The White House Briefing Room
August 10, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING BY BARRY TOIV AND DAVID LEAVY The Briefing Room 2:43 P.M. EDT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August
10, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING BY
BARRY TOIV AND DAVID LEAVY
The Briefing Room
2:43 P.M. EDT
MR. TOIV: We're going to start the briefing, but actually, David
is going to pick it up -- he has an announcement.
MR. LEAVY: Thank you, Barry. The United States has designated
Ariana Afghan Airlines under the Taliban sanctions today, blocking all of
Ariana's assets within U.S. jurisdiction and making clear that no U.S.
entity or individual can engage in business transactions with Ariana Afghan
Airlines. These sanctions are in response to the Taliban's continued
provision of safe haven to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.
These sanctions are going into place immediately.
Just in way of background, Ariana is the only international
carrier with regular flights in and out of Afghanistan. As such, we're
concerned about the role it may play in ferrying material, personnel and
finances to the Taliban. As part of our strategy to isolate bin Laden and
his supporters, we'll continue to apply sanctions against him and those who
support and assist him in carrying out his acts of violence.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets and Control,
OFAC, is reviewing reports that some foreign banks, businesses and
individuals, including persons in the Middle East, are acting for or on
behalf of Mr. bin Laden and providing material or financial support for his
violent acts. Should these reports prove true, and if these entities and
individuals do not cease their support to Osam bin Laden, they could face
the same sanctions as the announcement today.
Q What can you tell us about these possible threats of strikes
across the border into U.S. interests in Pakistan?
MR. LEAVY: There was a report yesterday that I would steer you
away from. There's no substance to it. I think, as you all know from
dealing with us, we don't comment on commando raids or special operations,
but I wouldn't give any credence to this particular report.
Q The State Department today said that extremists in
Afghanistan may be planning attacks against U.S. interests.
MR. LEAVY: Yes, the State Department put out, I think,
yesterday, a general travel warning. But I think you're referring to the
Qatari television story.
Q No, no, no, I wasn't. I was referring to the State
Department.
MR. LEAVY: I think, as they've done several times in the last
several weeks, given the increased threat from Mr. bin Laden and his
terrorist network, they want to make clear to all travelers overseas to
proceed with caution.
Q What's the practical application of the airline sanctions?
Does that airline operate in the United States?
MR. LEAVY: Yes -- let me just -- the Treasury has identified
about $500,000 so far in U.S. money that would be blocked. Beyond that,
though, Josh, it's really an important signal to send that we will not
allow the infrastructure of these terrorist networks to operate unabated;
that we will take action; that when we have identified businesses or
persons who are affiliated with bin Laden or supporting his network, we
will act.
Just to give you a little bit more, Ariana has regular flights to
India and the United Arab Emirates. We'll be talking with those countries
in the days ahead to apply similar sanctions.
Q Was that half a million dollars?
Q They don't fly in here?
MR. LEAVY: Ariana does have some money in the U.S., which is now
blocked, some assets. And we've identified about $500,000, half a million
so far.
Q But they don't fly in and out of here?
MR. LEAVY: They do not fly in and out of the United States that
I'm aware of. I'll check that, Mara.
Q Do you have specific information that they, in fact, have
done something to supply Osama bin Laden?
MR. LEAVY: The appropriate authorities, both at Justice, State
and Treasury made a determination that -- if you remember about a month
ago, the President signed sanctions on the Taliban, which basically blocked
any of their assets or their business dealings with the United States.
Under that provision and those orders, the appropriate authorities were
looking at additional entities -- they identified Ariana as one that has
supported or is linked to the bin Laden network. They made that
determination over the weekend and we're taking the action today.
Q So you do have specific information that they have helped
supply materials to Osama bin Laden?
MR. LEAVY: We wouldn't be taking the action today if they
weren't affiliated and supporting the bin Laden network and the Taliban. I
don't have any specific examples I'm prepared to go into today, but we
wouldn't be taking this action if there wasn't significant concern.
Q Do we know his whereabouts?
MR. LEAVY: I don't want to comment on his whereabouts right now.
I do know where we want him to be, and that's justice and in New York --
brought to justice. All right.
Q You want to talk about the India --
MR. LEAVY: I'm happy to.
Q What more do we know about the situation with the shootdown
of the aircraft, and has the U.S. been in touch with them?
MR. LEAVY: I can't give you any independent confirmation of the
airplane shootdown. Our ambassadors in the embassies in both countries
have been in touch with both sides. We are urging restraint and prudence.
Clearly, no one benefits from the rise in tensions, and when there is an
absence of dialogue between the two sides, instances like this can take
place. We will be making clear in the coming days that a resumption of the
Lahore dialogue is in the interest of both sides and they hopefully can get
back to that soon.
Logistical announcements. Stills of in-house pool please gather
at briefing room door now for escort to Tour de France photo op.
Q Is there any carrot or other inducement the U.S. can put out
there to get India and Pakistan to return to the Lahore process?
MR. LEAVY: Well, I don't think it's for us to try to induce them
to get back to dialogue. It's clear that it's in the interests of both
sides. The Lahore declaration made clear that economic cooperation,
cultural exchanges, putting all the territorial disputes on the table for
the two sides to work out are clearly in the interests of both the peoples
of India and Pakistan. We've made clear on a number of occasions that the
best way to reduce tensions and move forward is direct dialogue between the
two parties. So that's where the focus of our contacts will be.
Q David, whether or not you've got independent confirmation of
the actual shootdown, have you seen any additional mobilization on either
side?
MR. LEAVY: No.
Q Do you see it perhaps as an opportunistic tit-for-tat for
the Indian plane that was shot down in the Kargil conflict?
MR. LEAVY: I don't think it's for me to characterize the motives
or to be able to confirm independently from here what happened in this
specific case. As I said earlier, John, more broadly, no one benefits from
increased tensions. No one benefits from an absence of dialogue. No one's
security and prosperity will be enhanced from the absence of direct talks.
Clearly, it's in the interest of both the people of India and the people of
Pakistan, and the international community, if both sides sit down; if both
sides can get back to the very positive steps that were taken at Lahore.
Prime Minster Vajpayee took the courageous step of going to Lahore -- that
he had a very important meeting with Prime Minster Sharif. It's time we
get back to that.
Q David, what are these kinds of escalations -- what impact do
they have on the President's desire, plans or possible travel to the
region?
MR. LEAVY: Well, the President, as you remember when Prime
Minister Sharif was here on July 4th made his intention known that he does
want to travel to the region. I don't have any dates for you, but I don't
think the latest incident today will impact those plans. He believes that
it's important to go. We have a lot of interests, irrespective of the
latest conflict with both countries. The President wants to go and I think
it is his intention to go.
Barry, anything at your end?
MR. TOIV: Maybe not.
Q How willing -- how far is the administration willing to go
in compromising on the Republican tax bill?
MR. TOIV: Well, as you know, the President has made it very
clear that he thinks we ought to do first things first. He thinks we ought
to focus on paying down the debt; we ought to focus on addressing the
challenges facing Medicare and Social Security. And then after we've
accomplished that and after we've addressed needs relating to defense and
education and other priorities, he believes that there ought to be room for
a tax cut. It ought to be one that is limited so that we can afford these
other priorities.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have passed now a bloated
nearly $900-billion tax cut that does not allow the country to address any
of these challenges. And the President believes that we need to limit
this. And he has said that he is willing to listen to other ideas.
Democrats on the Hill have proposed between $250 billion and, I believe,
$295 billion in tax cuts. They're somewhat different from his. There are
some similarities, but there are some differences. The Vice President has
presented some ideas of his own, actually. And certainly the President,
once we have addressed these other challenges, the President is willing to
listen to other ideas for how you would formulate that tax cut in that
range of $250 billion to $300 billion.
Q So no compromise on the total, but lots of compromise
possibly on the nature of the tax cut?
MR. TOIV: Well, I don't want to stress that too much because the
President's tax cut is aimed at encouraging savings. It's aimed primarily
at middle class Americans. He thinks that's the right kind of tax cut, but
he's willing to listen to other ideas.
Q But Barry, I don't know if the President is on record on
this or not, but if the Republicans send up the Breaux Commission Medicare
plan, would he veto that?
MR. TOIV: Well, I haven't seen that -- I haven't seen any --
Q That's under consideration.
MR. TOIV: Well, there's a long way from under consideration to
sending it up here. The President has his own Medicare plan, which he
thinks is the right way to go. His plan would extend solvency past 2025.
It provides for a possible prescription drug benefit. The Breaux plan, I
have not seen -- if that's under consideration, that's not something that's
been sent up here. But it certainly does not meet the standards that the
President's plan does.
Q Just to follow up, if the Republicans send you the tax plan
and you veto it, and nothing else happens, you'll be able to pay down the
debt, but you won't be able to do what he wants on Medicare or on Social
Security. How urgent is it for the President to actually have negotiations
with the Republicans this year so those things happen?
MR. TOIV: Well, the President has said he would like to -- when
they come back, he would like to get to work on a Medicare plan that
actually meets the challenges -- that extends solvency the way that he has
proposed, that provides for a prescription drug benefit. He would like to
get started on that as soon as we can get started.
Q Right, but you've also said that if nothing happens, it
wouldn't be so bad because at least the debt gets paid down automatically.
MR. TOIV: Well, I think what we've said is that if there is no
tax cut this year, that would result in additional debt being paid down,
that would be far preferable to the $900-billion tax cut that the
Republicans have proposed. It is not the President's most desired outcome.
The most desired outcome is the kind of structure that I've talked about,
which addresses Medicare, Social Security, pays down the debt and does
allow for a reasonable tax cut aimed primarily at the middle class.
Q Barry, is the President aware of this latest shooting
incident today in California where it appears a teenager armed with an
assault weapon walked into a Jewish community center and shot several
children?
MR. TOIV: Yes, we've seen the news reports. He just got back, as
you know, and I haven't had a chance to talk to him, so I'm not sure if he
had a chance to hear about it.
Q -- later today?
MR. TOIV: I don't know.
Q Barry, you have expressed doubts before about going ahead
with the tax cut for a surplus that is not yet in hand. What happens if
that surplus doesn't, in fact, materialize? What happens to the
administration's plan to spend $320-some-odd billion on Medicare?
MR. TOIV: Well, the President's plan calls for paying down far
more debt than the Republicans' plan. The President's plan foresees that
possibility much more clearly than the Republican plan. The Republican
plan is for a $900-billion tax cut that wipes out any of the non-Social
Security surplus -- just wipes it out completely, and if the surpluses
don't materialize, you're headed into deficit territory.
The President's plan is carefully drawn so that it's far more
cautious in how it deals with the surpluses so that, in fact, you could
adjust to that.
Q But what do you do if, in fact, let's say you get half the
surplus? You're going to give up the tax cut, or are you going to give up
the $300 some odd billion you're going to spend on Medicare? Which one
goes first? Have you given any thought to --
MR. TOIV: You are so far down the road that I can't quite get
there with you. (Laughter.)
Q Well, but you've already made plans to spend the money.
MR. TOIV: We have made plans for paying down most of the surplus
in debt. We've made plans for paying down three out of every four dollars
in debt to pay down the debt.
Q But you're planning to spend all of the non-Social Security
surplus, are you not?
MR. TOIV: We are planning to pay down -- to use three-quarters
of it to pay down the debt, and, yes, to use a portion of that amount to
length the life of the Medicare trust fund. We think that's an appropriate
thing to do.
Q Barry, there seems like there's been a real emphasis in
recent days and even weeks on disadvantaged areas of the country -- this
event today, the New Markets tour -- and from the administration that is
often focused on the middle class, I'm just wondering what accounts for a
relatively recent change in emphasis there?
MR. TOIV: I would disagree with you that this is a change in
emphasis. This administration has done some very important things to try
and lift up people and communities in poverty. I could -- let me just
start with empowerment zones and enterprise communities, a program that has
provided tax benefits and other benefits to cities and rural areas in an
effort to provide economic development there. On an individual level, the
Earned Income Tax Credit, which is designed to help low-income working
families; the Community Development Financial Institutions, which, like New
Markets, is designed to bring capital into poor areas that have not come
along with the recovery that's taken place elsewhere. There are a number
of other administration initiatives that have been enacted which are aimed
at low-income communities, and are designed to help provide economic
recovery there.
There's a lot that needs to be done, though, and the New Markets
Initiative is one way of going at that problem by relying on the private
sector to a large degree -- sometimes in partnership with the federal
government -- not only to come into these areas, to come into low-income
areas -- not only just for the benefit of those areas, but with themselves
having the profit motive, because this is a way of keeping the recovery
going and doing more and better business themselves.
Today's event that the President and the Vice President did today
was a perfect example of that. This is a program, the BusinessLINC program
-- BusinessLINC -- that is going to have larger existing businesses help
out new businesses that need technical expertise, that don't have that kind
of experience that you sometimes need to keep a business going, to help it
thrive. It's going to bring them together. And it's going to be happening
all over the country. And we're hoping it's going to be successful.
Q Barry, on -- you mentioned rural areas. On the question of
farm aid, has the administration decided to take a different view, yet, on
emergency aid to farmers?
MR. TOIV: Different from what?
Q As opposed to disaster relief for drought. The position the
Vice President took, as opposed to the administration.
MR. TOIV: Oh, you mean on the legislation that's in the Congress
that -- yes, yes. No, we are looking very closely at that. Obviously, the
administration believes that there is a long-term problem here, and that is
that the so-called Freedom To Farm Act, enacted just a few years ago, took
away the safety net for farmers, and the President, since the day he was
forced to sign it because had he not signed it, the law would have reverted
to the law that had been in place decades earlier, would have been a total
disaster for farmers.
The law that he signed at that time, he said we need to fix this
problem, and that has not happened yet, and we need to do that. At the
same time, we recognize that there is a serious, as we did last year, that
there is a serious problem facing farmers now, and we are looking at what
needs to be done and on what basis to provide the assistance that clearly
needs to be provided.
Q So you have not changed your view on the fact that there is
no need for emergency spending over the short-term?
MR. TOIV: We're looking at that, and we're going to determine in
the next several weeks what is needed and exactly how much is needed and
exactly what basis to provide it on. But the problem with the Republican
proposal that's been passed is that it is based on the same principles that
govern the Freedom To Farm Act and they don't address the longer-term
issues.
Q Well, neither did the Democratic plan for $11 billion in
emergency aid.
MR. TOIV: The Democratic plan is designed in a way that while it
is not the permanent approach that we need, it is designed in such a way as
to meet some of the needs that are directly caused by the Freedom To Farm
Act.
Q But you didn't support that, the emergency spending. You
didn't support it.
MR. TOIV: Again, we are looking at the needs out there,
reviewing it, and we're going to determine what we think it appropriate in
terms of providing assistance, and on what basis to provide it.
Q On Lance Armstrong today -- why does the President have
stills only and the Vice President has an event before cameras?
MR. TOIV: The Vice President and Lance Armstrong have important
announcements to make regarding cancer and cancer research, and I think
that is far more worthy of your attention than a photo opportunity.
Q The announcements were more important for the Vice President
than for the President?
MR. TOIV: No, I said that the announcements that they're making
are more worthy of your attention than a photo opportunity because this is
an announcement that the Vice President is making.
Q And why is he making it, though?
MR. TOIV: Why is he making it? Cancer research is an issue that
the Vice President has spent a lot of time on and a lot of energy on as
Vice President and, frankly, as a member of Congress, as well, and this is
an issue that he's worked on and that's why he's making the announcement.
Q More than the President?
MR. TOIV: Well, the President has worked on this issue, too, and
in this case the Vice President is making the announcement.
Q Barry, what do you make of Pat Robertson's suggestion that
the administration's take out known terrorists like Milosevic and Saddam
Hussein?
MR. TOIV: I don't think I need David to get up here to say that
we're not going to be changing our policy on that.
Q What's the President's level of concern on the Pakistani
shootdown? And is he worried that despite his lengthy conversations with
Prime Minister Sharif that there continue to be what appear to be
provocative acts between the two countries?
MR. LEAVY: I'm sorry, Jim, can you repeat it? I apologize.
Q What's the President's level of concern on the Pakistani
shootdown? And is he concerned that despite his lengthy meetings with
Prime Minister Sharif, that there continue to be provocative acts between
the two countries?
MR. LEAVY: Well, as I said earlier, the President believes that
restraint, dialogue must carry the day, that any additional absence of
dialogue is only going to allow for these kinds of incidents to arise. I
don't want to express undue alarm here. It's obviously an unfortunate
incident. But really, what we have to do is look forward to getting back
to the Lahore process. The President's being kept up to speed as
appropriate by Mr. Berger.
Q Is Sandy going to call the Prime Ministers, or shouldn't he
say something to them, to let them know we're unhappy about this?
MR. LEAVY: Well, our embassies in both countries are carrying
that message.
Q David, Secretary Albright, in a piece in the New York Times,
said today that the problem in Colombia is a regional problem that needs a
regional solution. What does she mean about regional solution?
MR. LEAVY: Well, I think what the Secretary wanted to make clear
in the piece today, and what we've talked about in terms of Colombia more
broadly, is that the counternarcotics struggle isn't unique to Colombia.
It's not unique to the United States. But it's a hemispheric-wide problem
and needs hemispheric-wide solutions.
We can work together bilaterally, but we also need to work
together multilaterally to meet this challenge. It's not just an issue of
growth and consumption, but also trans-shipment, and that there are
elements that, if the countries of the region work together, we're more apt
to meet the challenge than just going our separate ways.
Q That means that the United States is ready to give Colombia
the $500 million that the Pastrana government has requested to the United
States?
MR. LEAVY: Well, I believe -- Mike, correct me if I'm wrong --
we're giving $500 million FY'99 to Pastrana's government, and then $600
million in FY 2000. Colombia's the third-largest aid recipient, behind
Israel and Egypt, from the United States. So I don't know if there's a
specific --
Q The Secretary of Defense of Colombia, less than a month ago,
came to the United States to request another $500 million for
anti-narcotics --
MR. LEAVY: Let me check on that. Not that I'm aware of.
Q Barry, I've got one more domestic issue. The L.A. Times
reported this morning that Vice President Gore told donors, Democratic
donors on the West Coast that the government investigation of TV and movie
violence was the President's idea and not his, was initiated without his
input. Is the Vice President and his staff out of the loop on that?
MR. TOIV: You know, I have to apologize to you because I was
supposed to get guidance on that and I did not. I will be here tomorrow.
You can ask me again.
Q The White House has repeatedly criticized Republicans for
the inevitable draconian cuts that would have to happen in spending were
there tax cut to be enacted. Well, there's arguments being made that
unless the budget caps are lifted at the end of this fiscal year, nothing
is going to be -- none of the spending bills will be enacted into law. Is
there a possibility that there might be some agreement on the
administration's part to lift the budget caps if the Republicans were
willing to go down a bit on their tax cuts?
MR. TOIV: It's interesting that you talk about draconian
spending cuts, because that happens on two levels, as you know. First of
all, next year, if the President were to sign into law the tax bill that
the Republicans have passed in the Congress, the budget sequester that --
technical word, but that's the across-the-board spending cuts that were
made a part of the budget law back several years ago which are still in
effect, would trigger really very substantial cuts over the next several
years in Medicare, agriculture programs, student loan program, and other
entitlement programs. That's one level of cuts.
The Republicans just passed this tax cut, and if it were enacted
into law, those cuts would be automatically triggered by that legislation.
I think, though, that what you're also talking about is the
massive cuts in discretionary spending, like education and other spending,
that would be required if -- again, if the Republican tax bill were to
pass. And if in the coming fiscal year, though, for fiscal year 2000, the
Republicans are working on bills that have unacceptable cuts in education,
the environment, and a lot of these areas.
The President's budget, which he presented back in February, and
it is still his budget, managed to not raise the caps, managed to provide
the investments that the country needs in areas like education, the
environment, job training, research -- provided those investments without
raising the caps, and we ought to try to stick to that policy.
Q -- ought to and whether you will or whether they will agree
to are two different stories. If you were to agree to break the -- revise
the cap under the 1997 budget law, so that the limit is higher, so spending
could be higher. I mean, can you foresee a scenario where that might
happen as a way of sweetening --
MR. TOIV: Well, that's not -- we're not proposing to do that.
Now, after -- as you know, the President also proposed once we address
Medicare and Social Security and the other issues, the President has said
that in later years that we ought to put back some of the money for
defense, for domestic priority. However, in fiscal year 2000, he has said
there's no need to raise the caps and his budget does not do that.
Where did April go? She was trying to get my attention?
Q I answered it for her.
MR. TOIV: Oh, thank you, Nancy. Anything else?
Q Barry, just one other question -- on tax cuts, you said you
want some agreement with Republicans on military spending -- more spending
on military and education -- before you even start negotiating tax cuts?
Is that what you said earlier?
MR. TOIV: Well, those are -- first of all, the Republican tax
cut would not allow us to provide for the additional defense spending that
the President has called for. In fact, they would fall about $200 billion
short over the next 10 years, and it would also result in deep, deep cuts
in domestic discretionary spending -- in education, the environment, and
many of these other areas.
We are -- it's our view that, first things first, there ought to
be a whole structure that enables you to do all these things. That's one
of the reasons, though, that we believe that you have to limit a tax cut to
the vicinity of $250 to $295 or $300 billion, because if you go beyond
that, then you end up cutting into -- if you don't end up cutting into what
we need to do for Medicare and Social Security, and bringing down the debt,
then you end up cutting into education, defense, and these other
discretionary spending priorities.
Q Why did the President, then, refuse to say on Friday that it
should be limited to that number, when he was asked directly about that
number? And instead, he went off on this tangent about, well, the
Republicans are just doing this in reverse order, and if they go in the
order I want, then we can talk, basically, about the number.
MR. TOIV: Well, to tell you the truth, if you go in the order
we're talking about -- and that is the way that the President wants to go
-- it's, as he has also said, it's just a matter of arithmetic. This is
what you come down to. It leaves you with $250 billion to $300 billion to
spend after you've addressed these other priorities, to spend on a tax cut
-- which he thinks we ought to do, after we do those other things.
Q -- asked specifically if that meant that he wanted them to
come down to $300 billion.
MR. TOIV: But he has also -- what he has said is that what he
wants to do is look at all those other priorities, and determine what you
need for those priorities. And his view is that the amount that he has
talked about for these other priorities -- Medicare, Social Security,
education, defense -- that once we get past that, what we're going to have
left, if you just do the arithmetic, is somewhere between $250 billion and
$300 billion. And, boy, I know nobody wants to hear any more about this.
(Laughter.)
Thank you.
END 3:15 P.M. EDT