The White House Briefing Room
May 24, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING BY JOE LOCKHART
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 24, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
JOE LOCKHART
The Briefing Room
1:27 P.M. EDT
MR. LOCKHART: Everybody's here today.
Q We're all here.
MR. LOCKHART: It's a big one.
Q Loaded for bear.
MR. LOCKHART: Do you ever come unloaded? Do you ever get unloaded?
(Laughter.) Do you ever get loaded? There we go. (Laughter.)
Q Yes, he comes loaded.
Q He comes unloaded all the time.
MR. LOCKHART: Okay, well, who's first? Wolf?
Q You have no announcements?
MR. LOCKHART: I have no announcements. Wolf.
Q The Cox report is going to make all sorts of serious allegations
that the White House and the Clinton administration was lax in dealing with
this security threat, once it surfaced. Does the White House acknowledge that
there were problems in the way this was handled?
MR. LOCKHART: I think the White House acknowledges security problems at
the laboratories that go back over a couple of decades. I think once this was
brought to the attention of the White House, and then to the attention of the
President, that the White House moved quickly. We moved quickly in
quadrupling or more the budget of counterintelligence at the Department of
Energy; in the President's directive, the PDD-61; in revamping the security,
in early 1998, in February.
So this is a serious problem. It's gone back some time. But the White
House has moved quickly to try to address it, and the Cox report, I think,
from what we've seen of the recommendations from earlier this year, many of
those we were already implementing, but there are many constructive ones in
there that we're implementing now.
Q Is this a work in progress, Joe, or can you say today,
to the American people, that America's nuclear secrets are safe?
MR. LOCKHART: I think -- we're under no illusions that one
of the byproducts of being a technological leader in the world is
that other people, other countries who don't have the
technological prowess that we do, will try to acquire them by one
way or another. It's an ongoing issue. It's ongoing, and we
continue to look at the counterintelligence work, the security
work that's done at the Department of Energy, as well as
throughout the Government. We're going to continue to remain
vigilant. I think there was an endemic problem at the labs, the
Department of Energy labs, that goes back over two to three
decades. This administration has addressed the problem and has
worked very hard to tighten the security so that whatever way it
happens, classified information doesn't flow out.
Q If I could just follow up on that. How would you
characterize the security of America's nuclear secrets today?
MR. LOCKHART: I think we are in a much stronger position
than we were when the -- when we took on this problem starting in
1996, but we need to remain vigilant. And we need to keep
working hard at this.
Q Why would the President say on March 19th that no one
had told him that they even suspected that there was ongoing
espionage in his administration at the labs when, in fact, it
would appear that he had been briefed on that?
MR. LOCKHART: No, I don't think he had been. I think he
had been briefed about security problems at the labs and about
classified information getting out of the labs. But if you --
Q Classified information getting out but not through
espionage?
MR. LOCKHART: I think there are a variety of ways that
could happen, but I think he was briefed overall. As far as a
specific allegation, which is what I think he was referring to,
of espionage at the labs during his term, we have subsequently
found out of one investigation that came after the President's
press conference. Beyond that, there was only some reporting
from the mid-'90s about a possible compromise of nuclear weapons
information, and the FBI wasn't able to identify a suspect, or
where that might have come from.
Q The question he asked was not about a specific
allegation, but it was a broad-brush question. And he certainly
left the impression that his answer was also broad-brush: No one
told me.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think -- no. The answer was, whether
it was broad-brush or specific, about espionage at the labs
during his term, and I think we know subsequently that there is
one allegation now that's being investigated. But before that,
there wasn't something that rose to the level of briefing the
President.
Q So no -- if I may just finish, or rather, ask one more
question. So no one, you're saying, had briefed the President?
Because in his answer, he said that no one had even suggested
that there might be, he didn't make a definitive finding one way
or the other, but there are suspicions. No one briefed him?
MR. LOCKHART: He was -- again, I'll repeat it again. He
was briefed about the security problems of the lab, but not about
any particular, specific allegation of espionage, because at the
time there was nothing that, in the judgment of those who were
making that decision, rose to that level.
Q Was he briefed about the general possibility of
espionage?
MR. LOCKHART: He was briefed about the security problem,
which also included the possibility of espionage.
Q -- what he responded to?
Q Peter Lee* was convicted of espionage at Livermore
during the President's term. Is the President not aware of that?
MR. LOCKHART: No. We're talking, here, about nuclear, the
nuclear secrets --
Q Well, that's not what the President --
MR. LEAVY: I think that happened in the '80s, he was
convicted in the '90s.
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
Q No. Lee was 1997, he --
MR. LEAVY: Yes, but that's when he was convicted. The
charge was from the '80s.
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
Q If I may just finish that point. In those court
documents, Peter Lee admitted under oath to the court that he
stole technical information about U.S. submarine surveillance
from the Livermore Laboratory and sent it to the Chinese in the
year 1997.
MR. LOCKHART: Okay, well, let's not mix apples and oranges
here.
MR. LEAVY: He was a private citizen. He wasn't working at
the labs. TRW.
MR. LOCKHART: Yes. But also, what we were talking about --
these are, it's like apples, oranges and pineapples, because it's
three different issues. You've got a question about nuclear
espionage at the labs --
Q No, the question was not about nuclear espionage at the
labs. I asked the question.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think if you go back, that's
certainly what the President was talking about.
Q May I read the quote from the President? "You asked me
another question, which is, can I tell you that there was no
espionage at the labs since I have been President. I can tell
you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing
has occurred." The President is talking about the laboratories
in general and not nuclear secrets specifically. Lee was
convicted of stealing information from the Livermore Lab, and
admitted to doing so in 1997. Was the President unaware of the
Lee case?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I don't know what the level of briefing
was. I can certainly check on Lee. But my understanding, and in
talking to the President about this subsequently, was that he was
specifically referring to the stories that were out at the time
about espionage of nuclear espionage.
Q Why couldn't the President have just answered that
question that Scott just read by saying, I don't know, but
believe me, I'm on the case and we're trying to find out and
we'll get back to you? I mean, what's wrong with saying I don't
know?
MR. LOCKHART: Because we certainly -- Sam, he answered the
question in a straightforward way, and when that press conference
was over he said, is there any allegation out there that I
haven't been briefed on, and he was given a more fulsome briefing
of different allegations. The one in particular here that I --
Q He came out of the press conference and asked someone,
you or someone else, hey, did I know what I was talking about?
And the answer was no? (Laughter.)
MR. LOCKHART: No. He came out and said if there are issues
that he was not briefed on specifically -- and again, this comes
down to a judgment. You have some reporting on a possible
compromise where there are no -- where the FBI could find no
suspects and they couldn't find out where information may have
come from. It's a judgment call on whether that gets to the
President and the President is briefed on something where there
doesn't seem to be any leads or any avenue of where it might be
going. They don't know what the what is or where it came from.
And you know, people here make judgment calls all the time and
the President trusts in the judgment of those making the
decisions.
Q What's hard to figure out on this is that in mid-'97
Berger would have got his second briefing, he was so alarmed he
went to the President with it. He and the President sat down and
tasked all the agencies to come up with a sweeping review of
security at the labs.
MR. LOCKHART: Right.
Q Are we to believe that was done without any reference
to espionage at the labs and they just thought security needed to
be upgraded for some other reason?
MR. LOCKHART: It was done knowing that there were security
lapses at the labs without specific cases or information of
particular espionage.
Q But wouldn't that be espionage in general?
MR. LOCKHART: Listen, there are a lot of ways that
information can flow out in an unauthorized way. Espionage is
certainly one of them. At that point, they didn't have
particular information about specific cases of espionage. But
they still understood there was a problem. And they moved
quickly and aggressively to address the problem.
Q The New York Times reported that Berger was aware --
was briefed, I guess by Trulock about ongoing Chinese espionage
at that time, in July 1997; is that true? And if it is, why
didn't he convey that to the President?
MR. LOCKHART: He conveyed to the President in a broad
overview the security problems at the labs. And without a
specific, because if I could answer this question by providing
you a specific case, I would; but there isn't one. And he gave
him a broad outline. The President asked the National Security
Advisor to go back and work on strengthening, in a comprehensive
way, the security of the labs, and that's what he did.
Q Well, is that New York Times report true, that Berger
at that time knew and had been briefed about ongoing Chinese
espionage?
MR. LEAVY: During that briefing, that one instance that you
reported came up, but --
MR. LOCKHART: Yes, it's -- the instance that I have
mentioned here, which is based on reporting from the mid-'90s of
a potential compromise in nuclear information -- which you can go
on and read the story and know what it's about -- but the FBI
could not find a suspect and could not find out where it came
from.
Q Is the President unhappy that Berger did not tell him
about the potential compromise?
MR. LOCKHART: I think with anything, especially when it
becomes a story, hindsight is 20/20. We make judgments every day
here, and the President trusts those who make the judgments.
Q But Joe, what about --
Q But the President was not told anything about
espionage? I mean, when Berger went to him and said, we need a
comprehensive review of security at the labs, espionage was not
the threat?
MR. LOCKHART: The security problems at the lab -- again, I
think what was laid out was, there are a number of ways that this
could be done. We had to counteract and guard against all of
them, espionage included. But when you ask, when the President
was asked at the press conference, you know, is there a case, is
there something you can point to, there was nothing that he could
point to.
Q He was not asked that, though. He was asked about, he
said, can I tell you there was no espionage at the labs, he said,
no one has suggested to me or reported to me that they suspect
such a thing.
MR. LOCKHART: Listen, I know what the question was, I know
what the answer was. But when you ask -- if he said there is,
you'd say, what? What case? There was only one case, and I've
explained here -- that we know of -- I've explained here the
reasons that he didn't know.
Q Joe, why was the Secretary of State never briefed about
these allegations until 1999?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think the original briefings came
over from the Department of Energy, and the Secretary of State
should have been briefed. And I can't really explain why she
wasn't.
Q Who's at fault for that?
MR. LOCKHART: I don't know. The Department -- the
Department of Energy is doing their own review. It could be that
that's a subject that they're looking at, but I don't know the
answer.
Q Joe, who's really responsible, who's to blame? And the
House and some members of Congress are calling for the
resignation of the Attorney General --
MR. LOCKHART: Listen, I think finger-pointing is a popular
spectator sport and participative sport here in Washington. The
bottom line on this is, this is a bipartisan problem that needs a
bipartisan solution. It goes back over 20 years; it doesn't have
a Democratic or a Republican name on it. And the solution needs
to be bipartisan. We've worked very well with members on both
sides of the aisles in the last few years, as far as building a
stronger counterintelligence effort at the labs, and we'll
continue to do so.
Q Joe, what is the President's current understanding of
whether there was espionage at the labs during his
administration?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, he's certainly been briefed on a case
that was subsequent to the press conference, and that's a case
that the FBI and the Justice Department are looking at, which I'm
not able to comment on.
Q So the President's current understanding is that in
fact there has been espionage at the lab?
MR. LOCKHART: The President's current understanding is that
there's an allegation, and let me be clear here, because there's
a difference between an allegation and something that's proven.
Now, there is a lot of work going on to see if that allegation is
something that can be proven, to see if there was espionage or
wrongdoing, and that effort is ongoing.
Q Joe, has the President spoken with Attorney General
Reno about this today, or does he plan to speak with her sometime
before he goes on vacation?
MR. LOCKHART: No, I think the Attorney General, as she told
you all, is doing an internal review within the department, to
look at how this was handled, to see if there was anything that
was problematic with how it was handled. And I think we'll look
forward to the results of that review.
Q Joe, if I can follow up, with all the questions out
there and demands for her resignation, he isn't planning to speak
with her, to touch base with her and let her know that he is
still confident in her ability?
MR. LOCKHART: We would burn up the phone line if, every
time someone stood up on Capitol Hill and said, this person has
to resign or that person has to resign, if we did that. You'll
remember there have been a series of these calls.
Q But the series of calls largely have been on the
Republican side of the aisle, and the bipartisan solution that
Torricelli and Shelby are recommending is to fire Reno. That's
their idea.
MR. LOCKHART: I don't know that speaks accurately to what
Senator Torricelli said; I'll let him speak for himself. But let
me speak for the President here, which is what I get paid for.
He has confidence in the Attorney General, and will continue to
have confidence in her.
Q Joe, is this stolen technology China has provided to
Pakistan?
MR. LOCKHART: Pardon?
Q Is it stolen -- U.S. nuclear --
MR. LOCKHART: I don't know, but I can tell you as one of
the benefits of the engagement policy with China is the curbing
of the export of problematic technology to Pakistan and other
countries around the world.
Q Joe, just to try to nail this down at the press
conference. He, the President had been -- you talked about a
specific allegation.
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
Q But the President had been briefed both by Cox and by
Berger about the general need for tightening security at the
labs. Did the President or not, at the -- was in January --
MR. LEAVY: Then the Cox meeting was in April.
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
Q Was in April? Okay, I apologize, but by Berger. Was
he aware, at the press conference, of the general possibility
that there might have been Chinese --
MR. LOCKHART: Listen --
Q -- general possibility that there might have been
Chinese spying?
MR. LOCKHART: On the general possibility, the President --
listen, we, as he has said, we're under no illusions. We have
technology that other countries around the world, including
China, would like to acquire. One of the things to remember here
is that we have very tight export controls on China, very tight
-- as tight as they can be with not having an embargo. We don't
export dual-use technology to China; we don't allow that to
happen. So, we're certainly aware, we're under no illusions,
including China, would seek, actively seek, to acquire the
technology. But he was asked a question at the press conference,
and it's important to remember about what we knew about what they
had done. And he answered that question accurately.
Q He got a briefing -- he received a briefing on the Cox
report in January or February. What was missing from that
briefing that's in the Cox Report now? What more did he learn?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, that there are certainly specific
issues as far as -- I mean, I think you'll see, and we'll all see
the Cox Report in its entirety tomorrow, they raised some of
these issues and speculate on what may -- or what it may mean or
what it may not mean, but there is more in this than I think in
the recommendations that came across.
Q What issues did they raise in the January or February
briefing with the President? What specific issues did they
discuss?
MR. LEAVY: No, it was a written summary.
MR. LOCKHART: It wasn't a briefing. It was a written
summary of recommendations, which I think we provided to you
shortly thereafter. The recommendations, most of which we have
already complied with, or are in the process of.
Q Was that all he got at that time?
MR. LOCKHART: Yes, right.
Q But that's all he got at that time?
MR. LOCKHART: He got a written summary that didn't go into
specifics.
Q Did it say that espionage occurred during his term?
MR. LOCKHART: That is part of the security problem, that
there was potential in the security labs, there was potential
espionage.
Q And that was in April that he got that?
MR. LOCKHART: No, that was in January.
Q January. So, he did know that there were allegations
of espionage during his term?
MR. LOCKHART: He certainly knew in the broadest sense that
China, as well as other countries, sought to acquire technology.
As far as any specific incidents, he didn't, because there was
really, expect for the one case, only one thing to say.
Q That's always true.
Q Cox, himself, says he was briefed. Cox, himself, said
the President was briefed.
MR. LOCKHART: Pardon?
Q They're always seeking to --
Q What you're saying has been true for 40 years. Did he
have any heightened concern about Chinese spying in the nuclear
labs?
MR. LOCKHART: He certainly, going back to 1997, because of
the security problems at the lab -- this is one of the reasons we
went through this process, because the security -- we had an
endemic problem at the labs of lax security. And that is what
PDD-61 sought to address.
Q Joe, what will this do in terms of trade relations with
China? I mean, things have been tense with China on trade issues
for several months now, and release of this report tomorrow is
only going to heighten criticism of our policy with China. Do we
have plans to go forward and reopen WTO negotiations?
MR. LOCKHART: The negotiations have never really lapsed.
We've made a lot of progress in the last year. As you know,
these have been ongoing for 13 years and it's very much in
America's -- American families, workers, business in the
interests, because as it stands now, China has access to the
American market, while American business does not have equal
access to the Chinese market. But we have had some informal
conversations with our Chinese counterparts on this subject.
They remain engaged in the process. We've not set specific dates
to reconvene the talks, but we expect them to resume soon.
Q Are you planning on releasing a rebuttal?
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
Q Joe, for the sake of clarity, if I could, please, help
me understand. The President was briefed on Cox in January.
MR. LOCKHART: He got a written summary and recommendations
in January which we then provided, what we could, to you.
Q And if I can just follow the line for a moment. The
summary included information to the President about
investigations of alleged espionage?
MR. LOCKHART: Nothing specific.
Q Nothing specific. But, yet, just over two months later
the President says no one has reported to me that they even
suspect that such a thing has occurred?
MR. LOCKHART: Listen, you can try to take the words and
parse them, and I can just tell you my understanding of them.
And you all have to make your own judgment. But the President,
in that statement, was making the point that as far as specific
cases, as far as do we have espionage which we can -- where we
have some information, where the FBI's gone after it, where we
can prove something -- there was nothing there. As far as --
hold on. As far as broadly, as far as our heightened awareness,
as far as whether we believed that the Chinese were trying to
acquire technology, I think he has stated in that time, and in
others, that we are under no illusions.
Q He knew there were suspicions?
Q Joe, let me ask you -- the question that I asked at the
time was, can you assure the American people that under your
watch, no valuable nuclear secrets were lost? And clearly, you
would acknowledge, I think, that he left the impression, clearly,
that no, under his watch that didn't happen.
MR. LOCKHART: I think when you're looking at whether the
espionage -- he can continue to make that case. Now, there is,
subsequent to the press conference, there were some allegations
raised that are currently being investigated. But I can't point
-- and the Cox report will spend a lot of time, as I understand
it, looking at espionage and looking at things -- and most of
that, the vast majority of that, is in the 1980s.
But if you're looking at, during this Presidency, I can't
point to a case where we know something was stolen, we know who
did it, and we know where it went to, and we know where it came
from. That's just, that's the bottom line, as disappointing as
it may be.
Q Yes, but --
Q Really, he wasn't forthcoming in answering the
question.
MR. LOCKHART: No, I think he was. I mean, I think he was.
Q He was aware of suspicions --
MR. LOCKHART: No, I think if you look at other answers he's
given, and what he's talked about, we've always said we're under
no illusions. The American public --
Q You said that to even suspect such a thing is --
MR. LOCKHART: The American public, I think, knows, because
the President has said it, the Secretary of Energy has said it,
others in the administration, that we are under no illusions.
People do try to acquire technology that, for whatever reason,
they can't produce indigenously. And that has gone on, as
someone said here, you know, for 40 years, probably, probably
longer.
Q Does the President --
Q Can you say --
Q Go ahead, Sam.
Q Well, I was going to, frankly, change the subject to
time for Kosovo -- --
MR. LOCKHART: That would be fine.
Q -- 45, 50 minutes on that?
Q One follow up.
Q One more point on this. Are you saying the President
knew of allegations, but that they had not yet been proved? Or
that the President didn't even know of any allegations --
MR. LOCKHART: The President did not know of specific
allegations. What he knew of was that there were -- two things.
One is that we know that we're under no illusions that China and
other countries try to acquire sensitive information from the
United States. Two, security at the labs was not as strong as it
could have been. So that's what he knew.
Q Are you planning a rebuttal to the Cox report?
MR. LOCKHART: No, I think if you look at what they sent
over in January, we have embraced the vast majority of the
recommendations. There were some things in there that we were
already doing, but there are certainly ideas in there of how to
shore up security that we have embraced and we're implementing.
And I don't think it requires a rebuttal. I don't think this
should be a political debate.
As I said before, this is a problem that goes back some
time. It's bipartisan in nature as a problem because we've kind
of flipped Congresses, we've flipped the White House, as far as
parties go. And it needs a bipartisan solution, and that's what
we've done. We've worked hard with Congress, we kept Congress
informed throughout this process of what we knew about the
security problem at the labs, and that's how we're going to solve
it.
.........................
Q Joe, forgive me if you answered this question last
week, but is the President prepared to pay reparations to China
for the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade?
MR. LOCKHART: I'm not aware that there's been any decision
or any real discussion on that.
..................
Q Joe, before we get away, before we change the subject,
if I may --
Q Oh, go right ahead. I thought we had. Excuse me.
Q -- we're trying, but --
MR. LOCKHART: It was a good try.
Q All right, please. Scott, I defer to you always.
Q If I may -- did you get that down in the transcript, "I
defer to you always"?
Q Joe, the White House received a complete copy of the
Cox report in January, is that correct?
MR. LOCKHART: No. We received a written summary and some
recommendations.
Q I -- that's all you received from the Cox panel, was a
written summary?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, we received the classified version, and
we've been working with the Hill and the relevant agencies on
declassification.
Q So the White House received a complete classified
version of the Cox report --
MR. LOCKHART: When did we get that? Not in January, but --
MR. LEAVY: I'm not sure when the classification process
started, but we've been working with them at the agencies for a
couple months.
Q So, but the President received something like an
executive summary.
MR. LEAVY: Yes.
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
Q All right. How was that prepared, and was it prepared
from the full Cox text?
MR. LEAVY: It was written -- it did not include that one
instance in the 1990s we talked about. It did not include that.
Q And it was written here in the White House? Somebody
in the NSC staff condensed the Cox report into an executive
summary for the President --
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
Q -- and it dropped which bit?
MR. LEAVY: It didn't have -- the one piece that Joe is
talking about, that one specific allegation --
MR. LOCKHART: The mid-'0s incident --
Q The Lee incident.
MR. LOCKHART: No. No, not the Lee incident. This is
reporting on a potential compromise of some nuclear technology
that, when it was looked at, the FBI could find neither a
suspect, nor where the information may have come from. And
that's all I can say because of classification reasons.
Q But the only allegation that directly pertained to his
presidency was dropped from the summary that was provided to him?
I'm just asking --
MR. LOCKHART: Listen, I'd have to go back and look at that.
And I think -- because it wasn't -- and again, I think you have
to -- whether it was or wasn't, and I'll have to establish that,
you have to look at the context of this. You know, this was a --
as part of a review of what we can do about security at the labs.
And this is, for better or worse, an allegation that, as I said,
they couldn't find a suspect, nor where it may have come from.
So --
................
Q You were asked about Berger's specific decision not to
brief the President on this matter; also apparently, reportedly
Freeh knew about it and Pena knew about it -- and I would assume
if Freeh knew about it, Reno also knew. Is the President
satisfied as a general matter -- this was all in 1997 and the
President came up in 1999 and said he knew of no particular
instance of Chinese spying -- is he satisfied as a general matter
that his aides kept him as well informed about this as he feels
he needed to be?
MR. LOCKHART: Yes. As I said, in a general manner, yes. I
think you can always find something that because it becomes a
story, or because it generates some interest, that you wish you
knew about. But I think these are judgment questions and those
who make those judgments the President has confidence in.
Q One of the things that's tough in putting all this
together, Joe, is that obviously the President was determined to
improve relations with China, to move much closer to China; you
had in the midst of all this the allegations about campaign
finance, foreign money all that sort of thing, and it seems like
it would have been quite important for someone to mention that
there was also information about ongoing Chinese espionage.
MR. LOCKHART: I think -- let me take another shot at
explaining this. The President was certainly aware that China,
other countries, would seek and were seeking to acquire sensitive
information.
As far as this particular case -- and it's at the time the
only one -- there frankly -- the judgment was made there wasn't
enough there, because there wasn't a suspect, there wasn't really
an investigation, they didn't know where it came from, and so
that was a judgment.
Q Is that the only case that you know of during this
administration of Chinese -- attempted or suspected Chinese
espionage?
MR. LOCKHART: Only one that involves nuclear and the labs,
with the exception of there obviously was some information that
came to light after the press conference involving some
computers.
.................
Q I have a question about Janet Reno's health. I feel
sorry for the lady. We've seen her here; she's obviously really
suffering. Parkinson's Disease is a very serious disease which
can affect you physically as well as mentally. Does the White
House have any assessment at how she'll be able to perform and
how much longer she'll be able to perform.
MR. LOCKHART: She's able to perform well, which is why the
President has confidence in her.
Q -- a more full medical assessment of her --
MR. LOCKHART: I'd refer you to the Justice Department to
ask that question.
....................
END
2:11 P.M. EDT
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
