THE WHITE HOUSE (J fj 1V'

M
" '}

Office of THE VICE PRESIDENT

Internal Transcript January 28, 2002

INTERVIEW OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

BY JOHN KING, CNN
Mrs. Cheney's Office
Eisenhower Executive Office Building

2:27 P.M. EST

Q Mr. Vice President, first and foremost, thank you for

joining us; I know you're quite busy.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, John. It's good to be here.
Q Let's start on the issue that's making a lot of
headlines in town, a great deal of debate about the task force
you headed on energy policy, whether you should turn over to the
General Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of Congress --
all the papers about who you met with, when you met with them,
what was discussed at those meetings.
You say no, that there's a principle here that you should be
able to have candid discussions about making policy. Some
Democrats in Congress, even a few Republicans, say you should
release those documents. What's the fight about; why not?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, there is- an_important principle
involved here, John. We've given GAO a lot of information. They
have jurisdiction over statutory agencies, agencies created by
act of Congress. And we've given them information on the amount
of money that was spent and how it was spent.
What they're asking for that we refuse to give up is
information about my meetings as Vice President, where I sat down
with labor leaders, energy industry reps, public officials,
governors, congressmen, senators. And their demand has been
based on something Henry Waxman wanted them to do -- the
Democratic congressman from California -- a list of everybody I
met with, what we talked about, what kind of advice I received,
notes and minutes of any of those meetings.
Now, it's my judgment, and the President shares this view,
that if we start down that road, we're setting a terrible
precedent. We're saying THE VICE PRESIDENT cannot have 000368
confidential meetings; that I can't meet with anybody without
telling Henry Waxman I met with him. Well, what was discussed?
Now, there's nothing secret about what we did with respect
to our energy group. We came in; the first week we were here,
the President asked me to pull together a comprehensive national
energy policy. We did that, using government officials; produced
a good report that's very public, we printed thousands of copies
of it, put it out all over town, 105 separate recommendations.
That's what the debate ought to be on, is the substance of
the report, not how we got to the report or who told us what as
we put the report together.
Q But the fight pre-dates the collapse of Enron, but you
understand the new -- but you understand the new policy. You
say, nothing to do with Enron; Democrats on Capitol Hill say,
maybe it does, we want to see, we don't know. Did these guys do
anything to help Enron? Were you privy to any information that
could have indicated their finances were trouble? Did you do
anything from a policy standpoint to help Enron?
Obviously, it has gotten extra political juice because of
Enron.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: But it's a classic sort of feeding
frenzy in Washington. Nobody has got a charge to make, nobody
did anything wrong. Enron didn't receive any special treatment.
They were treated and dealt with just like a lot of other energy
companies were that we had talked to during this process.
Some people suggest, well, you shouldn't talk to energy
companies. Really? You know, we're trying to put together a
comprehensive national energy policy. If we're going to have new
technologies it will be because private energy companies develop
it. If we're going to produce more oil-and gas, it'll be because
they do it. If we're going to build more utilities, it'll be the
private sector that does it. You've got to talk to them.
But the suggestion that somehow something improper occurred
here simply isn't valid. Now, setting Enron aside for a minute,
we went through this debate with Henry Waxman and the GAO last
summer. We said, no, we're not going to give it to you. And the
GAO at that point sort of went quiet, they kind of backed-off
because I think they know they've got a weak case. All of the
attorneys that have reviewed this -- the Justice Department, the
White House Counsel's Office and so forth -- have concluded that
the GAO doesn't have the authority they're seeking to exercise
here.
What's happened now, since Enron collapsed, is the
suggestion that somehow now the GAO ought to come back and get
that information. »
000369
 But the collapse of Enron in no way, shape or form affects
the basic principle we're trying to protect here. This is about
the ability of future Presidents and Vice Presidents to do their
job. And they've always had the capacity in the past to get
honest, unvarnished advice, to have people come in and speak the
truth without fear that what they say is going to appear on the
front page of the newspapers the next morning, and we need to
preserve that principle.
Q May not affect the principle, in your words, but it
could affect the politics. You have the President's support
unequivocally on this issue, but there are some Republicans on
the Hill who say they agree with you 100 percent on the
principle, they're a little worried, in a congressional election
year with the control of Congress so closely contested, that.the
Democrats will say, the Bush administration is trying to protect
its buddies, big business buddies, big oil business buddies, big
Enron buddies. You do understand the politics of this?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, but I beg to differ. I think
it's bad politics to do something you believe is fundamentally
wrong. I've been in town now for, off and on for 34 years. And
during that period of time there has been a constant, steady
erosion of the prerogatives and the power of the Oval Office, and
a continual encroachment by Congress -- War Powers Act, Anti-
Impoundment and Budget Control Act, previous instances where
Presidents have given up, if you will, important principles.
So the office is weaker today than it was 30, 35 years ago.
What we're committed to is to make sure we preserve the office,
at least as strong as we found it, for our successors. And it
makes, again, absolutely no sense for us to say, well, there's
some political unrest, therefore we ought to compromise on a
basic fundamental principle.
The fact of the matter is, I mean if you're looking, for
example, who likes our report or are there places where there is
concurrence, if you will, between what somebody recommended --
look at the Sierra Club. They had an energy policy that had 12
recommendations in it, and 11 found their way into our report.
So the point is, let's go debate the policy. It's a good
policy, our rationale is laid out there for it; nobody got any
special treatment, everybody was free to come in and tell us what
they thought. Enron, I'm sure, got some things they agreed with
are in the report, but there were things they didn't get. They
wanted us to support the Kyoto treaty; we didn't support the
Kyoto treaty, we said no. They wanted mandatory carbon dioxide
emissions, we said no -- bad policy. If we thought it was bad
policy for the country, we didn't do it. If we thought it was
good policy for the country, we did.

000370
 But in the end, there are the recommendations, 105 strong,
and let's go debate those recommendations. Let's not make it
I impossible for future Vice Presidents, for example, to talk to
people in confidence.
Q You said, debate the principles. Let's move on. In
his State of the Union address to the Congress, the President
will discuss his plan for the year ahead. Included in that will
be his economic ideas for the country -- in recession right now.
He has mentioned in his travels the energy plan is one way,
in his view -- more long-term than short-term -- but one of_the
things that needs to be done. In his new budget, this President
proposes an increase of spending, I think it's around 9 percent.
There was a fight when you first came to town, that you thought
that Congress wanted to spend too much when it wanted to spend 8
percent. What has happened? Some would say that's hardly
conservative.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, of course the biggest change has
been the events of 9/11. We're at war. We've had to conduct
major military operations halfway around the globe in Afghanistan
since September llth; we're running worldwide intelligence
operations trying to wrap-up this al Qaeda terrorist network that
is some 65 or 70 countries. We've just gotten a good start; it's
a good start, but it is only a beginning.
| So we badly need to spend whatever it takes to win the_w
-" I think that's our top national priority. I think the American
people believe that that's the number one priority, as well, too.
Second, we also have to be concerned about defending the
homeland, homeland security. And, again, a whole new area that
didn't really exist for spending prior to September llth, but
because of the attacks on New York and Washington, thousands of
Americans that were slaughtered, the potential for future attacks-
-- which is very real -- we think it's more important than ever
that we expend funds to improve our defenses against biological
warfare, with the possibility of some other kind of weapon of
mass destruction, nuclear weapon, for example, in the hands of
terrorists.
We've got to do a lot to beef-up our public health services
all around the country. We've got to do a lot to help the first-
responders, the local police and fire units that have the special
burden of taking on these problems at the very beginning of a
crisis. So there are new demands that didn't exist, and those
are reflected in the budget.
Now, separate and apart from that, we also are going
forward, the other third priority the President talked about has
to do with the economy. And we really believe that the events of
September llth did deepen the recession, prolong the recession,

000371
if you will. We want to correct that and move aggressively to
restore jobs and make sure we have adequate supplies of energy
and so forth.
Q And in doing so, you project deficit spending for
several years to come. As a member of Congress, you didn't think
deficit spending was such a good idea. Obviously, you think
we're in a remarkable time right now. But the Democrats see an
issue here in the congressional election year, they say Bill
Clinton left a big surplus, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have
already put us back into deficit spending. How do you deal with
that argument in the year ahead as you have competing economic
views, especially around the idea of surpluses and deficits?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, Bill Clinton also planted the
seeds of the recession. The slow-down began in 2000, before we
ever arrived in office. The actual recession hit in the spring
of last year, the spring of 2001. The recession is what has
caused the fall-off in revenues; that's the number one cause of
it.
And the answer to that is to resume economic growth, to
adopt policies similar to the tax cut that we adopted last year,
similar to the stimulus proposals the President made last fall
that will allow us to grow our way out of this. And if we're
able to do that, we can meet our requirements and, at the same
time, restore the overall health of the economy.
But we've always said -- the President has always said, I've
always said -- that we want a balanced budget. The only
exceptions: war, recession, national emergency. We've had all
three.
Q People draw a lot of parallels to the first President
Bush: highly popular because of a war, perhaps at risk
politically because of a slow economy at. home. You're in a
unique position. You served in the prior Bush administration as
the Defense Secretary during the Persian Gulf War; you're now THE
VICE PRESIDENT in this administration. Do you see this President
drawing on the lessons from his father, in terms of not allowing
the impression to take hold that he "doesn't care" about the
economy? I'm sure you find that an unfair characterization of
the former President Bush, but many voters came to that belief.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, I think all
administrations learn from the past, I hope we do. But I always
felt, frankly, that the criticism of President Bush back in '91-
'92 frame was unwarranted and unjustified. And that, in fact,
the very quarter that the election was held in, we had robust
economic growth, almost 4 percent in real terms. And, yet, there
was this drum fire of criticism that somehow the economy was in
trouble. But those are -- that's history.
000372
 What we have here is a President who is absolutely committed
to dealing both on the international side in fulfilling his
obligations as Commander-in-Chief, but also on the messy side.
It's a two-front war, a three-front war almost. You've got the
struggle overseas, you've got homeland defense here, but you've
also got the need to pursue economic recovery. Because in the
final analysis, our ability to finance the battle with the
terrorists and to guarantee our safety here at home turns on
whether or not we've got the resources to do that, and that's
ultimately a function of the economy.
Q Let's move on to the war, and try to move through a lot
of ground quickly. Chairman Karzai, the head of the Afghan
interim government is here today. One of his issues is, is he
thinks this international security force should not be about
4,500 to 5,000 troops, but should be perhaps as many as 25,000 or
30,000 troops, and include a significant contingent of U.S. •
troops. Any chance that he will get his way? And should there
be U.S. troops in a significant number as part of that?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We still have got a lot to do in
Afghanistan to root out the last of al Qaeda. We can wrap up the
Taliban, hopefully find Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. The
role of the international security force is different. That's
really peacekeepers. They're there to provide help and
assistance to the new Afghan government.
I think there are, and the President believes there are a
couple of major ways we can help here. We're not advocating
putting U.S. troops in as peacekeepers, as part of that
international peacekeeping force. We can be available to come to
their assistance, should they get in trouble. But we really
think one of the keys here is to stand up an Afghan national
army, so that the reconstituted army in Afghanistan. And there,
there's a great deal we can do, in terms of training, joint
exercises, the kind of military-to-military relationships that
we've had many other places around the world.
And that's, I think, the ultimate answer here -- for the
Afghans, is to have their own force that can maintain security in
their country. We'll focus on that. In the meantime, we
appreciate all the efforts of those who are participating in the
international force. But we don't see a large contingent of U.S.
troops as part of that international force. We'll be in
Afghanistan for some time to come. There's a lot of work to do
there.
Q A controversy sometimes in the media, human rights
groups and a debate within the National Security Council and
others about what to call these detainees being held in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Some say they should be designated as
prisoners as war and that, therefore, they would get some
additional rights than they have right now, as to how they're
0003^
treated I understand this came up again today at the National
Security Council meeting. Any sense that the administration is
going to change how it designates these people?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you're not supposed to know what
comes up at National Security Council meetings, John, but you
frequently find out. No, there's really no disagreement at the
administration on a couple of key points. We all agree these are
not prisoners of war, these are terrorists. These are people,
some of whom may in fact have been involved in planning or
supporting the attack on the United States on September llth.
Many of them may have been involved in planning future attacks.
But these are bad guys, that have been screened -- pre-screened,
if you will -- in Afghanistan. And those that end up in
Guantanamo we have reason to believe are, in fact, very dangerous
fellows.
The second thing that we all agree with, and the President
has established, is they are being treated humanely. No matter
how bad they are, we are taking care of them in accordance with
the basic standards, if you will, core values that are
established in the Geneva accords.
But we don't believe they ought to be prisoners of war.
They are unlawful combatants. In order to be a lawful combatant,
title of Prisoner of War status, ordinarily you have got_to be
representing the army of a sovereign state, wearing a uniform,
conducting yourself in certain ways, with respect to the conduct
of the war, not attacking civilians. These people don't qualify
on any of those grounds. They don't wear uniforms, they do
attack civilians, coming in in the dark of the night and violate
the rules of law, and therefore aren't entitled to POW status.
There's an issue as to exactly what their legal status ought
to be, whether they ought to be treated as unlawful combatants
under the Geneva Convention, or whether the Convention was
written for other types of conflicts and doesn't apply here. And
that's an interesting debate among the lawyers. But it doesn|t
really affect how they will be treated in Guantanamo. They will
be treated humanely.
Q Somewhat unrelated issue, but it could become more and
more related in the weeks ahead. You say Yasser Arafat knew
about that shipment coming out of Iran, heading toward_the
Palestinian territories, the weapons shipment that obviously in
violation of the Oslo Accords and any effort -- spirit, if you
will — of having a peace agreement. You say he knew about it.
How did he know about it? What's the evidence? And is it an
intercepted communication?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, what I would say -- first of all, I
wouldn't talk about intelligence. I can't do that, obviously, I
wouldn't want to do that. But we do know that people very close
to Mr. Arafat, people high up in the Palestinian Authority, were
in fact involved in this operation. We've all seen the
television interviews of the ship captain, saying that he was
working for the Palestinian Authority.
So there is little doubt that this operation proceeded with
the knowledge, if you will, and acquiescence of the senior people
of the Palestinian Authority.
Q So, then, how do you do business with him, and how do
you -- or should you do business with him, and how do you then go
to a President Musharraf of Pakistan, when India complains, and
say, crackdown, sir, on extremist groups, terrorist groups in
your country; President Arroyo of the Philippines, who has some
U.S. special forces there helping her crackdown on terrorist
groups in your country.
How can you do that, and ask them to do that, take on risky
operations, and still do business with Yasser Arafat, if you
believe he is supporting terrorism?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, that's why there has been as much
of a stir as there has over this. There are several reasons why
Arafat is of concern at this point. He knows what he has to do.
He needs to control the violence emanating from Palestine, Gaza,
the West Bank, against Israeli civilians. We had another attack
just yesterday, where 100 civilians wounded by a suicide bomber.
He has an obligation to try to stamp out those terrorist attacks.
Q You say he has an obligation, but for you to keep
saying that means he hasn't met it.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: He has not met it.
Q At what point do you say, we can't keep saying this,
our words have to mean something?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: He has not met it yet. The next
problem that has arisen is the Karine-A ship that you mentioned,
50 tons of weapons, a lot of C-4 explosive, the only use of
which, presumably, is to make the suicide bombers even more
deadly than they already are, some extended range rockets that
would allow them to hit parts of Israel they haven't been able to
hit up until now.
What's most disturbing about it isn't just the shipment of
arms, it's the fact that it came from Iran, apparently in
conjunction with some activities of Hezbollah, as well. So what
we have here is Yasser Arafat, who is committed under the Oslo
Accords and a number of other agreements in effect, to be part of
the peace process, to represent the Palestinian people in
negotiations with the Israelis to find peace, and arrive at a
settlement. Doing business with Hezbollah and Iran, to

300375
organizations -- one organization and a state that are absolutely
dedicated to ending the peace process. And it is difficult to
take him seriously as an interlocutor in that peace process, if
he's going to conduct himself in that fashion.
That's what's generated, I think, the concern, certainly on
the part of this administration. The President is absolutely
committed to doing everything he can to achieve peace. He is the
first person ever to stand up and call for a Palestinian
homeland. Secretary Powell went and made a very important speech
in mid-December down in Kentucky about this whole peace process.
We designated General Zinni to go out and try to get the process
back on track.
The net result of all this, of course, has been, because of
Yasser Arafat's actions, that no progress has been made, the.
violence level has gone up, and we obviously are giving serious
thought to how we can proceed at this point, given the fact that
Yasser Arafat has not done what he must do.
Q We're short on time, so we need to stop. But yes or
no, or a couple of words, do you have a deadline in your head --
that you won't share with us right now -- as to when Yasser
Arafat has to do something?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It would be inappropriate to predict
what we will or won't do. We are concerned and, therefore, this
is an issue we've been reviewing.
Q Thank you very much for your time.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

END 2 : 4 8 P.M. EST

000376