| The White House President George W. Bush |
Print this document |
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 28, 2001
Press Briefing
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
2:40 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Did I miss something? Is this Friday in the Briefing Room? I
have no opening statement, so I'll be happy to get right to questions.
Q I just happen to -- I couldn't help but notice that the Budget Director says
that the U.S. is unlikely to return to a balanced budget until possibly 2005.
MR. FLEISCHER: And that is exactly why the President said today how important it
is that the Senate take action to pass a stimulus bill, so growth can be
provided so that that does not come to be.
There is no question that surpluses are driven by growth. And the President has
always believed that the key to surpluses is growth. Failure to have growth --
as we are now in a recession, entered a recession in March -- will lead to
diminution of surpluses. And the best way to return to an era of surpluses and
prosperity is for the Senate to pass a stimulus plan.
Q If I may follow up, the fear, of course, is that the compromise that's being
talked about won't actually stimulate anything.
MR. FLEISCHER: And that's again why the President is calling on the Senate to
pass something that is along the lines of what he proposed, which he outlined
today in his speech to the farmers; along the lines of something that the House
has passed, which focuses more on stimulus and less on spending, particularly in
order to buy votes because that is what appears to be happening in the Senate
right now, as opposed to a bill that focuses on stimulus for the economy to get
the economy going and growing again.
Q Ari, the President today said -- said again today that countries could face
accountability from the United States if they aid, abet or harbor terrorists.
But he didn't mention, like he did two days ago, countries that produce weapons
of mass destruction. What's the significance of that omission, not mentioning
that this time?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's consistent with what he's always said about that topic.
Q Well, he's mentioned it once now. Everybody made a big deal out of it. And
then he did not announce it today -- he did not mention it today.
MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to those who made a big deal of it. I mean,
that's an indication that --
Q Including myself. And today --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think -- let me go backward on that one. I think what you heard
when the President gave those remarks, which he stands by, of course, was that
you were very familiar with the President using his usual formation --
formulation about those who harbor terrorists, those who house terrorists are
terrorists. You've repeatedly heard that formulation from the President. You've
also repeatedly heard the formulation from the President about the United States
will hold accountable those who develop weapons of mass destruction for their
use, and especially in the cause of terrorism. The President has always said
both statements.
What he said the other day is, he just put both statements together, into one
statement. That's why, in his mind, he said, I've always been saying this. He
just put the two notions together in one paragraph. I don't think where it fits
into a paragraph matters. What matters is the President meant both statements
and that is why he said both statements.
Q Ari, on aviation security, the President said again today that the government
is doing the best it can to meet the deadline. But, apparently, that's not good
enough. And the President has signed a bill that calls for a 60-day deadline to
screen all bags coming through airports. And his Transportation Secretary is
saying, guess what, it's not going to happen, there's no way it can happen.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think he said, it's not going to happen. I think he said
that there are some difficulties in making an artificial deadline of 60 days
reality, given some of the constraints on the acquisition of all the equipment
required. If it was that easy, it would have been done a long time ago.
And that's what the administration is being forthright about; that sometimes
when Congress passes an artificial deadline and says, you have 60 days to do
something that has never been done before, now go get it done -- sometimes that
can be done, sometimes it can't be done. This administration is committed to do
everything possible to try to get it done.
Q Well, then why did the President say when he signed that bill that the country
is going to be secure in the airways -- why did he not say, well, we're going to
get secure at some point, but understand these deadlines may be very difficult
to meet?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because there are a variety of ways to measure security. And,
obviously, if every bag in the hold had been inspected on September 11th, the
attack on September 11th would have still taken place. That's why there are many
different ways to measure security. Inspecting the bags in the hold, every
single bag, is an important priority. The President is committed to it, the
Secretary of Transportation is committed to it, and the government will make
every effort to get it done as quickly as possible.
Q But it's not the whole enchilada when it comes to aviation security?
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, there are many facets that go into aviation security,
including, as the President talked about, increasing the number of air marshals,
cockpit safety, increasing inspections in the hold, better screening, better
standards for the people who enter the airplane and their carry-on baggage --
all of that, for obvious reasons, goes into security. Making sure that we have
good information about people who come into this country from other countries,
and who travel on our airplanes -- all of that goes into security.
Q Can you tell us if and how the President was informed of
Mr. Spann's death,
the CIA agent who was killed in Afghanistan, what his reaction was, and if he
has called the family?
MR. FLEISCHER: I was not there when the President was informed. I would just
presume that he was told at his usual intelligence briefing, one way or another,
by Director Tenet. And the President was aware of the announcement, of course,
the public announcement that the CIA made today. I do not have any information
on any phone calls at this moment.
Q His reaction? And was there a reason he didn't mention this first battlefield
casualty just a couple of hours ago when he spoke to the Farm Bureau and the
country?
MR. FLEISCHER: You have heard the President previously talk about the first
casualties in the war on terrorism took place on September 11th. And that is a
time when some 4,000 Americans were killed up in New York, Americans were killed
at the Pentagon, Americans were killed on Flight 93 in a field in Pennsylvania.
Since then, there are people who have been hurt in accidents, in the battlefield
or in the region, and I just think that the President understands that this
battle began September 11th. There may be more injuries, there may be more
deaths. And the President regrets each and every one.
Q Ari, Prime Minister Aznar said he was willing to study the issue of
extraditing these eight al Qaeda members. Why don't you want to extradite them
to the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has made clear that no one has asked for them
to be extradited at this time. And that is a matter for the Justice Department
to make their determinations about the course of justice, where justice should
be served. And those are determinations that are made by professional
prosecutors and diplomats in terms of the individual facts of individual cases.
Q So it's still possible they could be extradited?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, it depends on the individual facts of individual
cases. Certainly the typical standard for extradition is it was a crime
committed against Americans, or a crime committed in the United States where
someone has fled the United States. If the facts in this case support that, then
that would lend more likelihood of an extradition request. If the facts are
these are members of an al Qaeda cell operating outside the United States whose
crimes they are being charged with do not directly affect the United States,
then there are other jurisdictions that are also appropriate.
So it is always driven by the facts, and the determination will be made by the
Department of Justice. And if extradition is required, requested, the proper
authorities will weigh in on that, in terms of communication with other nations.
But on the case in question here with Spain, there has been no such request made
of Spanish officials.
Q The Prime Minister indicated towards the end of his remarks that he was sort
of consulting with the European Union. It sounded like there may be some type of
compromise in the works because of the European Union's feelings about the death
penalty and military tribunals. Is the administration seeking any kind of
compromise with the European Union to pave the way for extradition of any
suspects --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that was a statement that President Aznar made about
Spain working with the European Union. And I think you have do any follow-ups
with President Aznar, in terms of what he meant and what he said.
Q So the administration is not seeking any type of compromise, paving the way
for the future, to have any European Union countries extradite any suspects to
the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's nothing that I'm aware of, Kelly. But you may want to
ask Justice about that, as well.
Q Ari, during the hearings on Capitol Hill this morning, one of the questions
that came up was, why, during the negotiations -- during the anti-terrorism
legislation, why wasn't Congress informed at that point that it was at least
under consideration, implementing military tribunals?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President in his authority as Commander in Chief has
wide powers to act as he thinks is appropriate for the nation at a time where
national security is paramount interest. And he made decision based on that
authority and based on his responsibilities. It is not always the role of the
administration to consult with all parties. The President has powers granted him
under the Constitution to take actions, as an executive, that he thinks are
appropriate. And that's what he did in this case.
Q Ari, I'm not quite clear on this, the eight al Qaeda members and why we're not
asking for their extradition. Because in the states, anybody who has even been
suspected of being near al Qaeda or having anything to do with anything is being
questioned or detained. Under the President's formulation, if you're a member of
al Qaeda, almost, de facto, you've been trying to attack the United States, or
you've threatened the United States. So why wouldn't we want to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you've gone a little broader there. You began your
question with the answer; you said, "in the States." And these are matters that
are determined by the facts and the circumstances of each individual case of
justice. And somebody who was in the States, of course, is under the American
system of justice. Somebody who is arrested in another nation would come under
America's system of justice only if other facts are present. And that's why it's
always considered on a fact by fact case.
Q You said one of the facts that needed to be present was that they were seeking
to attack the United States or threaten the United States. And under the
President's formulation --
MR. FLEISCHER: It is a direct, chargeable offense against the United States.
Q But being a member of al Qaeda, doesn't that put you in the direct --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, you need to talk to the Department of Justice about the
individual facts, not any broad statement about al Qaeda. The individual facts
that govern justice, jurisprudence and extradition. And the Department of
Justice has jurisdiction.
Q Do you have any comment that the Taliban -- were surrendering in Afghanistan,
what will happen to them? Because Secretary Rumsfeld said that they should not
be let free. And also they might come back in the future again, in a year or so,
against the United States or against Afghanistan.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the Secretary of Defense said that surrenders are being
made to the Northern Alliance, and this is a matter internal with Afghanistan.
And the United States is urging the Northern Alliance to make certain that
people are treated humanely, as is their right, and that's where that matter
stands.
Q If I can just follow up on the eight al Qaeda members. The President just
shook his head when he was asked this morning, did you discuss the extradition?
I just wanted to follow up on that; he didn't answer. Was there no discussion
whatsoever of extradition?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, President Aznar was asked the question by a Spanish reporter,
and he answered it. And that was what he said in the meeting with President
Bush.
Q He said he would study it.
MR. FLEISCHER: The two of them -- what he said publicly is what he also said
privately.
Q And the President had nothing to say in the meeting, as well? He expressed no
opinion or views?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, since the United States has not requested their
extradition, it was mostly for President Aznar to discuss his thoughts and
Spain's. And Spain is the one who has arrested them. And the President
appreciated what President Aznar said.
Q But wouldn't the President use it as an opportunity to explain why he might
want to use a military tribunal, as he has explained to the American people?
Didn't he want to sort of explain that to the Prime Minister?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because you're speculating that this would be a case that would
fit that, and the President has not engaged in that speculation. The President
has said that he wants it as an option. But in the event that there is an
extradition request, then I think that becomes a relevant moment and a relevant
issue. But again, given the facts of each individual case, only if officials at
the Justice Department think it is a matter for extradition would that become
relevant. Since nobody has asked for them to be extradited, it wasn't relevant.
Q Are you not asking because you don't want to be turned down? I mean, is that
what's going on here?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. It's -- again, each case is an individual case, and you would
have to talk to the Department of Justice to find out the facts on any one
individual's arrest. The United States is not asking for every person arrested
all around the world to be brought to America.
Q If it wasn't a relevant part of the discussion, why did the Prime Minister
raise it himself?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because he knew that the press would ask it. It made it relevant
in the sense that the press is going to talk about this.
Q The President made a decision not to say anything about it, so that it
wouldn't come up in questions?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the President has always thanked people for their
cooperation in the war on terrorism. The President has always made it a point
that other nations are helping in the war by arresting people. And arrests have
been made. Arrests aren't only made in Spain. Arrests have been made in many
other nations. And the President, in those cases, has not talked about
extradition, unless the United States were to make a request.
There are arrests going on in the war on terrorism around the world. The
President is very pleased by that. He was very pleased, and he thanked President
Aznar for the arrests in Spain as very helpful in the fight against terrorism.
You shouldn't look at the arrests in Spain any differently than you would look
at the arrests in any other nation. If there is something that suggests the
United States would need to extradite, we will inform you of it. We have not
made such a request to Spain, nor have we made a request to any of the other
nations involved. With the exception of the Algerian.
Q The Spanish magistrate handling the case has said that these individuals are
directly linked to the September 11th attacks on the United States. So the
Spanish justice system is satisfied that they are linked to a crime against
America.
MR. FLEISCHER: And that is why I have said that you need to talk to the
Department of Justice to get the Department of Justice, who is charged with
responsibility in this matter for reviewing facts and circumstances of any
arrest, to determine whether or not there will be anything involving
extradition. If there is, then I submit to you, this becomes relevant. Until
then, it's speculation.
Q Why didn't the President use this face-to-face meeting, though? Because if it
does become relevant, and the U.S. does want to extradite these individuals,
then there is the issue about the potential use of military tribunals. Wouldn't
the President want to use his --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President did use the face-to-face meeting to thank President
Aznar for their arrests, because it was very helpful in the war on terrorism,
just as he has thanked many nations around the world who have arrested people.
But I remind you that the President is not seeking the return to America, or the
bringing to America of everybody arrested everywhere in the world. If that does
happen, it will happen because of the facts and the circumstances of the
individual case, and you will know all about it.
Q Ari, back on the stimulus package. Senator Daschle today decreased his demand
for new spending on homeland security from $15 billion to $7.5 billion. He also
said he would be willing to take that out of the stimulus package. And I presume
put it somewhere else. Does that make the President any more likely to accept
more spending than he has indicated before?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it is a sign that people are listening to the President's
message because they understand that if they violate the agreement they have
promised to honor, the President will veto the legislation, as he has made
repeatedly clear. So it's movement in the right direction, but there is
additional movement to be made in order for the Senate to be able to pass a
spending bill that keeps the agreement they promised.
Q But what I'm wondering is, does this mean the President is also going to move
in Senator Daschle's direction and possibly offer to spend some more than he has
previously offered?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has already moved in the direction of those who
wanted to spend more money, and that is why there is an agreement in place that
should be honored. And that agreement was to spend more money in the wake of the
attack on September 11th, and that's why the appropriations accounts were
increased to $686 billion, and an additional $40 billion. That was all because
the President moved in the direction of those who wanted to spend more to fully
fund the war on terrorism, including the war on the home front.
That agreement has been reached. Both parties moved in each other's directions.
Having reached that agreement, it is inappropriate for those who reached it to
say, thank you, now we want more. And that's why the President's message to the
Congress and the to Senate this morning was that the spending has been agreed
to, and it was a good agreement and it should be honored. Now that the spending
is done, it's important to stimulate the economy and provide tax relief to
individuals and to businesses so the economy can grow, so that people don't lose
their jobs, so that surpluses are created once more, and that Congress can
adjourn, having kept its agreements.
Q Ari, does the President support the idea of at least temporarily suspending
collecting the taxes as part of a stimulus plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President addressed that in the Rose Garden. I have nothing
to add beyond what he said.
Q No, actually, he didn't --
Q He side-stepped the question.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what I said -- the President addressed that in the Rose
Garden. (Laughter.)
Q Let me rephrase that.
MR. FLEISCHER: I appreciate the opportunity to directly step.
Q I mean, can't you take a position on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has said it's an interesting idea, but the
President has said that's it's important for the Senate to pass something that
stimulates the economy. The President's vision of what stimulates the economy is
accelerating the income tax cuts for all Americans, for creating a new tax cut
that the President believes should be in the form of an income tax cut for
low-income and middle-income Americans, as well as increased expensing and
increases in the ability of businesses to deduct -- not be covered by the
alternative minimum tax on their taxes.
And, incidentally, I looked up the numbers, Helen, if you remember -- she's not
here, but Helen did raise this issue yesterday, and the numbers are as I
indicated yesterday. In the House-passed bill, which is not precisely identical
to the President's, they had $25 billion over 10 years in expensing, $24 billion
in 10 years in alternative minimum tax relief, $21 billion in something called
Sub-part F, which was not part of the President's proposal, but what has passed
the House. And they had $86 billion in individual income tax relief. Those are
10-year figures.
Q Could you just summarize that? The President is neither for or against it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is for the proposal that he made.
Q Let me try to take this one step further. Senator Daschle also said that he
would -- he and his caucus might support the payroll tax holiday, but only if
the Republicans were prepared to give up on the accelerated rate reductions for
income taxes. Is that a non-starter as far as the White House is concerned?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that is one of the most important ways to stimulate the
economy. The President believes that the recession will be worse if it were not
for the tax cut that was entered into earlier this year, where tax cuts were
made on July 1st, additional tax cuts due on January 1st. But there are others
that need to be accelerated to give more impetus to growth on January 1st.
And the Senate is running out of time to get that done. It's only a matter of a
short number of days, if not just a little bit longer than that -- maybe just a
matter of weeks, if not less -- until the IRS has to send the tax forms to the
American people. The longer the Senate waits to take action on a stimulus, the
harder it is for the IRS to get the tax forms into the hands of the American
people. The Senate does not have forever.
And as the President said in his speech today, he proposed this some seven weeks
ago and since he proposed it, more than 415,000 Americans have lost their jobs.
It's time for the Senate to act.
Q So that trade-off is not acceptable to the --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is a big believer in the need to cut individual
income tax rates as a way to create growth.
Q One more on this subject. You said that Daschle's proposal of cutting it from
$15 billion to $7.5 billion was movement in the right direction, but there needs
to be more.
MR. FLEISCHER: About another $7.5 billion more.
Q Does that mean the need to be zero in order --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it clear that an agreement is an agreement
and an agreement. And that the President in a meeting, as you know, with House
and Senate Democrats and Republicans alike, told the Congress that he would veto
anything that violated an agreement they already made. After all, if the
President says, we made an agreement, okay, we didn't mean it, let's come up
with a new agreement, what's to hold anybody accountable for the newest
agreement? They'll just violate that one, as well.
The President has said that the existing funding is sufficient to fully and
properly fund the war on terrorism. And the President also reminds the Congress,
particularly the Senate and those who want to spend more money in the Senate,
that the government can't even spend what's been approved fast enough. They
haven't been able to spend all the money that's already been set aside.
So there's a more orderly process that the President believes is appropriate.
And that is, next year, as we come back, that if more money is needed, it needs
to be taken a look at in a careful context next year, not rushed into at an
end-of-year-get-out-of-town spending spree.
Q Ari, the President laid out what he thinks would be in a good farm bill, but
would he accept the version that's being pushed by Senate Democrats? And, also,
why has he been unwilling to definitively say whether he would accept the
payroll tax holiday -- beyond saying it's interesting?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the farm bill, the President addressed that in his speech
today. And you know what the President believes in.
Q Well, what about the one pushed by the Senate? Would he accept that bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President thinks the timing is odd in the Senate. At a
time when all Americans need help, why is the Senate abandoning all Americans
and focusing only on one segment of America -- even though that segment is
important; it's farmers. Farmers are terribly important. But so, too, are the
people who buy farmers' products. And that means the first priority of the
Senate should be getting a stimulus package that helps all Americans and helps
Americans so they don't lose their jobs.
The second part of your question was on --
Q Why has he been unwilling to go beyond saying the payroll holiday is just
interesting? Why won't he say definitively he endorses it or --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are other aspects to the payroll holiday that Senator
Lott addressed this morning, which are technical, which is how quickly it could
come into being to give a stimulus to the economy -- would it have to wait too
long? Also, any time you reduce payroll taxes, you are reducing the amount of
money that goes into Social Security and into Medicare. Both programs are going
broke -- Social Security has problems; Medicare has problems. And the money that
people pay for their payroll taxes was promised to go into Social Security, into
Medicare. And to use it for other purposes raises issues as well.
So, having said that, the President believes it's an interesting idea, but there
are better approaches. And the better approach is the one the President has
proposed, that he would like to see progress made in the Senate.
Q It's a sad story about the CIA agent who was killed, but it's very important
that the CIA made the announcement, which is a change of policy. Does this mean
that the CIA will now be more forthcoming in announcements that have to do with
intelligence? And do you have any details about his execution, which was
apparently pretty gruesome?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would just refer you to the CIA on this topic. The CIA did make
a statement, Director Tenet did. And this is a very sad day. It's sad for the
country, it's sad for the CIA. They are a very close family. And I think all
Americans take note of this. And any loss of life in the war in Afghanistan is
troubling to this country, and so, too, today's loss.
Q Will you urge the CIA to be more forthcoming in the future?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think these are decisions that will be made on a
case-by-case basis. The CIA did today what was appropriate.
Q On the payroll tax, one clarification if I may. The Republicans on the Hill,
including Senator Lott, were saying today that this is now a much faster way of
getting money into people's pockets, and that it would replace the rebate to
workers who had not previously paid income taxes. Did the President indicate in
this morning's breakfast, or is the White House generally amenable to that kind
of approach?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President thinks it's an interesting idea. The
President has his proposal that is on the table. But as you heard the President
say in the Rose Garden, what's important is for the Senate to get moving and for
the Senate to pass a bill that can get to conference so that everybody gets a
stimulus.
I think what's happening in the Senate is they're taking a look at the piece
that affects low-income Americans, and trying to find another way to help
low-income Americans. And the President thinks that's a worthy goal. The
President has one way to do it; others have another way to do it. But it is also
not clear how much support there is on the Hill at this moment for such a
proposal. But the President is pleased to see the discussions. The President is
pleased to see what he hopes will become progress. But, still, the Senate has a
long way to go and time is running out.
Q Now that Senator Daschle has removed the spending from the stimulus proposal,
itself, and is going to pursue it in other ways, does that mean that the
President's veto threat over a stimulus has now been lifted?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President never made a veto threat over the stimulus.
He wishes the Senate would complete its work so there could be something that
could go to conference that could be considered for signature.
Q I thought the President had said he would veto additional spending --
MR. FLEISCHER: Additional spending --
Q -- and spending had been attached to the stimulus.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's all speculation about whether it was or wasn't
attached to the stimulus. So, literally -- nobody made a veto threat over the
stimulus, because there was no spending attached to it. That's a hypothetical,
and the White House doesn't issue veto threats over hypotheticals.
Q It wasn't a hypothetical. Senator Daschle said that's the way they were going
to proceed. The Democratic proposal was that they were going to add that
spending --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President made it clear to Congress, regardless of the
vehicle, that anything that exceeded the spending agreements would not be
supported and could be vetoed. We're saying the same thing, I'm being literal.
On the stimulus there was no veto message.
Q So this clears the way then, the stimulus -- the President, regardless of how
Congress makes up the details, however they craft the details of this thing,
there is now nothing that sticks out in this process that is likely to generate
any opposition from the White House.
MR. FLEISCHER: Other than the fact that they haven't made any agreements that
can get the process moving. And that's what is important now, is for the Senate
-- as Senator Daschle and Senator Lott both said this morning, and should be
commended for saying -- that they are committed to finding a process so that the
Senate can pass a bill.
What's important now is for the Senate to compromise. The Senate needs to work
well together and the Senate needs to find a bipartisan solution that cuts
taxes, that stimulates the economy and that helps people to get unemployment
extension, that helps people to get health care if they're lost their jobs.
That's what the Senate needs to do, and then they'll be able to match the house
and, shortly thereafter, be able to send something to the President.
Q The American Payroll Association said today that this idea of a payroll tax
holiday would be workable had it been proposed about six months ago, because it
takes at least that amount of time to work that through the payroll system; that
it has a ripple effect on software, on IRS forms, et cetera and, therefore, any
type of near-term economic stimulus could not be achieved with this proposal.
What is your response to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Senator Lott I think addressed that this morning. I think
it was a question --
Q No, he was referring --
MR. FLEISCHER: He said that if there are any technical considerations they would
take a look at them is, I think, as he put it. There are a variety of issues
that go into consideration of the merits of a payroll tax holiday of that
nature. And I have nothing to add to it. And the President says, interesting
idea, but the President has a different approach.
Q Just one follow-up. Senator Daschle today said that he would like to propose
having the homeland security funding to $7.5 billion and attaching it to the DOD
appropriations bill. When asked about this, the Office of Management and Budget
Director said he would recommend a veto to the President if that were attached
to DOD appropriations. What is your response?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no difference between that and the previous
questions on it. I've already indicated the President said he would veto
anything that spent more than the agreement Congress has already made.
Q Two questions. A group of family members of victims of September 11th are
marching this week from the Pentagon to New York to protest the war. They were
here on Monday, in front of the White House. One of them is Amber Amundson who
is the 28-year-old widow of Craig Amundson, who died at the Pentagon. She wrote
a letter to the President in which she said, "When we buried my husband, an
American flag was laid over his casket. My children believe the American flag
represents their Dad. Please let that representation be one of love, peace and
forgiveness. I am begging you, for the sake of humanity and my children, to stop
killing. Please find a non-violent way to bring justice to this world." Now,
they want to meet with the President. Is the President willing to meet with
them?
MR. FLEISCHER: You asked me a similar question about a month ago about the same
family. If there is any meeting, I will, of course, keep you posted about any
meetings the President has. But the President, and I think most Americans,
understand that the purpose of this campaign is to save lives, not to take
lives. And that's why the President is so determined to defend our country. He
also is very respectful of the message that he has received from these families.
He understands their thoughts and they're heartfelt. He understands them, he
respects them, he differs. He believes that this mission is saving lives.
Q In The New York Times, William Safire charges that the President has seized
dictatorial power by replacing the rule of law with military kangaroo courts
that can conceal evidence, make its own rules, and execute the accused with no
review by a civilian court. He says these are similar to courts in the Soviet
Union and current communist China. In your view, how are they different from
those kangaroo courts?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President, obviously, completely disagrees, and so,
too, do many people who have taken a look at this issue. And I dare say, based
on something I heard on National Public Radio this morning, so, too, do the
overwhelming number of Americans disagree with that assessment.
So the President, as I've told you before and you've heard from the President
himself, believes it's a helpful option to preserve this right to have a
military tribunal, just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in World War II, for
those cases where the President thinks it will help, again, to protect lives, to
protect jurors, and to maintain the need of the government to have secrets as
the campaign against terrorism is carried out, from any information that would
be brought to light in a trial for those cases of people who are deemed to be
terrorists.
Q Ari, you said this morning that in negotiations on airline security, that the
President had expressed his concerns about the 60-day sort of time frame. In
those negotiations, what was the time frame that the President favored? And as
of now, can he present a new time frame to the American people when they can
expect this to happen by?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President, the administration is going to work
diligently to try to meet that 60-day goal. And I think we will all find out,
close to the 60th day, whether that will be able to happen or not. So I think
you have seen the administration being very forthright about an element that is
in a bill.
And it should not surprise anybody in this room who has covered Congress before
to know that there are often deadlines that are chosen in legislation that
sometimes are met, sometimes are not met. The ability to meet them is often less
a reflection about the interest of the administration in meeting it, and more
often a reflection about how realistic it was for Congress to set that
artificial deadline in the first place, particularly in this case when Congress
was advised that 60 days presents a whole series of problems.
You may want to talk to some people in the private sector who would be
responsible for helping to train more dogs that can sniff, or who develop the
machinery. Ask them if they think it's realistic to develop such a capability
within such a short period of time.
Q What about using the National Guard in the meantime to hand-check bags?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think -- talk to the Department of Transportation, as I
indicated yesterday. The Secretary has said that he has means available to help
achieve that goal, and he will do whatever he needs to to help achieve that
goal. But Transportation will give you the details on what they are going to do.
Q Yesterday, Jim was asking about whether there were markers on any of the other
bills.
MR. FLEISCHER: Markers on what now?
Q On other bills that are pending. And I wanted -- it seems like there may be
one now on the DOD bill. But I wanted to ask about the Transportation
appropriations bill, and what the bottom line was there for the President on
this Mexican provision in the --
MR. FLEISCHER: On the Mexican trucking provision, nothing has changed. The
President's previous message about the importance of allowing Mexican truckers
the right to bring their trucks into America without discrimination remains. The
President has indicated that he would veto that bill if that is not fixed.
Conversations are underway on the Hill to fix that. That was, to the best of my
knowledge, that was the only other issue on which a formal veto threat has been
made.
The question on the DOD authorization -- it wasn't so much the vehicle that
would be vetoed, as much as it was anything that would exceed the spending
agreement would be vetoed, as opposed to any one bill. So wherever -- if the
Congress were to try to slide or slip all the extra funding onto any different
measure, it would make that measure suspect under the President's previous veto
message.
Q Since the President has said that we want bin Laden dead or alive, does he
believe any reasonable American will regard our soldiers killing bin Laden as
assassination, like the Washington Post claimed on page one, in reporting
Israel's killing of that mass murdering Hamas leader?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, as you know, there is a military operation underway. And
in the course of that effort, people will be brought to justice.
Q It would not be assassination then?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is a military operation.
Q And the New York Times reports, rather critically, about the American Council
of Trustees and Alumni publishing a list of 117 anti-American statements heard
on our college campuses, such as, "anybody who can blow up the Pentagon gets my
vote." My question is, does the President believe that this national exposing of
these statements on campus is wrong, or does he support the Council, whose
Chairman-emeritus is Lynne Cheney?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, obviously, the President disagrees with the people making
those statements. But the President also understands that one of the reasons
that every time America has been attacked, America wins, is because people are
free to make such statements. And that's one of the great strengths of our
country. But the President disagrees.
Q He doesn't think it's wrong to report these statements, does he? He supports
Lynne Cheney, doesn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a free country, and people can assemble those statements and
report them.
David?
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
Q Hold on, one second.
Q You did say you were coming back up here.
MR. FLEISCHER: I heard the magic words, and I always try to get off the podium
as quickly as possible when I hear them.
Q Steve isn't thanking anybody around this joint.
MR. FLEISCHER: We are in extra innings.
Q I just had one question, a follow-up on the -- is there any talk of the
President's father attending the funeral for the CIA agent?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard.
Q Can I have one more? Is the White House -- is there anything you can do to
help Enron, which is near collapse?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is being monitored by the Treasury Department, in terms of
any effect it may have on markets or any other areas. And they are keeping an
eye on that, and I would refer you to Treasury.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 3:13 P.M. EST