allowed to attend
that summit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, the President thinks that the
best course is to focus on peace, and that can easier be accomplished
if Chairman Arafat is there.
Q There is a concern, no question, that if
he's not there that it will be harder for the countries to focus on
moving forward, and maybe more focus on criticism --
MR. FLEISCHER: I can just reiterate the President's
position. I think you're familiar with it.
Q Ari, has Secretary of State Powell talked
to Sharon?
MR. FLEISCHER: You'd have to address that to the State
Department. I don't know.
Q Wouldn't the White House know if there's
conversations at a higher level --
MR. FLEISCHER: Believe it or not, the White House does
not keep track of every Cabinet Secretary's call. The State
Department will be briefing later, and they'll be able to answer that.
Q This is a major issue, and --
MR. FLEISCHER: I understand, Jacobo.
Q -- Kelly and everybody else
has said here --
MR. FLEISCHER: You'll have your chance to ask the State
Department in just over an hour, or under an hour.
Q Let me ask you this
question -- again on attendance, you have said,
the people from this podium, that this is a very important meeting,
that you hope the Beirut Arab League meeting focuses on
peace. But everybody seems to be aware that they're going to
be focusing on who is there and who isn't there if Arafat doesn't go.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President believes that no
matter what decisions are made vis a vis attendance, this should not be
a lost opportunity for those who are there, because they should still
focus on how to create peace in the Middle East, regardless of anything
involving attendance. That still remains the core purpose of
the summit, in the President's opinion. And so, again,
regardless of what happens involving any attendance of any officials,
the President still hopes that the leaders who do gather will focus on
how to create an environment for peace in the Middle East.
Q The Northern Virginia Muslim community is
complaining about the raids on their businesses and homes, especially
the Pakistanis and Saudis. At the same time, according to the reports,
15 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and also money may be
flowing from Saudi Arabia. So how are you dealing with these
raids with the Muslim communities? And also, what message
are you going to send or dealing with Saudi Arabia, since all these
reports are going on, what they support for the al Qaeda?
MR. FLEISCHER: Goyle, your question deals with law
enforcement. And when it comes to that, the President knows
that justice is blind, that justice will go wherever they have evidence
and reason to believe that they can protect this
country. And I would refer you to the Department of Justice
for any specifics of law enforcement actions they have
taken. But that's an important part of protecting our
country, and to do so in a way that focuses on evidence, while
protecting the rights of all American citizens.
Q Earlier I'd asked about Sharon's
comments. He was quoted as saying he regrets promising
President Bush that he would not harm or expel Arafat. Are
those statements helpful?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President continues to believe that
the peace process that's in place in the Middle East began with the
Oslo Accords, to which Chairman Arafat is a signatory. And
the President, through General Zinni, is working very hard to bring the
parties together, and that includes the Palestinian Authority and
Chairman Arafat with Israel and Israel's leaders in an effort to create
peace. Those talks are ongoing. The security talks have
begun, and that's the process that the President believes in.
Q Does the White House have any words to
Sharon about such comments as that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House will continue to focus on
the process that I just outlined, which is with Chairman Arafat and the
Palestinian Authority, through General Zinni.
Q Ari, part of the interest in that
statement is that Sharon is saying that a promise was extracted from
him in his talks with President Bush that he would not harm
Arafat. Did the President ask Sharon to make a pledge not to
harm Arafat in his talks with him?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, again, the President believes that
as a result of the process that is been set in place through Oslo, as
well as through the Mitchell path to peace, that discussions should be
carried out with the Palestinian Authority, and that includes Chairman
Arafat. I will not get into any of the private discussions
the President may have had in the Oval Office. But that's
what the President believes, and that's been made clear.
Q What is the White House's next course of
action? What happens the rest of the day? Is the
President going to talk to Sharon? What is your plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll keep you updated if there are any
phone calls from the President.
Q There will be some action, you can't just
let this sit there.
MR. FLEISCHER: I will keep you updated if there's any
action from the President.
Q Three follow-ups. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you for cutting back one.
Q Does the United States want to pressure
Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders? Is the Arab
proposal -- the Saudi proposal up for
negotiations? And the Arab foreign ministers are asking for
$55 million a month to support the Palestinian
Authority. Will the U.S. help with that kind of
money? Does it support that?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of the borders, that's
the exact reason that General Zinni is there, is to begin the process
so that the types of political questions that involve boundaries and
borders and settlements can begin in earnest; so that the Palestinians
and the Israelis can have talks over just those issues, to bring a
lasting peace to the Middle East. That's exactly what the
Mitchell Accords are all about, without making any judgments about what
those borders should be. That's something that the parties
need to decide, and needs to be decided in a way that Israel can live
in peace and security, while the rights of the Palestinian people are
recognized. And that's exactly what the President has called
for.
But to get to that point, it all begins with a reduction of the
violence. And that's part of the reason that General Zinni
has been working so hard with the Palestinians and the Israelis to
allow the political talks over such issues that are important as
boundaries, et cetera, to begin. But that is a long process
and it begins with a cessation of the violence or a reduction of the
violence. So that's where that matter stands.
Q The money, $55 million a month?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not familiar with that.
Q That's the figure that the Arab foreign
ministers have proposed today in their draft.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I'm going to let the meeting take
place and we'll see what finally emerges from the meeting.
You had a third; that's two.
Q Do you know if the Saudis are willing to
negotiate their proposals?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the summit will begin;
they'll -- as all these type of national
gatherings do, there are drafts that circulate, and then we'll see what
the ultimate document is.
Q Ari, Sharon is now quoted as saying that
the U.S. must guarantee Israel's right to refuse Arafat to return from
the Beirut summit as a condition for letting him go there in the first
place. What is --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, Peter, I think we said earlier, if
there are any statements that have been made as this briefing began,
I'm going to have to go back and evaluate anything that just broke
because, obviously, I haven't heard it; I'm standing here, I'm not
familiar with that specific statement.
Q Let me ask you another question on the
same topic then. Do you feel that perhaps too much faith is
being put in this Saudi proposal? Is there another vehicle
that the administration is counting on now? So much of the
emphasis seems to be on it, and as was pointed out in a couple other
questions, the interpretation of it or the wording of it seems to have
changed from its introduction to getting to the table in Beirut.
MR. FLEISCHER: Here's what the President thinks needs to
happen next. And this is why he thinks the Saudi proposal, the Saudi
ideas were so helpful. He believes that all nations in the
area, including the Arab nations that are going to gather in Beirut,
need to seize this moment and find a new path to
peace. There can be no alternative to peace in the Middle
East. And that is why he believed that the Crown Prince's
statements were so helpful.
As I said earlier, the Middle East has been beset with violence for
decades. The situation has gotten to a very, very violent
point in the last little more than a year. And that is why
the President thought the Saudi statement was so
helpful. For an Arab nation that has not yet recognized
Israel to say for the first time that they'd be willing to recognize
Israel's right to exist and live in security, the President thought was
a very helpful statement.
The President would like to see other Arab nations make similar
statements. He understands that there's going to be
discussions, that it's going to take time to iron out all the terms of
this. But that was not a statement that had been made before
and it was a statement that the President welcomed.
The President thinks that the Beirut summit offers an opportunity
for other nations to do the same, and that's the best way to start the
process in earnest to achieve peace in the region.
Q New documents show that the Secretary of
Energy Abraham met almost exclusively with industry representatives in
coming up with his recommendations on the energy task
force. Doesn't this seem to support environmental groups who
say they were cut out of the process?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, not at all, because, as the Energy
report showed, it had 105 recommendations in total, and 42 specific
recommendations are aimed at conservation and the
environment. And in formulating those, there were a great
number of people who met with a variety of stakeholders, including
conservation groups, including environmental groups. So
people are focusing on one person, as opposed to all the people who
were part of the energy plan.
The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, Governor Whitman
held a meeting with a number of environmentalists. As you
all know from watching the White House -- that's
what I said, she held a meeting with a number of
environmentalists. As you know from watching the White
House, the Vice President had a meeting with a group of environmental
leaders who gathered right here at the microphones and on the TV
cameras following their meeting here at the White House with the Vice
President.
So there have been a series of meetings. But what it
comes down to is what did the administration do and what did the
administration recommend. And in there, there were 42 recommendations
specifically at environmental issues.
Q But is there any way that you can release
the list of all the people that were met by administration officials on
this energy task force?
MR. FLEISCHER: Much of that information is coming out
now in the process of these FOIA requests.
Q Another name that pops up on Secretary
Abraham's meeting list is Karl Rove. Can you explain why the
President's chief political guy was involved in the development of
energy policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, Karl is a senior advisor to the
President and provides his guidance and counsel on a number of
issues. Karl has a very broad port folio that includes, as
you know, the Office of Public Liaison, which is a group in the White
House that has outreach and talks to a variety of different
groups. That falls under Karl's rubric. So Karl
is a senior advisor to the President; the President values his advice.
Q Ari, I would like to know, on the same
subject, what was the criteria for the omissions and blackouts in the
paperwork that was released yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that is a part of --
Q Who was the principal censor in this
undertaking?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it should go without saying, I
don't accept the premise of that question or that specific
word. This is a well-known body of law dealing with FOIA
requests, and the whole purpose of the FOIA program, the Freedom of
Information Act program, is for the public and the press to have access
to information from the government. It's set out in a law
written by the Congress, passed bipartisan, and reinforced by Supreme
Court rulings.
In the law, and according to the Supreme Court, the government,
while it provides this information, also has to protect the rights of
the government to have deliberative meetings and to be able to fully
serve the public by having the best guidance provided to officials.
So let me read to you, actually, from a Supreme Court case
upholding the FOIA law, as was cited. Terry, this is the
Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs versus claimant
Water Users Protective Association, decided March 5,
2001. And this is a reference in there, and this deals with
precisely the question you asked, about the information that's redacted
under the Freedom of Information Act law:
"The deliberative process privilege rests on the obvious
realization that officials cannot communicate candidly among themselves
if each remark is a potential item of discovery and front-page news,
and its object is to enhance the quality of agency decisions by
protecting open and frank discussion among those who make them within
the government."
Now, there's a big group in Washington, D.C. that is expert in
obtaining information from the government through
FOIA -- many researchers, many academicians, many
journalists. And there is a series of guides for what can
and cannot be obtained under FOIA. The ACLU has issued its
own statement about what can be obtained. It makes clear in
the ACLU's papers that materials involving advice or recommendations or
opinions which are part of the process of government decision-making
are exempt from FOIA under this law, as upheld by the courts.
The Society for Professional Journalists, in their instructions to
journalists on how to apply for FOIA information, also makes clear the
exemptions under the law which were covered today in the
material -- or last
night -- in the material that was released.
So this is in accordance with the law, designed to get the public
and the press information, while allowing the government to have a
process that serves the public by providing for good deliberation in
the decision-making process.
Q Can I follow on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, we'll come back forward
later. David.
Q I have an arms control
question. What's the condition in the President's
arm? Is his control any better than it was a year ago at
this time? (Laughter.) And can we expect to see
him at some opening day or some early season game throwing out the
first pitch?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I would like to report for the
record that the Yankees will be in Baltimore next
Monday. The briefing will probably be early that day, as the
Yankees prepare to win on opening day. I also regret to
inform you that I'm not aware of any opening day plans for the
President to participate. It may await T-ball on the South
Lawn.
Q To go back to the previous question about
the blackouts, are you saying that it's the Justice Department under
those laws that actually physically does that, or is it in consultation
with the White House Counsel --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's each agency, and they work with the
Justice Department. Each agency has counsel, so they work
with the Justice Department. The Justice Department helped
each agency to make certain that the law applied uniformly throughout
each agency.
Q And what's the White House Counsel's
Office's role in all that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House Counsel's Office played a
general role in just being generally aware of what the court case was,
of course, where the agencies were obligated under a judge's order to
release the information last night that set out the timetable for the
release of the information. But the decisions about what
information gets released, et cetera, the decisions about the
application of the law are made at the agency level by their attorneys,
as well as with the Department of Justice.
Q Ari, during the Hispanic roundtable last
Thursday, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said that the
Democrats in the House are reviewing the democratic principles that
they presented last summer, and that hopefully the will have
legislation when they come back from the break on immigration
reform. Where is the White House standing right now when it
comes to immigration reform?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are a series of initiatives
involving immigration reform, some of which have been passed by the
House that are awaiting action in the
Senate -- (245(i) is the principal one, but there
are other issues that deal more broadly with the topic. But
the President hopes that the whole issue of guest worker program will
be something that can be a focus of the
government -- 245(i) is the beginning of that
process. The President would welcome any ideas that
Congressman Gephardt has. He thinks it's a very important
issue for our country. And that's where it stands.
Q Two questions for Latin
America. Besides what President Bush and President Fox says
about Cuba, the government of that island insists that Fidel Castro was
only a day and a half in Monterrey because it was a direct request from
the U.S. government to the Mexican government, and says Washington is
lying about it.
And the second question is, Democrats on the Hill said that
President Bush went to Latin America with an empty hand and are
returning with empty hands in terms of trade and other
issues. What is the response of the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, on your first question, that
question was asked to the President directly, and he answered
it. And I think that the world knows that any time they have
a choice between what Fidel Castro says and what anybody else says, you
can believe anybody else.
On the second question about trade, it was interesting, because one
of the criticisms that was made of President Bush early on in 2001 was
from the Senate, and many Democrats in the Senate, who called him
unilateral. Well, if you take a look at the Senate dragging its feet
on the passage of trade promotion authority, which has been passed in
the House, 245(i) which has been passed in the House, there are a
series of very important steps that are concrete that can help the
developing world, that can help Latin America and Central America,
South America in trade and promoting their democracy and promoting
economic strength. And the Senate is sitting on these
issues.
The President will continue to work with the Senate and hope that
the Senate is able to take up trade promotion authority and pass
it. The House could, the Senate should. The House
passed 245(i), including its border protections, the Senate can do the
same thing -- unfortunately, they have not.
Another issue which came up was the Andean Trade Preferences
Act. The Senate has taken no action on that, which is a very
important way of developing the Andean economy. And when
people talk about how to help people who are in poverty, trade has been
one of the key promoters of growth in Central and South
America. And there was a lot of frustration on behalf of the
Andean leaders as they discussed it with the President and Peru, about
the lack of passage of Andean Trade Preferences Act. I think
one of the Presidents said that the Senate is, his words, managing this
to death. And it would be very helpful if the Senate would
pass that legislation.
Q Ari, on Governor Ridge --
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll come back for it. You
know our routine.
Q A Latin America question --
MR. FLEISCHER: Elizabeth, you've had one.
Q Well, but I want
another. That's the topic.
Q Ari, a non-profit group that wants to
preserve English as the only official U.S. language has filed suit
against the administration.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, say it again. I
couldn't hear you.
Q A non-profit group that would like to
preserve English as the only official U.S. language has filed suit
against the administration over the President's executive order
regarding the English language. Do you have anything on
that, or how the administration might respond to it?
MR. FLEISCHER: First I've heard about it, so let me take
a look.
Q One other subject, if I
could. Do the health appointees being announced today by the
President, do they share the President's ethical concerns on a range of
issues, including human cloning and stem-cell research? And
how important are the views of these appointees, given advances in
science?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will be making an
announcement shortly, and he'll be sharing a lot of that information
with you. But suffice it to say that these are
administration appointees. They serve the President, they
serve his policies. And I don't think you would expect the
President to appoint people who held wildly different views that he
does.
Q Ari, when the President urged Prime
Minister Sharon to allow Mr. Arafat to go to Beirut, did he have in
mind a one-way ticket out of Ramallah?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think
there's -- we're going to take this in turn, and
again I'm not going to comment on anything that is breaking while I'm
in this briefing. But let's see what the events are on the
ground in the Middle East before I give a direct answer to that
question. If and when he goes, I'll be happy to give the
answer to that. But again, I don't deal in
hypotheticals. But let's see what the facts are on the
ground first.
Okay, James has patiently waited.
Q And Les Kinsolving is patiently waiting.
MR. FLEISCHER: I understand. Well, let's not
use the word patiently,
but -- James. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you, Ari. Director Ridge
has made a -- what is being termed a compromise
offer to meet with lawmakers and answer their questions about the
budget. Already there are indications from Senate Democrats,
including Senator Byrd, that his compromise offer is less than what
they are looking for. Could you explain the administration's
rational behind the so-called compromise that he offered, and what do
you make of the criticism of the compromise?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is just one more example of
how Governor Ridge and this administration have provided and will
continue to provide a free flow of information to the Congress, to
answer any and all questions they have about homeland security.
Q Why not do it through the committee
structure then?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's an old issue that the President
has dealt with directly. And the request by the Congress,
even though they're already receiving the answers to their questions,
to change the traditions which have worked very well between the
Congress and the executive, on testimony by assistants to the
President, is a request that cannot and will not be
honored. The President has made that clear.
I think what's so unusual here is that Congress is receiving all
this information. Governor Ridge has made another effort to
provide information to the Congress. But the President hopes
that the Congress' message back will not be, my way or the highway,
we'll only do it our way. And this administration will
continue to work closely with the Congress, to work with the
leadership, to work with Senator Byrd, to work with Senator Stevens,
and we're hopeful that a good accommodation can be reached.
Q Do you think that the Senate Democrats
then are playing politics with the Homeland Security budget, and
information relating thereto?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't think so. I think
this is really a classic executive legislative issue involving
longstanding issues in our federal system between the branches of the
government. But that's, again, another reason why the
President thinks it's so important not to change something that has
worked very well, involving who the Congress has the right to call down
for testimony. That has not extended previously to advisors
to the President. It applies to the operational officers of
the government. It applies to the Cabinet Secretaries.
But the only instances, in modern times, of senior advisors to the
President testifying are in either cases where there's been allegations
of some type of official or personal wrongdoing. That's not
the case here, or anything close to that. And so this is a
dramatic break from the way Congress usually does its
business. And the President is resisting that, and will
continue to, for good reason.
Q What's the current offer?
MR. FLEISCHER: Governor Ridge has been talking with
Senator Byrd and others, and has sent a letter up to the Hill, where he
has made clear that he would be available to meet with any number of
congressional leaders, congressional members, House and Senator,
whatever numbers they decide, all of them, if that's what they sought,
in a public forum. And so the questions could
be -- the American people could watch and see it
and hear it.
Q A single appearance with all 535 members
of the Congress, or is this for a number of appearances --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll get you a copy of the letter,
Jim. I think it was made available yesterday.
Q Just to clarify two points. The
President has welcomed the Saudi plan, but has not endorsed the terms,
correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has welcomed the ideas,
that's correct.
Q Also, the Israelis have complained about
the fact that in Saudi Arabia you still have a number of texts being
taught in schools, suggesting for example that Jews use blood as ritual
sacrifice. Does the
administration -- does the President think that
the Saudis have done enough to control this type of propaganda?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President thinks that the
information that is provided to people in the region is a very
important issue. And the President thinks that one of the
reasons there is such hatred in the region is
because -- the information has got to be factual,
it's got to honest, otherwise old hatreds will endure.
And in regard to the specific question you raised, about an article
that appeared in the Saudi press, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the President's
National Security Advisor, brought that up directly in a meeting with
the Saudi Ambassador. And the President was very concerned
about that. And the President was pleased to see the article
was retracted by the editor of that Saudi newspaper.
Q How does the administration view the
overnight decline in the value of the Argentine peso? And
does the administration have any contingency plans at hand if the
situation continues to deteriorate?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no change in our position
there. And that is the importance of Argentina continuing to
work on its internal economic reforms, to come up with a sound economic
plan, and to continue to work with the Department of Treasury and with
the IMF.
Q At any point during the Latin America trip
was this issue discussed either with leaders of other countries, or
with Argentinean representatives who might have been available in
Monterrey?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure if it was discussed at a
ministerial level or some other level, but to the best of my
knowledge -- and I sat in on most of the meetings
the President had -- I don't recall that topic
being brought up by any of the leaders there. The focus
really was on trade issues, counterterrorism, on drugs and things of
that nature. Could it have come up in something that I'm not
aware of? I suppose it could have, but I don't recall that
topic being raised.
Q Ari, regarding the President's trip
tomorrow. A question to you yesterday claimed that the
Confederate flag was raised on top of the South Carolina capitol, in
defiance of civil rights. I checked with AP in Columbia, and
they report that was wrong. It was raised in 1962, observing
the Civil War centennial, when the Governor was Fritz Hollings,
Democrat. My question, is the President aware of this? And
is he aware of the number of black Confederate combat soldiers as he
breaks the NAACP boycott tomorrow?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, the President is aware of all
sides of this issue. And as the President said, a
compromise -- or as I indicated yesterday, a
compromise was entered into by Democrats and Republicans, reflecting
the views of a variety of the communities in South
Carolina. I think it's been a compromise that has met with
widespread support. And the President has said that this is
an issue about which the people of South Carolina can and should
decide.
Q AP in Columbia also said that the average
number of boycotters at the South Carolina borders is a dozen NAACP,
plus a dozen Euros -- that's a white civil rights
group -- both of whom have been sued by South
Carolina's Attorney General. And my question is, has the
President ever been at all embarrassed by the fact that some of the
very bravest Confederate troops were lead by the Lone Star flag of
Texas?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, the President is looking forward to
his visit to South Carolina, as he always does. And as I
indicated on the issue with the flag --
Q He isn't ashamed of the fact that the Lone
Star flag led some of the bravest Confederate troops, is he,
Ari? Is he, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, I'm not really sure what your
question is asking.
Q Just to follow up on the health
nominees. It has taken the President 15 months to nominate
an NH director, and he did reject advice from some of his top aides,
including the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
reportedly. And your answer before inferred, perhaps, that
there was a litmus test on some issues, saying that they wouldn't
differ markedly from the President's position. And there's
certainly been a lot of talks about views on stem cell, abortion and so
forth. It is appropriate to have the top health appointees
given a litmus test, if that's going to happen?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, your word, not
mine. Litmus test, I don't share that. But what I
have said is that the -- it's not unusual for
anybody to think that the people the President's going to appoint in
his administration are going to broadly support his
ideas. But I can cite you people in this administration who
differed with the President on some of the issues that you just
made. They've been appointed to jobs, clearly showing that
there is no specific litmus test, as you put it.
But you should expect people who are going to be in these positions
to support the ideas that the President has; otherwise they might not
want to -- be comfortable serving an
administration. I think it would be odd for somebody to be
in an administration, or have a law and duty in a certain area that's
an area in which they differ with the President, and then expect to
serve at the pleasure of the President.
Q Did the President first meet with Zerhouni
and go over these views together to make sure that they were in sync?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not indicating who the
President is going to announce. The President will be
announcing that himself in just a little while. I don't want
to get ahead of the President.
Q Did the President discuss those views with
the individual to make sure that they were in sync?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not clear on any of the meetings the
President himself had with any of his potential appointees in these
matters.
Q Another Latin American
question. Did the President ask for clemency for Laurie
Berenson in Peru --
MR. FLEISCHER: He did not.
Q The wires were this morning quoting the
Vice President of Peru saying he did.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I know. I was in the
meeting; he did not.
Q Well, where did --
MR. FLEISCHER: Are you asking me to explain all the
accuracies and inaccuracies of the press?
Q It was very different from what Secretary
Powell briefed on the plane. So what is the President's
position on Laurie Berenson?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, as you were told in Peru,
raised the issue of Laurie Berenson, noted that due process was
afforded in her second trial, and there's currently an international
commission that is reviewing the matter. And the President,
as you were told, is awaiting the report of the international
commission. That's what the President discussed with
President Toledo.
Q The Vice President of Peru was wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can only tell you what the President of
the United States has said.
Q Going back to the energy document, you say
that it's a balanced report, but how is it balanced in terms of seeking
input if you have the Secretary of Energy having eight meetings with a
slew of energy officials, and you have one meeting with the EPA
Administrator with environmental groups? How is that
balanced?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the best way to answer that is,
frankly, this is the report and people can read it for
themselves. In fact, it's available on
WhiteHouse.gov. And I hope people will read it and they'll
see that of the recommendations that are in here, there are many in
here that were supported by the environmental community.
I can walk you through some of the specifics on that if you're
interested. But the report is balanced. It
provides information both on how to develop energy supplies for a
nation that has rising costs of gasoline right now. Surely
the thing our nation needs is an increased supply of energy; that way
costs can go down -- as well as enhanced
conservation. That's what the report does.
There were many things that were requested by people that they
didn't get on all sides of the issue, as well as things that people
thought were good policy. In terms of some of these
environmental provisions, I'll just tell you that the fiscal
centerpiece was a $3-billion provision to provide for hybrid fuel-cell
vehicles. That is the biggest financial aspect in this plan,
and it's a very conservation-minded proposal, aimed at individuals to
help them buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Q Well, when Secretary Abraham is meeting
with corporations and apparently all but a few of them were large
contributors to the Republican Party, how does it not appear that in
exchange for a contribution, you're getting access to meeting with the
Secretary of Energy, where environmental and labor groups and consumer
groups are getting one meeting with the EPA Administrator?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think many of those
environmental groups sought the very provision that I just
said -- the hybrid fuel vehicle proposal. That
was something many environmental groups thought was good
policy. The issues that arose and the policy recommendations
that were made in this report were based on the merits. This
report is designed for a nation that has an energy problem, and still
has an energy problem. And that is why I think the President's
proposal received as much bipartisan support as it did when it passed
the House of Representatives.
If this plan was so written in the manner that you describe, why
did so many Democrats in the House of Representatives vote for
it? And many of the proposals that are being considered in
the Senate, similarly, some of the groups that you were referring to,
some of their proposals were so out of the mainstream that even the
Democrat-controlled Senate did not agree to them.
Q When the District Court judge ruled the
release of these documents, he specifically cautioned the
administration against heavy redactions and
withholding -- a liberal use of the rule to
withhold, or interpretation of the rules to withhold
information. And the organizations now are talking about
second lawsuits, there are other hearings scheduled to debate the
decisions that are being made here. Why did the
administration choose to pick a second fight, in
effect? This now will probably all end up back in
court. Why continue to drag this thing out instead of just
releasing in more generous fashion the information that people are
seeking?
MR. FLEISCHER: The law under which the suit was brought
provides for a way to protect the government's ability to serve the
country by having a deliberative process for information --
Q Right, but -- in a
conservative fashion, and you all have
obviously -- there's a memo from Attorney General
Ashcroft instructing you to err on the side of withholding information
as opposed to the reverse. So just generally here, for the
sake of us getting a clear understanding of the administration's policy
on this, why choose to go that route, thus risk further lawsuits?
MR. FLEISCHER: The approach that the government took was
in accordance with the law. And all the information was
honored -- their information requests were
honored in full accordance with the terms of the law. And
that's what you should expect from the agencies and Justice.
Q But you're not worried about the political
fallout from it in terms of continuing the controversy?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jean, what the President thinks is
important is for a process to be in place that allows for the country
to receive and energy proposal, all of which is public, which has been
voted on in bipartisan fashion by the House of Representatives, that
speaks for itself. The process that led up to that document
is an important process and involves deliberations that allow for
careful decisions to be made. Those decisions, once made,
are fully shared with the country. And that's why this plan
has moved forward and received the votes of the House the way it
did. The President hopes that the Senate will do the same.
Q Ari, one more Latin American
question. It has to do with something that came up
yesterday, expressing Carter's trip to Havana, if he's approved by the
Treasury Department. Yesterday you said that if he does go,
you expect him to bring messages to Fidel Castro on freedom, jailing of
prisoners, human rights. My question is, if he's approved by
the Treasury Department, would he go with the tacit approval of the
U.S. government?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated yesterday, there are
specific laws that govern who travels, who can travel to Cuba for
humanitarian missions. And the law is the
law. And just as in any case, if the law speaks on this
issue, the law is obeyed. And nothing changes from what I
said yesterday about that.
Q Ari, in the litmus test question you said
you could identify members of the administration who disagree with the
President on policy. Would you please?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Administrator Whitman, for example,
is pro-choice.
Helen?
| Printer-Friendly Version |
| Email this page to a friend |