May 20, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 20, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY
MIKE MCCURRY
The Briefing Room
1:50 P.M. EDT
MR. MCCURRY: I'm sorry I was late. I was standing in
line at the local 7-11 to buy Powerball tickets. (Laughter.)
Q What would you do if you actually won?
Q Stay right here with us.
MR. MCCURRY: Sam, I think you could effectively
conclude my service here at this podium would come to an abrupt end.
(Laughter.)
Q You mean your effective service?
MR. MCCURRY: Or my less than effective service would
come to an end. (Laughter.) That's something to contemplate. You
get on a plane, start flying. Where you'd end, no one would know.
All right, what all do you want to know about today?
Mr. Blitzer, yes. Fire away.
Q Mike, would you care to respond to Newt Gingrich's
call for a special committee now to investigate these latest
allegations that Chinese money went from Johnny Chung to the
Democratic Party and may have resulted in the lifting of satellite
technology restrictions on China?
MR. MCCURRY: That sounds like a mouthful. Sounds like
a mouthful. I'm not sure that any of that has been established at
all. I'm not even sure --
Q Well, I thought they were allegations.
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not even sure that those are
allegations in some respects. I think those are suspicions, but no
one has made those allegations. The Speaker apparently believes that
people should know more about this, and so do we, and the Speaker may
want to be in contact with Chairman Gilman because he may
inadvertently be undercutting the work that Chairman Gilman and the
International Relations Committee is already doing with respect to
that matter, or he might not be aware of the extensive work we've
done to try to help the committee understand those matters.
Q Trent Lott is also announcing a committee in the
Senate.
MR. MCCURRY: Well, he, I guess, didn't want to be left
out.
Q Well, but will you cooperate with these committees?
MR. MCCURRY: We've got -- we are already cooperating
with the committees that are looking into this. We've given members
and staff briefings on these matters, and by the end of the week, as
Mr. Ruff notified both the Speaker and the Majority Leader today,
we'll be producing documents to help the House committee understand
the matters that they have been pursuing.
Q Who notified them?
MR. MCCURRY: Mr. Chuck Ruff has written to both the
Speaker and the Majority Leader today saying essentially that --
well, saying, first of all, that these decisions were made purely in
the best interests of the United States, consistent with policies
that have long been the policy of the United States; consistent with
determinations made as far back as September 1988 by President Ronald
Reagan; that we are acting and carrying out a policy that has long
been recognized by the United States government and by President
Clinton's two immediate Republican predecessors that there is
interest in having the United States participate in commercial -- or
the launch of commercial satellites using other nations. In the case
of China, that requires a waiver, because of Tiananmen Square. And
as did President Bush, President Clinton has granted waivers for
launches of commercial satellites. The reason why is abundantly
clear to everyone today. We need --
Q Did he just send that letter out?
MR. MCCURRY: That letter is going out today to, and we
can get a copy.
Q Going out today?
Q But in this case it's a matter of record --
MR. MCCURRY: I think it's gone out. We can get a copy
if you need it.
Q In this case, it's a matter of record that the
President overruled his own Justice and State Departments in this
matter.
MR. MCCURRY: That's just simply incorrect. That is
incorrect. That is not correct, Sam.
Q Secretary Christopher did not argue against it?
MR. MCCURRY: The State Department initiated the request
for the Loral license in 1988.
Q In the case of both the Hughes and Loral, you're
telling us that --
MR. MCCURRY: You're confusing, Sam, a separate issue.
There's a separate issue going back to 1996 that involves who has
jurisdiction for what's called the munitions list versus the dual use
list. We're talking about commercial satellites, the kind of
satellites that help people get pages and help you all transmit your
reports around the world.
That was deemed in 1996 by a decision of the President
to be something that ought to be regulated by the Commerce
Department, which regulates so-called dual use technologies. The
State Department regulates things that are on the munitions list
under a separate aspect of federal law.
There was an interagency discussion back in 1996 about
who should be responsible in our government for the launch of
commercial satellites. And it was a pretty heavily debated
interagency bureaucratic issue back and forth. The decision was
ultimately made to transfer the regulation of those launches or the
satellite launches themselves to Commerce, where the President
believed they properly belonged because of the nature the technology
involved -- at the same time, preserving an extensive interagency
review process, so anytime you do one of these launches, there is a
very thorough review of that by all the affected agencies.
Now, that's a whole separate matter from the question of
a specific license for a specific launch in 1998. So go back and
make sure you separate apples from oranges.
Q What about munitions?
MR. MCCURRY: The munitions list is regulated by the
State Department and that involves a host of things that are
regulated consistent with -- what's the name of that group, Eric?
The Zangger Group.
Q If he didn't overrule State and the Pentagon, what
about Justice who was doing an investigation on --
MR. MCCURRY: We appropriately inquired Justice's views
and they submitted them. The Justice Department can tell you more
about that.
Q So he did overrule Justice then?
MR. MCCURRY: They, to my knowledge, did not
take any position in opposition of the granting of a license.
Q What persuaded the President to grant the licenses
in the Loral deal?
MR. MCCURRY: What persuaded the President was the
argument that it would be in the best interest of the United States
and its people for us to be able to engage in satellite launch
commerce with other countries, including China, irrespective of
sanctions in place because of Tiananmen Square. It's the same
decision, same argument, same rationale used by George Bush nine
times.
Q And that extended to helping the Chinese work out
their guidance system problems?
MR. MCCURRY: No. Under these licenses, the licenses
specifically prohibit you from transferring any technology whatsoever
that assists a country's launch vehicle capacity. That's not even
the allegation. You all are very confused about even what has been
alleged.
Q Well, you are saying that no such technology
transfer occurred from Loral?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm saying that there are -- the Justice
Department is examining the question of whether Loral may have
transferred technology information, but that's irrespective of the
licenses that have been granted under the export control act
provision that we're talking about.
Q Just to follow up and put a button on this, it was
not the President's intention that that kind of technology be
transferred to China, if indeed it was?
MR. MCCURRY: The President wouldn't even dream of it
because it's specifically prohibited by law. And all the licenses
that we grant are consistent with -- have built into them protections
and restrictions that specifically prohibit that kind of technology
transfer that would allow another country to --
Q You're saying the President didn't change his
policy or this administration's policy in this regard? Is that what
you're saying?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm saying that this administration has
pursued the exact same policy pursued by the Bush administration. We
made one change which is where should properly these transactions be
reviewed within our government, who should have the lead in doing the
review. And in 1996, it was transferred from the State Department to
Commerce after a very lengthy consideration that was largely about
where best these kinds of transactions should be regulated.
Q So that was what State argued against, the transfer
of the control?
MR. MCCURRY: They will be able to tell you more about
their views, but if you go look back, they obviously have within our
bureaucracy having responsibility for that type of commerce. They
wanted to keep it. There was a good argument that they ought to go,
like other dual-use items, over to Commerce. It was an interagency
bureaucratic squabble.
Q Well, in 1996 you transferred this from Warren
Christopher's State Department to Ron Brown's Commerce Department?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, he transferred it from the State
Department to the Commerce Department; the individual arguments or
identity of whoever was Secretary at the time had little to do with
the argumentation that was presented about where they best should be
regulated.
Q Well, the President's critics will certainly --
MR. MCCURRY: I know exactly what the President's
critics will say, and they are wrong.
Q -- point out that Ron Brown came from a political
background.
MR. MCCURRY: Warren Christopher was Bill Clinton's
campaign manager and transition director. So I don't know how you
would make that argument.
Q Are you saying that Warren Christopher and Ron
Brown are equivalent in their political orientation?
MR. MCCURRY: In this discussion, for purposes of who
best should handle policy on commercial satellite launch, they were
equal. They were both Cabinet members making an interagency argument
on behalf of the views of their department.
Q But you're not saying that funds from a Chinese
lieutenant colonel to the President's campaign was proper, are you?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not -- I don't believe anyone has
alleged that anyone in the White House or in the administration even
knew that's the source of the funds. The presumption was the funds
were given by Johnny Chung and Johnny Chung --
Q Why didn't the President look into the sources of
funds?
MR. MCCURRY: Look, that's a question that goes -- we've
answered now more than a year ago.
Q Why didn't you?
MR. MCCURRY: Because we had very lax vetting procedures
for contributions, and we've acknowledged that now more than a year
and a half ago -- 18 months ago. And we spent a considerable amount
of time and millions of dollars in looking into the source of these
contributions, and they were returned. If, in fact, it's true -- and
I have no idea whether it is true or not -- that the source of the
funds that Johnny Chung used was from this woman who was an aerospace
executive, then that money has long since been returned. In any
event, it had absolutely no impact on the President's thinking, since
to my knowledge no one at the White House even knew that was the
source of the contribution.
Q Are you saying, Mike, that after that Chinese
missile exploded, destroying a $200 million U.S. satellite, neither
Loral, nor Hughes gave the Chinese any technology to help them --
MR.MCCURRY: I am not saying that. I'm not saying that,
Wolf, because that is precisely the question the Justice Department
is looking at. I'm not going to comment on their investigation in to
that subject. The allegation is not that anything done by the
administration led to that technology transfer.
Q Let me just follow up. Did the U.S. government
authorize Loral and Hughes to provide China with some technology that
would help them avoid the kind of explosions that destroyed that $200
million U.S. satellite?
MR. MCCURRY: Not that I am aware of. The only
information I have available is that the actions taken were
consistent with what the law requires with respect to the licenses
granted.
Q In the course of that, the Justice Department is
investigating Loral and Hughes for possible violations of licensing
procedures in the course of the investigation of the missile failure.
Loral two days ago admitted that they give information to the Chinese
before giving it to the State Department, thereby violating at least
their own corporate policy.
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to comment on any of that
because that all goes to the heart of what the Justice Department is
looking at. I'm just not going to comment on that.
Q If that's factual background, the President then,
earlier this year, grants another license to Loral for the same type
of export, thereby, in Justice's view, apparently undercutting their
investigation.
MR. MCCURRY: That is not Justice's view, and it's
unfair to suggest that that is Justice's view. They'll tell you what
their view is. They expressed concern and they did not do anything
to take steps to prohibit the transaction that I'm aware of. And in
the letter you get from Mr. Ruff today to the Speaker and to the
Majority Leader, we make very clear that the specific provision in
law allows us to go ahead and grant that license, absent any kind of
indictment that's arisen from a criminal investigation.
Q Why grant a license to a company that is under
investigation for possibly violating the procedure --
MR. MCCURRY: Because we don't presume guilt, we presume
innocence. You may have heard of that sometime ago. I know we don't
acknowledge that principle very often.
Q Why not wait until end of the investigation and
then make a decision?
MR. MCCURRY: That's a good question. That's one of the
reasons why we consulted with Justice on their views before we
granted the licenses.
Q That seems like a legitimate question, though,
because you say, why presume guilt, but the presumption is that you
don't want to do anything that would transfer technology to the
Chinese, even if --
MR. MCCURRY: That's correct. There is no allegation
that anything about the license that we granted transferred
technology to the Chinese. Can you all please get that straight?
Q I think the point is, why give Loral another
license in the midst of an investigation that they may have violated
the law on sensitive technology?
MR. MCCURRY: Because the license had nothing to do with
the proposed act that Loral was about to undertake with the Chinese,
which was to take one of their satellites and put it on top of a
rocket so it could be launched so we could get pager service and
telecommunications.
Q -- a license --
MR. MCCURRY: Because they're required under the law to
have it. The allegation that is being examined has something
entirely different -- it has to do with the rocket itself that was
launched and what the discussions were between the companies and the
Chinese on the rocket, which is not something --
Q The allegation is that Loral violated the
procedures under which they got their --
MR. MCCURRY: That is not true. That is not the
allegation. You misunderstand what you think you're reading in
someone else's newspaper.
Q Well, what are the allegations?
MR. MCCURRY: You can read it, and all I'm suggesting to
you is sort out the basic facts before you attempt to write about
this.
.................
Q On Loral, just a clean-up question. You suggested
that this administration is cooperating fully with the Gilman
investigation and say that if there is another probe that you'll
cooperate with that one. Yet, the Speaker of the House and the
Majority Leader of the Senate sent letters complaining about the
slowness of the response of this administration on that very issue,
especially regarding documents.
MR. MCCURRY: As I said, the White House Counsel has
sent a letter to both of them indicating that we expect to produce
documents by the end of the week. One of the things we've been doing
is to make sure, from the viewpoint of the Justice Department, that
nothing that is produced would jeopardize any ongoing investigatory
work that they're undertaking.
Q But to follow up on that, though, sir, is that
cooperation -- would you consider it foot dragging, has there been
foot dragging?
MR. MCCURRY: There has not been foot dragging. There's
been cooperation and that is -- look, it's in our interest to
cooperate because if they're interested in getting to the truth, the
truth will demonstrate that this administration acted consistent with
the best interests of the American people. So we welcome an inquiry
that's legitimate.
Now, the problem we've got is so much of the smoke and
fire emanating from the Speaker's direction sounds like it's politics
as usual. This is a matter where we ought to stay very focused --
because the Speaker has made some serious allegations now, we ought
to stay focused on the truth rather than making it appear that we're
making charges and allegations for political purposes, which is what
I think everyone in this room would agree is what it appears the
Speaker is doing.
Q Well, the Speaker says that you're the Jerry
Springer Show, he says you have a level of disrespect --
MR. MCCURRY: It's exactly comments like that that would
make the American people say, well, this sounds like it's just more
political mud-wrestling as opposed to a serious inquiry into a very
complicated area of law, you know, the export control restrictions
that exist in law on the launch of commercial satellites. You know,
that's a complicated area of the law. The reasons why President Bush
and President Clinton had granted waivers were very heavily discussed
and debated within the administration, and both Presidents agreed to
move ahead with the licenses that allow that for reasons that we have
set forth very publicly in the past. But the Speaker is fond of
making comments like that that sound like they emanate more from the
direction of politics than from the direction of legitimate
truth-seeking.
Q What is your position on the Defense Department
report that said that there was -- the national security -- quote --
"was damaged"?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, the report today is that the same
agency at the Pentagon also then agreed to support the issuing of the
license. So I would leave it to the Pentagon to address that, and I
assume that they were addressing that today.
.................
Q Mike, can I do satellite follow-up --
MR. MCCURRY: No, I've done enough on that. All right,
one more.
Q On the commercial satellites, is the administration
looking into the possibility there could have been sabotage involved
in this, or was it a pure mistake? I'm talking about the commercial
one that went out last --
MR. MCCURRY: I assume that someone somewhere is looking
into -- in fact, I think that's exactly why Loral was engaged in
trying to find out more about what happened to the rocket that blew
up, that they were trying to determine a cause, but I refer you to
other agencies.
Q No, I'm not talking about the satellite last --
commercial satellites that went out last --
MR. MCCURRY: Oh, I refer you to other agencies on that.
I haven't heard anything to that effect.
Q Could you check it please and look into whether
they --
MR. MCCURRY: If we have anything here that we need to
pass on, we will, but I'm not aware of anything.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
