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?
Q Is the United States concerned that this
decision -- apparent decision not to let Arafat
out of Palestine, go to Beirut, that America will be aligned with that,
that it will increase the feeling against America in the Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks that it was
important because the President thought that would be a way to have a
summit that could focus on peace. The President hasn't done
it as a result of perceptions or politics; the President has done it
because he thinks that's the way to promote something that everybody in
the Middle East --
Q Have we no point of persuasion with
Sharon?
MR. FLEISCHER: Israel is a sovereign nation, and the
United States makes its points clear.
Q We also supply them and arm it to the
teeth, Israel. So we certainly have some clout.
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration has made its point
clear.
Thank you.
END 1:16
P.M. EST