For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 6, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:30 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President
this morning had his usual round of intelligence briefings and then he
convened a meeting with the National Security Council. He
later met with Judge Pickering, who is a District Court
nominee -- a member of the District Court
nominated for the circuit court, to urge the Senate to vote to approve
Judge Pickering.
Later this afternoon, the President will drop-by the U.S. Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, which is having its annual meeting in town; will
discuss a number of issues, including helping make America a nation
that is welcoming to immigrants.
And, finally, the President will meet this afternoon in the Oval
Office with the Prime Minister of Luxembourg to talk about the ongoing
war on terrorism and the fall meeting this year on NATO
enlargement. Ron?
Q Since it's clear that Judge Pickering's
nomination is not going to be confirmed, why would you have this
last-minute show of support, and why didn't you do it a week or so ago
when it might have helped?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Ron, I don't accept the premise and
neither does the President. I don't think there's evidence
that indicates that is the result. This is an open matter
before the United States Senate and the President hopes that no matter
what the vote in Committee, the Majority Leader of the Senate will
allow this to come to the floor for a vote where it appears there is
more than a majority to pass Judge Pickering.
Q Well, the evidence would be that 10
members -- all 10 members of
the -- all 10 Democrats on the Judiciary
Committee say they won't vote for it. And the gentleman who
controls the Senate says he's not going to let it come up unless it
comes out of the Committee.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President made his point plain
on that today. He thinks that that would be politics, if
that was the case. But he believes so deeply in Judge
Pickering and the good reputation and the excellent record that Judge
Pickering has on the bench, that he has called on the Senate to take
action, and let's see what the Senate does.
Q Since he believes so strongly in him, why
not do this a week to three weeks ago, when it really would have
helped, instead of when you're on the eve of a failed vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I dispute the
premise. Let's see what happens in the
Senate. And I think the President has been effective before
in working relations with the Hill. The Senate at all times
has the right to kill nominees. But it would be interesting
in this case if they do so against somebody who has a majority on the
floor. And in the President's opinion, if they do so, that
would indicate they play politics -- especially with a
nominee who received 100 votes when he was voted by the Senate in 1990
for the District Court.
Q It seems that the White House defense of
Judge Pickering and the local people that they brought from Mississippi
is that he's a good man, he's not a racist, as has been suggested
perhaps in some of the material against him. But many other
groups are saying, it's not his heart that they have a problem with,
it's his record on the bench since that 100-0 confirmation
vote. Specific decisions that he's made as District Court
Judge which they say evince a reluctance to abide by and a reluctance
to enforce civil rights laws. Is this an attempt to say he's
a good man, he should be on the bench?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that seems to be an ironic charge
for Democrats to bring, given the fact that the group that the
Democrats, themselves, call the "gold standard," the American Bar
Association, has today ruled that he -- deemed
Judge Pickering as well qualified for this position. That is the
judgment of the American Bar Association for the current nomination to
the Circuit Court. The Democrats say the American Bar
Association is their gold standard.
Q But the ABA only measures legal
qualifications, not what the Judge believes in as a matter of
law -- in other words, not the policy preferences
that the civil rights groups say he has shown in his decisions. In
particular, they say he has harshly criticized the principle of one
person, one vote. They say that he has harshly criticized
civil rights employment discrimination laws, and that that should
render him unfit for an appellate court position.
MR. FLEISCHER: Those allegations are without any
basis. On the question that you raised about the Voting
Rights Act, there were three cases -- the
Fairley, Bryant and the Morgan case. None was ever
appealed. None was ever reversed. In fact, in one
of those cases, the plaintiff's attorney who brought the charge is
supporting Judge Pickering before the Senate committee. So
those are charges that are put out, frankly -- I
know the Democrat National Committee is circulating a lot of
paper. Just because they say it, it doesn't make it so.
Q Ari, but you say, and President Bush said
earlier they're playing politics in the Senate. But isn't
there some kind of justification that you are coming up with from the
incident in 1959 about an article that Judge
Pickering -- then law student Judge
Pickering -- well, law student Pickering wrote
about interracial marriage and those who are involved in interracial
marriage are prosecuted. What's the rationale of that from
the administration from 1959?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in 1959 when Judge Pickering was a
21-year-old first-year law student, he wrote an article that neither
advocated nor condoned any ban on interracial
marriage. That's the facts about what he wrote back
then -- neither condoned it, neither banned
it. And that also was addressed in 1990 by the
Senate. The issue came up, they were aware of it, they
confirmed him unanimously.
So that's not a case of something that came up between 1990 and
2002. The Senate knew it in 1990 and they voted for him. So
the only thing that could have changed then is politics.
Q So one of -- a
follow-up. One of the black leaders that you had at stakeout
today said that in the '70s he wrote an article on death penalty cases,
and his opinion changed. And he's under the mind set that
then law student Pickering felt that way and he has
changed. What if that were the case? What does
President Bush -- meaning that he felt that way
in '59, when he wrote the article?
MR. FLEISCHER: But it's not the case. In
fact, Judge Pickering has written from the bench that there is no
constitutional basis for any type of ban on marriage between blacks and
whites. That's what the Judge has said.
Q Let me follow-up on something you said
this morning. Tell us specifically how the very histories of
some senators who may vote on this could come into play in the
nomination fight.
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, take a look at what I
said. If the actions by people 40 years ago were the
criteria, that's what I began, and the actions by people 40 years ago
should not be the criteria. And in this case --
Q No, no. You finish that quote
by saying, if that was the criteria the very histories of some of the
senators voting on this could come into play. Tell me
specifically how their histories could come into play.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's right, I said, if that were the
criteria. And as I think we just established here, that
should not be the criteria. And if somebody
chose --
Q But you also established that it may be
the criteria.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- if somebody chose to make
it the criteria in the case of Judge Pickering, what they'd find on his
1959 writings, when he was 21, was that he
then -- he didn't approve or disapprove.
Q Since you're using the hypothetical from
the podium, go a step further. If they do use that as a
criteria, how exactly will their very histories come into play?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't deal in hypotheticals.
Q No, you are. You're the one who
is saying that may be the criteria.
Q Has he ever shown any remorse or has he
publicly recanted his past, in terms of civil rights and rejection?
MR. FLEISCHER: What are you asking for him to recant,
specifically, Helen? What are you accusing him of?
Q -- referring to this morning,
Ari. What senators specifically and what about their history
do you think might come into play?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, my statement is if actions taken
by people 40 years ago are the criteria, and there are people who are
making statements about what Judge Pickering is purported to have
written 40 years ago, those statements and the premise is
flawed. The Judge did not take any stand in those writings
in 1959.
Q Well, who are you talking about,
specifically? You're talking about senators --
MR. FLEISCHER: Judge Pickering.
Q Well, no, you were talking about
senators. Who specifically are you addressing?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the point I'm making is that this
is 2002, and these votes that are cast by the senators who are serving
in 2002 are based on what they know of a nominee who has been submitted
to them. They also know what the people who gathered in the
Oval Office and who spoke from the lawn of the White House know about
Judge Pickering -- and that is an outstanding
record.
Let me give you a for instance on that, as well. This is
from William Winter, a former Democrat judge, and your questions all
deal with whether or not there is some type of racial reason that Judge
Pickering should be denied this seat. This is from William
Winter, a former Democrat judge:
"As a member of President Clinton's National Advisory Board on
Race, I am very aware of the role that Judge Pickering has played for
many years in working for racial equity and justice for racial
reconciliation. He and I helped organize the Institute for
Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi, and now serve
on its board of directors." That was three years
ago. "There are very few people of my acquaintance who are
as dedicated as Judge Pickering to eliminating the last vestiges of
racism from our society."
I think it's that type of statement from Democrats who know him in
Mississippi that is what the senators who serve now are going to weigh
when they take this vote.
Q There's no question that he may be a good
man. The issue that's being raised --
MR. FLEISCHER: -- a good judge and
qualified.
Q The issue that's being raised is his
attitude towards the civil rights laws, which is clearly evinced in
dicta, not even in the actual ruling, but in language that he just
wrote in his opinions because he couldn't constrain himself about how
the employment discrimination laws, he believes, are burdensome, that
they offer everyone who is terminated in employment an opportunity to
make a racial claim and he doesn't like that. There's a lot of that
kind of language laced through his opinions. Does the
President support that attitude toward the employment discrimination
laws?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, the President has nominated him
because, when he looks at his record, he thinks he is exceptionally
well qualified. And the President addressed that himself in
his own words in the Oval Office. But if that's the case about what
you're saying, where these charges are made, let them go to a
vote. If that is the heartfelt belief of democrats in the
Senate, then let this man's record be considered by 100 senators on the
floor of the Senate. Put it to a fair vote.
Q Ari, a couple questions about the meeting
with the foreign policy lawmakers today. Congressmen Hyde
and Lantos came out and said they're introducing a resolution
expressing support for Colombia's battle against insurgents, beyond the
drug trafficking. Does the President view this as a welcome
resolution? Does he want that support from Congress for a
greater U.S. role in Colombia?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the administration is talking to
Congress, as we've said before, about the whole situation in
Colombia. Secretary Powell was on the Hill today testifying
about Colombia. And there are laws that constrain what the
administration can do to help President Pastrana and there
is -- those laws deal mostly with anti-narcotics
efforts.
There are many members of Congress who have some thoughts about
whether that law should be changed. The administration will
talk to those members. I can't indicate to you the
administration has reached any conclusions yet, but that's where it
stands.
Q Okay, and secondly Congressman Lantos said
he had proposed to Egyptian President Mubarak, and discussed his
proposal with Bush, that Mubarak go to Jerusalem to act as an
intermediary in explaining the Saudi vision for Middle East
peace. Is that an initiative the President can support or
will support?
MR. FLEISCHER: Randy, I'm going to do this in terms of
what was discussed in the meeting with the President. The
President considers it a private meeting about anything that was
discussed, and I'm going to respect the privacy.
The meeting was with four chairs, the chairs and ranking members of
the House and Senate Foreign Relations and International Relations
Committees.
Q Does the President believe that Mubarak
should go to Jerusalem and act as an intermediary in the Saudi plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that if the
leaders in the region believe that would be a helpful step, then that's
something the President would work for and support. But the
President met with President Mubarak yesterday and that was not
something President Mubarak indicated. So I think there's also a
question of what the President involved, President Mubarak, supports,
and I think you have to address that.
Q Just to follow-up on the Middle
East. What steps do you see as the next
steps? Does the White House believe that a full state of war
exists between the Israelis and Palestinians, and do you see any
evidence that either side really wants peace at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think from the President's point
of view, the increase in the violence has been deeply
troubling. And as he has said, himself, and he said it last
night, he's concerned about the loss of innocent Israelis, the loss of
innocent Palestinians, and he is working very hard to find a way to
somehow break it and help and make the violence stop. He
understands the right to defend, but the President wants it to be toned
down so people do not believe this becomes a matter of war.
Q Ari, following Randy's question on
Colombia, Congressman Hyde and Congressman Lantos more or less
explained the plan they were presenting. And to a question Congressman
Hyde said President Bush seemed receptive. That was on
camera. Off camera, Senator Biden gave a few of us some
statements, and on Colombia he said it needs to be looked at, but he
suggested that the U.S. military make an assessment, report to the
President, and then the President consult with Congress. Is
that a fair position the administration is willing to take?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, this was a private meeting with
the President, and I indicated to Randy that we're going to continue to
listen. There are a lot of voices in Congress on
this. But what the President would say is that this is all
very helpful and productive to have the thoughts of these leading
members of Congress, to share them with him, to let him evaluate their
thoughts with the military, with others is productive. It's
a sign of how much concern there is about the escalating trouble in
Colombia as a result of FARC's violence. And the President
is pleased that he is hearing a bipartisan message of the United States
needs to help Colombia. That's his view, as
well. It's a question of exactly what manner that help can
be delivered most effectively.
Q Ari, can I just ask two questions, not
related. One going back to Pickering. Some
groups -- interest groups are saying that their
concern is that the administration is trying to pack the federal
judiciary with conservatives. And, again, it's more on
Terry's point -- they're more concerned about
Judge Pickering's record than his views 40 years ago. And they're
saying that this administration is not engaged in any kind of
bipartisan consensus, trying to find people that both Democrats and
Republicans can support in posts that will live 20 to 30 years beyond
the Bush Presidency. What do you say to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Put it to a vote. Let's see
where the votes are. If this vote is allowed to proceed to
the floor of the Senate, the American people will know who stands in a
bipartisan majority and who stands in a minority. By
definition, it cannot pass unless it's bipartisan. And we
believe that there are enough votes on the floor of the Senate for
Judge Pickering to be confirmed in a bipartisan
fashion -- not a landslide, but a bipartisan
fashion.
So I think that if it is allowed to go to the floor of the Senate,
the premise that this is partisan will be disproved. In
fact, I think it's just the opposite. The reason that people
wanted to try to kill it in committee is they know if it went to the
floor, it would be received on a narrow, bipartisan basis and Judge
Pickering would be confirmed to the Circuit Court. So it's
just the opposite.
Q Can I ask just one other thing about Mayor
Riordan's defeat in the gubernatorial primary? A, your
reaction? And is this giving the administration some pause
to maybe no longer back a candidate until the primary has establish a
Republican for the election race?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I think that there's no
question, the administration talked to Mayor Riordan prior to the
race. There's no question the administration encouraged him
to run. And the voters of California have chosen in a
primary. They have made the pick. And I think
what will be very interesting to see if California's history repeats
itself, and he would be elected now as a Republican governor of the
State of California after a democrat governor chose to play a very
active role in that state's primary.
Q Would it give the administration pause,
though, such as in North Carolina or other races, not to back a
candidate until the primary has determined who will be the Republican
candidate?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that the
administration -- the President will continue to
make judgments about various races based on what he
thinks. And that will always get put to the voters and the
voters decide, ultimately.
Q Two things. First, are you
saying that if Judge Pickering were to be judged himself by his views
40 years ago, that members of Congress should be subject to the same
judgment? Is that the distinction you're making here?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I was asked a question this morning
about whether or not -- if he had written
something that was presented this morning, which he did not write, what
the effect of that would be for something he wrote in
1959. And I've addressed that question. And I
think it's fair to say that for everybody in our society, people have
held different views now than they held back in the '50s on matters of
race, and that's one of the great improvements in our
society. But that's not what Judge Pickering wrote about in
1959, and we've walked through that already at length today.
Q But, Ari, you're clearly suggesting that
members of Congress should look into their own hearts and think about
how they might have had different views 40 years ago and not judge
Pickering in a different way than they might judge themselves?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me put it this
way. When the President heard what's in the hearts and on
the minds of the people who know Judge Pickering best, the many
Democrats and civil rights leaders in Mississippi who've worked with
him, he knows what's on their heart and mind, and that is that Judge
Pickering should be confirmed.
He hopes that that same -- the process will
allow 100 senators to express what's in their hearts and minds in
today's context.
Q If I could, just one other thing before
you leave. On the consultations, all three of the
members who spoke to us this morning suggested that the White House has
now committed to more regular and more frequent
consultations. Do you believe they have been not frequent
enough? Is this an effort to convince members of Congress that if they
were not briefed as often as they thought proper, that you are prepared
to rectify it?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is an age-old issue and an important
one between the executive and the legislature. It's nothing
new to this administration. And the President, I think, has
done a superb job of consulting with members of Congress.
Today's meeting was a follow-up to previous meetings with the same
group that's been coming down to the White House just to share ideas
and to talk foreign policy. And those leaders, as you heard,
welcome these opportunities. They've had them before and
they'll have them again.
This President has met on a regular basis with the leadership with
both the House and the Senate. I started on Capitol Hill in
1983. I don't remember a President, Republican or Democrat,
consulting as much as President Bush has done. So it's an
age-old issue. People always want more
consultation. The administration does a very good job in
providing it and will always work productively with members of
Congress.
We understand, members of Congress will always want as much as they
can and we'll always try to work with them as best we can.
Q So you're not promising --
MR. FLEISCHER: You only get three. We're
going to go back to Francine now. She's had her hand up for
half an hour. (Laughter.)
Q So have I. You're not promising
more frequent consultations, then?
MR. FLEISCHER: You've had three.
Q You're not promising more frequent
consultations?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has committed and we're
going to continue to consult very strongly.
Q Ari, obviously Cheney's trip is coming up,
to the Mideast. Can you tell us whether one of the messages
that he'll be bringing is that the U.S. intends to facilitate regime
change in Iraq? Is that one of the messages he's going to
bring?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a longstanding public policy of
our administration that goes back -- that was a
law that was signed by President Clinton, supporting regime change in
Iraq. So, of course, we advocate that. People of
Iraq --
Q What law?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't cite for you the name of it or
the H.R. number. But that's -- regime
change is the longstanding American policy, set by statute, signed by
President Clinton.
Of course, we believe that the people of Iraq and the people in the
region would be better off and safer if Saddam Hussein was not in
charge of Iraq.
Q He just had three.
MR. FLEISCHER: He had four.
Q Kind of an oddball question, but as
someone who actually lives in Washington, like everyone else here in
this room, I've been interested in the emphasis that the administration
has placed on having people from government in a safe place in case
this city is destroyed, as you mentioned this morning.
So if there's so much concern about making sure that government
will be okay, what kind of communication is the administration having
with local political leaders here about whether the people of
Washington are going to be okay? I mean, I don't see
anything in my mailbox saying, here's what you do, here's where you go,
here's what to do.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll tell you exactly what the
administration is doing. We're at war. The best
way to protect the people of this country, in the President's opinion,
is to continue this war against the terrorists who could bring harm to
us. Bar none, that is what the President believes is the
best way to prevent any attacks on our country.
Q Ari, could we see the rest of this quote
from this morning? You said, if actions taken 40 years ago
are the criteria, then -- what was the
rest -- you have it in front of
you? Could you read that again, about the senators?
MR. FLEISCHER: You've got the transcript from this
morning.
Q I do not have the transcript from this
morning.
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll make it available. We'll
be happy to.
Q I have another question.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, Elizabeth.
Q You know, Biden just came out and
said -- from his meeting this morning, that Condi
Rice acknowledged that there was not enough consultation. So
I mean, you're sort of -- how do you answer
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, this is an age-old issue
between the legislature and the executive. And we always try
to do as much as we can. I told you the President has had these
regular meetings with members of Congress. And we will
always continue to consult.
Q Ari, beyond the President's public show of
support today for Judge Pickering, is he doing anything behind the
scenes, privately? Is he talking to members of the Senate,
specifically the Judiciary Committee?
MR. FLEISCHER: If he does, I will let you know.
Q Let's go back to this question of
consultation. Is there some new agreement between the White
House and the kinds of people who met with the President and Ms. Rice,
to have more frequent consultations?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not had any conversations with Dr.
Rice, so I can't answer that from her point of view. But as
I answered it from the President's point of view, he is continuing to
do as he always has done, and will continue to consult.
Q Right, and you said that. But
everyone who came out of those meetings today indicated to us that
there was some sort of new agreement, to have more consultations, more
frequent consultations. Is that the case?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me talk to the President following
the meeting.
Q You'll post that for us?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll get back.
Q The President's reaction to Syria's
backing of the Saudi peace proposal?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the President has said
about that that he welcomed the ideas of Saudi Arabia. And
the more nations in the region that welcome the idea, the President
thinks that makes it more constructive.
Q The Middle East. Does the
President plan to ask Israel to allow Arafat to attend the Arab League
Meeting in Beirut later this month?
MR. FLEISCHER: That meeting is not scheduled for some
time. And Chairman Arafat has many opportunities to
communicate in the region, so I think that's something that you may
want to talk about a little closer to the meeting.
Q Thank you.
END 12:55
P.M. EST
|