For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 3, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
Listen to the Briefing
- Personnel Announcement
- President's Meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Peres
- President's Meeting with Mexican President Fox
- Military-to-Military Contacts with China
- North Korea
- National Energy Policy
- Middle East Peace Process
- Tim McVeigh/Televised Executions
- Conservation Plan
- Koch Industries/PAC Contributions
12:36 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. President Bush today announced his intention to
nominate Edmund James Hull to be Ambassador of the United States to the
Republic of Yemen. And with that, I'm pleased to take your
questions.
Q Ari, can
you give us a sense of the meeting with Shimon Peres? The Foreign
Minister came out, seemed to indicate that the President may be willing
to play a facilitator role in the Middle East peace process?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has
always indicated that he believes the role of the United States to be
that of a facilitator. The President does not think the role
of the United States should be to force the peace between Israel and
the Palestinians, but to facilitate any of the talks or negotiations,
to be a facilitator in the role of peace.
But
they met this morning, they had a good exchange, reflecting our strong
relationship with Israel and our long association with Foreign Minister
Peres, who has been a tireless advocate for peace in the Middle East.
The President and the Foreign Minister
discussed the situation in the region, they focused on efforts that are
underway to under the violence, to rebuild trust and confidence and to
return to a dialogue in the region.
In this
regard, both the President and the Foreign Minister agreed on the need
to work very closely with Egypt and with Jordan, Israel's neighbors and
partners in peace. The President noted the constructive role
that both Jordan and Egypt continue to play in the region, and he
emphasized to Foreign Minister Peres the importance he places on
strengthening relations between Israel and those countries.
For the President's part, he also stated that
the violence must be reduced immediately, and that the parties should
continue their security discussions. And the President
finally pledged that he will continue his active efforts to assist the
parties in their efforts to move forward.
Q A follow-up, Ari? There has just
been a report from South Africa that Yasser Arafat's wife gave an
interview and said that she absolutely hates Israel and hates all
Israelis. When you have this kind of stratification, what
can you do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Connie,
the President will, of course, continue to work with the leaders in the
region, and that means the elected officials, other leaders in the
region. So I offer you nothing on that.
Q Ari, is the President
willing to play a facilitator role between the Secretary of State and
the Secretary of Defense? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Is this in reference
to some sort of flag football game?
Q T-ball.
Q Ari, what was the President's involvement in
determining administration policy on military contacts with China,
whatever that policy may be?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As far as the military contacts with China is
concerned, the National Security team and the President discussed that
matter, and the decision was, as announced by Secretary Rumsfeld, that
military-to-military contacts with China will be reviewed on a case by
case basis. And that was the decision that was
made. That was what was discussed with the President.
Q Isn't this a pretty
big issue to be sending conflicting signals on?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think yesterday,
the Defense Department fully addressed the issue, after a memo went out
suggesting one item that was not under the Secretary's
understanding. That was not consistent with the guidance
that the Secretary gave. DOD very quickly last night
explained what the Secretary's position was.
Q Have you figured out how they got it wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a question
you need to address to DOD.
Q Ari, does the President -- what does he feel
in general about the value of these military-to-military
contacts? Does he feel under different circumstances these
are helpful, or --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, generally around the world, military-to
military contacts are an effective way of building bridges, of
maintaining dialogue. And that's why military-to-military contacts
have been a part of American diplomacy, American military operations
for a very long period of time.
Q With China, with respect to China, how does
the President feel generally about that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He believes that the military-to-military
contacts with China should be reviewed and decided on a case by case
basis.
Q Was he
angered by the Chinese reluctance to be very cooperative with the
Americans without checking out the plane?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President remains hopeful that
all items will be addressed, so that our assessment team will be able
to complete their work on Hainan Island, so that the plane can be
returned home. There continues to be discussions with the
Chinese about the assessment team, and until that's resolved, I'm not
going to go any further than that.
Q He's not disappointed at what's happened so
far?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's ongoing.
Q Was there some
concern that the memo might send the wrong signal, and that it could
interfere with negotiations over the return of the plane?
MR. FLEISCHER: There was only one
intention, and that was to make clear that the military-to-military
contacts will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. And that
was the only signal the President believes should have been sent and
that's the signal that's been sent.
Q When did the President decide that
position? Before or after the memo came out?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, before.
Q When?
Q I couldn't tell you
the exact date, Ron, but well before.
Q And how did he pass that message on?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I just said, it
was part of the discussions the President had with his national
security team.
Q What
was his response to the memo, Ari?
MR.
FLEISCHER: When it came out yesterday? He said,
it's wrong. I mean, he understood what the policy was and it
was addressed by Secretary Rumsfeld.
Q Was there urgent concern on his part to
clarify the statement and get it right?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He understood that a statement came out that was
not in keeping with the guidance of the Secretary. His only
concern was that the record be set straight, and it was.
Q When was the last
time he talked to Rumsfeld about this policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: I couldn't tell you directly when the last
time he and the Secretary spoke directly about that policy.
Q Well, there have been
a couple of situations where the administration has had to correct a
Cabinet official. Why is this happening?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, not to be too
flip about it, but this morning, I happened to flip through some
newspapers and I noticed there was a major newspaper in Washington that
had six corrections and one clarification in it today. There
was another major newspaper in New York that had nine corrections in
it.
I think what's important is that, when
something is done that is not in keeping with the guidance of the
Secretary, that it's immediately set straight so the public has a clear
understanding of what the administration's policy is.
And if it happens from time to time, what's
important is that it's immediately corrected.
Q Ari, can you shed any light --
Q Do you think you have
a particular issue that you all need to deal with here is to prevent
these kinds of miscommunications or --
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's always important to minimize
miscommunications and minimize errors. And that's always an
effort of this administration.
Q And, Ari, you're quite confident that this was
a misinterpretation and not the Secretary of Defense wandering off the
reservation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The
Secretary of Defense couldn't have made it any plainer yesterday when
he said it was a misinterpretation of his guidance.
Q How would you
characterize -- is the --
Q Senator Warner also had the same
misunderstanding that was a result of a conversation between --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not sure
that we've all seen the full text of what Senator Warner said, and I
think you may want to talk to DOD or Senator Warner more directly about
that.
Q Does the
President -- I mean, there were a number of complaints from Defense
Department officials about the nature of military contacts, that we
have been far more open than they have, and that our people are
sometimes left cooling their heels in a reception area and not given
the same access that we give to Chinese military officials, for
instance. Does the President share what seems to be a
skeptical view of the value of these contacts with the Chinese?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have expressed the
President's position on the military-to-military contact program, and I
have nothing further to report on it.
Q Ari, yesterday the State Department said that
Richard Armitage is going to give China a miss on his NMD -- tour, that
--
MR. FLEISCHER: He's going to
give him a what?
Q He's going to skip China on his
tour. You had the decision on the berets, you had this
downgrading of military contacts. I'm wondering whether the
President has sent the message that there won't be a continuation of
business as usual with China so long as the plane remains on Hainan
Island.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the
President has made it abundantly clear that there are going to be a
number of areas on which we can cooperate with China. And we
will continue as a government to do so. That involves trade,
for example. There will be other areas, such as religious
freedom, where there are problems with China, and the President's not
going to hesitate to speak out.
But there is
going to be an official from the State Department who will travel to
China to meet with Chinese to talk about missile defense, so the
contacts will remain and the information will be conveyed as far as
missile defense is concerned.
Q Has the plane become a sort of dam in the
waters of this relationship at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has a broad view of relations
with China. And he's expressed it himself on many occasions
where he has said we will cooperate in areas where we can cooperate and
areas where we disagree. Will have a frank airing of those
disagreements in an effort to ameliorate the situation.
Q Ari, on energy, a
question for you. The President obviously is going to come
out later and announce steps for California to take federal buildings
to conserve energy? If the President is thinking this is
such a good idea, California has been faced with such an extreme
situation for a while, why not do it sooner? How do you
respond to critics who say the White House is just responding to
criticism that it's not doing enough for California?
MR. FLEISCHER: Since the very first
day of this administration, the President has responded to requests
from the governor of California for assistance. On the day
after he was sworn in, he directed Secretary of Energy Abraham to get
in touch with Governor Davis to see how the federal government could
work with California.
If you recall, the
President immediately extended the marketing orders to sell gas and oil
to California to help them meet their energy needs. And there have
been a series of steps such as expedited permitting that the
Environmental Protection Agency has taken to help California.
The announcement the President will make today
about having federal facilities in California conserve energy in an
effort to reduce demand in California is one more example of how the
administration has been working with California officials to be
helpful. At the same time, the President will emphasize that
California does continue to suffer from a bigger energy problem
California needs to fully address. The federal government
will work shoulder to shoulder to do its fair part to help California
in that effort.
There will also be, of
course, the comprehensive national energy policy development which is
proceeding on a separate track from events in California.
Q Why not sooner,
though? I mean, is it because this has all been discussed --
MR. FLEISCHER: I am not sure how
anything could be sooner than the first day after the President was
sworn in.
Q This
regarding federal buildings, in terms of getting federal buildings to
do their fair share.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, this is timed to coincide with the
increasing use and peak demand as summer approaches in California as
the weather gets warmer.
Q How warm will the White House Press Office be
this summer?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's
entirely up to you.
Q Seriously, will any of these measures extend
to places outside of California, buildings outside of California?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's
directive will apply to all agencies to ask them to review their energy
usage. The priorities will be in California and other places
where there are potential energy shortages. That's where the most
action you can anticipate will be taken.
Q The White House or any other buildings here,
do you think?
MR. FLEISCHER: Every
agency will have 30 days to examine their energy usage and then to
report back.
Q What
about the White House itself? Do you know --
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House will
have 30 days to examine its energy usage and report back.
Q California will have
some -- the federal agencies in California will have specific
instructions, unlike other areas; is that right?
MR. FLEISCHER: And any other area
of the country that suffers from electricity shortages will have --
will take an even more careful look at its energy
usage. There will be some specific items announced for
California shortly. Those announcements of course will be
made by the President.
Q Ari, it was the policy of the last
administration to engage China, to try to facilitate some sort of forum
from within. Is it the policy -- is it the belief of this
administration that that policy didn't work, and that the United States
needs to take a much firmer stance towards China than it did in the
past?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
said throughout the campaign that his approach to China would be based
on a belief that China is a strategic competitor. That is
the basis for the actions that the President will take in regard to his
relations with China.
Q There's been a month of pretty good tweaking
of the Chinese. And I'm wondering at what point do you cut
off your nose to spite your face, to quote the Secretary of State?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is the
President's policies. He announced them during the course of
the campaign, because he believed these would be the best policies to
secure the peace in the region, to promote trade with
China. But also there are serious issues that involve
religious freedom, for example -- that is the responsibility, in the
President's opinion, of the United States to speak out. So
he will.
Q Do you
expect anything at the Fox meeting?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Am I expecting what from the Fox meeting?
Q Anything significant out of today's meeting? And
does the President have any hope that there's anything Mexico or Canada can do,
for that matter, to help California this year?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, that has been a topic that has been
discussed with President Fox, how to help California with the energy
problems. And the President will be -- will look forward to
hearing President Fox's views on that matter as he moves
forward. They'll be discussing a series of items, and there
will be -- I think we have a background briefer coming out after the
Mexico meeting, so you'll be able to get a read. The meeting
hasn't taken place yet.
Q Ari, getting back to the Middle East for a
moment, does the President have any plans to invite Yasser Arafat to
the White House?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We'll keep you advised in case there are any
invitations extended.
Q Did the Israeli Foreign Minister suggest to
him that at this point he should not invite Yasser Arafat to the White
House?
MR. FLEISCHER: As always,
if there are any invitations or announcements to be made, I will share
them with you. There's nothing to report at this time.
Q Ari, former President
Clinton next week is expected to give a speech in Hong
Kong. Given relations right now with the PRC, is it
appropriate for him to travel there? And also, it's up in
the air whether or not he's going to meet with Chinese
officials. Would that be appropriate, given --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the first
I've heard of this, so I'm not going to venture into something that I'm
not familiar with, the former President's travels.
Q Let me follow on
that. Can we assume then that he is not bringing any kind of message to
the Chinese on behalf of this --
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's the first I've heard of it, so let me look
around and see if there's anything to that.
Q Can you get back to us then?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q It's been reported
that you met yesterday with Chris Williams to retract the memo in its
initial first version. Can you confirm that?
MR. FLEISCHER: To do what?
Q To help him write the
retraction of the memo that was attributed to Don
Rumsfeld. Can you confirm that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Major, every day, this White House has
conversations with people in the various agencies. We have
frequent conference calls. I have a conference call every
day with DOD. So I'm in frequent contact. Many people in
this White House are in frequent contact with people in the
agencies. I'm not going to tick-tock to any of those
conversations. But you can assume that every day, people in
this White House are in daily, multiple contact with people in the
agencies.
Q Would you
deny you were personally involved in retracting that very sensitive
memorandum?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just
see no need to tick-tock individual conversations in this White House
with the agencies. We do that all the time
here. We're always in frequent back and forth contact.
Q As a follow up, it's
also being reported that other agencies, Commerce, USTR, were also
contemplating or putting into place efforts to punish China for the
surveillance plane standoff, and this activity at the Pentagon more or
less jumped the gun on those intended procedures. What can
you say about that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think you need to talk to those relevant
agencies.
Q According
to India Globe newspaper, Indian government have endorsed President
Bush's speech the other day on the National Missile Defense
system. And the President -- question of sending
a high level State Department official to India, including
India. Now at the same time, there are sanctions there on
India, and yesterday, the USTR put India on the watch list to the Super
301 watch list. So what can you make out of this, and also
same paper said that President Bush may meet Indian Prime Minister in
New York in September.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, of course, Super 301 is a totally separate
issue from NMD. So there's no tie between the two.
Q Is he going to meet
with the Prime Minister?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, if there are announcements, we'll share
them with you at the appropriate time.
Q Ari, does the President want Congress to renew
normal trade relations with China? And two, does the
President have any position on Chinese bid to host the Olympics?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does
support permanent normal trade relations with China, as well as China's
ascension into the WTO. That's an example of where the
President finds areas where the United States and China can work
cooperatively, the President will pursue those areas. I have
not discussed with the President anything about the Olympics.
Q Have you received a
readout on the meeting between the Vice President today and the Foreign
Minister of Qatar?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I have not. I'd refer you to the Vice
President's office.
Q Apparently, the Foreign Minister says he made
the suggestion to the Vice President that Arafat and Sharon
meet. Will the U.S. support such a meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has
always made it very clear that he will support steps taken by the
Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve their conflicts.
Q Including one-on-one
meetings?
MR. FLEISCHER: If that's
what the Israelis and the Palestinians think is in the best interest of
securing the peace, the President would, of course, be supportive.
Q Ari, can you confirm
that the President, as well as his national security team, have
received Senator Mitchell's report that's due to be delivered to the
U.S. government about the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
and methods of dealing with it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The United States government has, indeed,
received the report. And, of course, under the Sharm
el-Sheikh agreements, that will now be shared with the Secretary
General of the United Nations, per review. And until it is reviewed by
the Secretary General and has come back to the United States
government, we'll have no further comment.
Q You said, the U.S. government -- you're not
saying, the President, so has it been received here at the White House,
do you know?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes,
it has.
Q During his
trip here, Mr. Sharon has spoken to several media
outlets. And in one interview he said that he didn't blame Yasser Arafat for the recent attacks --
Q Peres.
Q I'm sorry, Peres. Mr. Sharon in
Israel put out statements later sort of countering those
statements. Are you getting a sense that you're getting
mixed signals from the Israelis?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is very satisfied to continue to
work with the Israeli government and the Sharon government and all its
appointees to help secure the peace in the Middle East.
Q Ari, anything on the
news out of North Korea, the possible suspension of missile testing?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes. That's a conversation that I
believe the North Koreans are holding right now with the EU delegation
that is visiting. We have not received official word back
from the EU on the status of their discussions. So until we
receive official word from the EU, I'm going to hesitate to comment.
Q Ari, with the
approaching -- there's heightened interest in the death penalty with
the approaching execution of Tim McVeigh. The administration
made arrangements to have this telecast by closed-circuit to relatives
and survivors. Is the President hoping that this will bring
closure to this tragedy?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The Attorney General made the decision after
consulting with many of the families of those who were killed or
injured in the bomb blast in Oklahoma City, and the President supported
the decision that the Attorney General made. The President
does hope that this will bring closure. This has been a
terribly difficult moment for hundreds and thousands of people in
Oklahoma and, of course, all Americans. And he does hope
that for those who lost their loved ones in that bombing, this will
bring closure.
Q In
the broader question of public viewing of state-sanctioned executions,
does the President have an opinion?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Those are issues that are determined by the
Attorney General in accordance with the laws, and that is a question
best addressed to the Attorney General. The President has
tasked the Attorney General with making those
determinations. As I just indicated, in this one instance in
which specifics are available, the President supported the actions the
Attorney General took.
Q But he has no general opinion on whether the
public has the right --
MR.
FLEISCHER: This is the first instance of a federal death
penalty case and so this is the only instance to point to.
Q Ari, can you detail
how the President's conservation plan is different than the federal
conservation measures put in place by the Clinton administration toward
the end of their tenure?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I am not familiar with the conservation efforts
the previous administration took, put in place. I don't know
all the details or the specifics of theirs.
But the President believes that conservation is, indeed, one of many
responses to the nation's impending energy crisis. He thinks
it's important for people to conserve energy. He also thinks
it's important that the United States develop its energy resources, so
that we can make sure that people's lifestyles are not disrupted.
So it is part of a balanced approach that the
President is taking that also is going to involve new technologies, for
example, so that we can develop our energy in ways that are much more
environmentally friendly. Conservation and the development of
renewables, for example, are key items in that.
Q Is the White House
going to take any specific steps whatsoever to conserve energy here?
MR. FLEISCHER: When the President
makes the announcement today, the White House, as all agencies, will
have 30 days to review its energy usage. And the White House will take
a look at its energy usage during those 30 days.
Q What is the purpose
of the review?
MR. FLEISCHER: To
determine whether or not the federal agencies can conserve energy,
particularly in California and particularly in other states that are --
that may have electricity shortages this summer.
I think that in areas where there are no
electricity shortages anticipated, you will see little or no
action. In other areas where there may be energy shortages,
electricity shortages, the agencies are likely to take more action.
Q How much will be
saved by the proposals for California?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think let's allow the President to make his
announcement and then I think Secretary of Energy Abraham will be
available to talk afterwards.
Q Ari, you don't have a figure for what we think
the possible savings are?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I didn't bring anything here with me, Joe.
Q The President talked
particularly about the Northeast also possibly faces energy
shortages. Is that the area that you're primarily talking
about, other than California?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the directive the President will issue this
afternoon will make it clear to agencies anywhere where there is a
potential of energy shortage.
Q When you say "agencies," do you include FBI,
CIA, NSA, all of those agencies?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The directive says "agencies," and I would ask
you to talk to the Department of Energy to see if there is any more
definition or clarification. But it says "agencies."
Q Ari, yesterday I
asked you about Koch Industries, which pled guilty to a felony
environmental crime. And the question was whether the
campaign -- the campaign took money from the company and from
employees. And you said it couldn't have taken money from the company,
because it's illegal to take money from a company, which is true.
But I went and checked and, in fact, Koch
Industries' political action committee gave $5,000 to the
campaign. And the political action committee is controlled
by the company. So back to the original question --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not
accurate. A political action committee comprises of
voluntary contributions from employees of a company.
Q But the company
decides how to spend it. So the question is can --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the political
action committee decides how to spend it, which is --
Q The company controls
the political action committee.
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, no. Political action committees
are not corporate. Political action committees are
voluntary, as you know. Is there a question here?
Q Yes, there is a
question. The question is, which I think you dodged
yesterday, was, given that this money was coming from now a convicted
corporate felon, does the President have a policy on accepting money
from convicted felons and should they give it back, at least to the
PAC, which is controlled by the company?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, you're making a tie between individuals
and corporations, and that's not the case. Corporations
cannot give contributions; and the campaign did not receive corporate
contributions.
Yes, sir?
Q I checked -- excuse
me, can I follow up?
Q Can you clarify that in the past, President
Bush was against illegal immigration but now, according to The
Washington Post, he has sent a letter to the congressional leaders to
extend the deadline for the -- April 30th deadline, which passed -- to
be extended for six months or one year?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President said during the campaign, and made
a pledge, that he would help families who have been separated, or who
would be forced to leave the United States in order to legally apply
for the right to remain in the United States.
The President made it clear that he wanted to make certain those
families were not separated while they exercised their legal rights to
remain in the United States. That's the action that the
President announced this week, when he sent a letter to Capitol Hill
making clear that he supported an extension so that families of
immigrants would not be broken up.
Q One year or six months?
MR. FLEISCHER: The letter did not
specify. Q There are
persistent calls, Ari, from Republicans and Democrats in the California
congressional delegation for some type of temporary relief in
California. They know the White House is sensitive to price
caps, but some sort of regulatory time-out so they can get a price
relief while they deal with the situation on the ground -- by building
more plants, bringing them on line.
What can
you tell us about the discussions within the administration re-looking
at that? Or is there still an adamant opposition to any type
of price intervention as it relates to California power supply and
price?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if the
question is how to bring relief to a state such as California, that's
experiencing an energy crisis, the last thing that anybody would want
to do is create price controls; that will bring more trouble and less
relief. That will create shortages, it won't alleviate
shortages. So the President remains opposed to price caps.
Q Thank you.
END 1:04
P.M. EDT
|