|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2002
Press Briefing Index by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:53 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you a report on the President's day, and then I have a brief announcement to make and I'll be happy to take your questions.
The President this morning had his usual round of intelligence briefings from the CIA and the FBI, to cover the latest developments in the war against terrorism and on homeland security. The President then convened a meeting of the Homeland Security Council.
Earlier this morning, the President made an announcement on a series of new policies to help small businesses grow and protect jobs, a reflection of the President's concern that as there are increasing signs of strength in the economy, he remains very worried about creating jobs for working Americans.
The President's remarks came at the Women's Entrepreneurship Conference 21st Century Summit. It's a real sign that some of the most powerful creators of jobs in the American economy are women-owned businesses, and the President was pleased to announce the policies at this group.
The President will hold a Cabinet meeting later this afternoon, where he will discuss with members of the Cabinet the latest developments in the war against terrorism, homeland security and also on the topic of the budget.
One announcement on an important item that is pending in the United
States Senate. The Senate will be leaving for recess at the
end of this week, and prior to their departure the President hopes the
Senate will be able to take action on legislation that strengthens
America's borders and enhances border security; that while at the same
time extending a welcome by recognizing that families should not have
to be split up when they are in this country already, nor to go back to
their country for immigration status. And this is what's
called 245(i).
This measure includes some very stringent provisions dealing with
border security, and they include requiring personal identification
documents to be more tamper-resistant and secure, enhancing the alien
application screening process to eliminate entry of unwanted
individuals. And this legislation also requires monitoring of foreign
students and exchange visitors to ensure they maintain their status.
So as the Senate leaves town, the President thinks it's very
important for them to take this action to, one, protect the border and,
two, welcome immigrants into our country in the finest traditions that
have made us a great and free nation.
And with that, I'm more than happy to take your
questions. Ron.
Q Do you know if Abu Anas Liby, one of the
people on the Most Wanted List, is in custody in Sudan?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, I have nothing to discuss on that
topic.
Q Why not?
Q Why not? Why can't you at least
clarify, because there have been so many conflicting reports.
MR. FLEISCHER: Because anything on this would
necessarily involve intelligence and that would involve either a
confirmation or a denial of something, which I'm just not going to be
able to do.
Q But at the same time, the
administration -- when you released this list of
22 Most Wanted, you were asking the public and all of us to try to help
find these people. And now that there have been reports,
television, newspaper, saying that he is in custody, you can't confirm
or deny?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's just no information I have that I
can share with you on that topic, I'm afraid to say.
Q Is he still somebody who we want to get in
custody? Is he still on our Most Wanted list?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would answer the question, if I were to
answer that question. That's very creative.
Q Can you acknowledge if there is confusion
if the person in custody, whether he happens to be the person on the
Most Wanted list or is someone else who just happens to be the same
name?
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, I'm afraid this is just a road
that I'm not going to travel down. This is a matter that
involves intelligence information, which I am just not going to discuss
in any way, shape or form. And don't take that to confirm
that it is or is not the person in question.
Q Can you tell us whether you're pleased
with the Sudanese cooperation of late? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not -- I
think you're defining "of late" as in the last day or
so? (Laughter.) No, I appreciate
this. I understand the questions. There are some
times and matters that I'm just not going to be able to provide you any
information on. This is one.
Q There are reports out there, the newspaper
and television reports out there to the American
people. Your response to those reports are?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no information on that topic
that I can share. And that shouldn't be taken as an
indication that is true or it is not true.
Q Well, let's talk about Congress
then. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim Angle.
Q You mentioned 245(i) and also what was the
other issue you mentioned, that you wanted -- the
strengthening borders --
MR. FLEISCHER: 245(i) includes two provisions in
there. There's one that makes the nation more welcoming to
immigrants while, at the same time, appropriately toughening up the
borders.
Q You did not mention Andean trade, which
was another issue which was sort of on the burner this
week. Obviously, the Senate only has a couple of days left,
is still dealing with campaign finance reform. What is your
priority? Have you chosen border security over Andean
trade?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the Senate
can take action on a host of these issues. And debt limit is
another one. The nation is approaching the date at which it
will hit its debt limit and the Senate has serious work to
do. You know, on these issues, for example, on the question
on making the borders tougher and welcoming in immigrants, that passed
in the House of Representatives by a vote of 275-137; widespread
bipartisan support. Another example of the House taking
action while the Senate has not.
The President hopes that the Senate will be able to take action,
not only on this legislation, on border security and immigration,
245(i), as well as debt limit, as well as Andean trade
preferences. The Senate is of course taking up an important
piece of legislation, campaign finance reform. The President
welcomes this, although the timing is interesting, because of course
debt limit is immediate. We're about to hit it; 245(i),
toughening up the borders, we need to do that quickly.
Campaign finance reform, despite the President's request, won't
even be effective until after the election. The President
thinks it should be effective now; Congress
disagreed. Nevertheless, they want to pass it now. There's
a lot on the Senate's plate that's important. The President
hopes the Senate will be able to turn to it.
Q On the debt limit question, the White
House believes that this must be acted upon right now, in spite of the
fact that you're about to get a lot of the revenues from the annual
collection of income taxes?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Treasury Department informed Capitol
Hill again yesterday that the date upon which the nation will hit its
debt limit -- a statutorily, congressionally imposed
limit -- will be either at the end of next week
or the week after.
Congress is running out of time. And if they recess at
the end of this week, which they say they will, Congress will have run
out of time, forcing the administration to take extraordinary measures,
which the administration should not be in a position to take, because
Congress has a responsibility to fulfil. And the President
has called on Congress to pass this, and has made that case for more
than a month. Congress has had fair warning this is coming
up.
Q Have you passed the message on to House
Republican leaders that you want a clean debt limit bill, because
there's some resistance there?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has stated his case
publicly and privately. He wants to be able to sign
something. He has called for something clean, that includes
something that he'll be able to sign, of course.
Q So are you saying anybody who blocked such
a thing would be irresponsible, is what he's saying?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President understands that this is
not a time, in a time of war -- it's never a time
to mess with the nation's credit limit, especially in a time of war.
Q Would he support tapping federal employee
pension funds in order to keep the government running, if the Congress
does not address the debt limit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Keith, it's not a topic that the
President wants to get into, because Congress still should do its
job. Congress is in a position to prevent pensions from
being tapped into. Congress will create conditions where the
government has to go to extraordinary steps if Congress doesn't fulfill
its mission to pass a debt limit prior to the debt limit
expiration. And this is an issue that's important for both
parties, in the President's opinion.
Q On border security, has the President
signed off on a plan to merge three agencies that deal with border
security? And if he hasn't signed off, has he been presented
with that option?
MR. FLEISCHER: This morning at a meeting of the Homeland
Security Council the President was presented with a recommendation on
how to enhance security at the nation's borders. The
President has not made any decision yet. The matter is under
review.
The President is very satisfied that his administration is moving
forward to present good ideas about how to protect the
border. Some of those ideas, of course, involve
consolidation.
Q Do you expect a quick decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President did not indicate what the
timing would be.
Q Ari, can I just confirm a couple
things? Is the recommendation merging INS and U.S. Customs?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to get into specifics
of a recommendation that was shared with the President at a private
meeting.
Q And one other thing. Wasn't
Governor Ridge push with something broader, merging, not just INS,
Customs, other parts of the inspection service at Agriculture, so why
not go even more expanded?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as part of the Governor's mission
to protect homeland security and to work in a coordinating fashion with
all the agencies that have operational responsibility, the Governor has
been looking at a series of ideas for how to enhance security along the
border. And that's the charge the President gave him.
And, as I indicated, there was a meeting this
morning. The President has received a
recommendation. Because of the nature of a meeting where the
President receives these recommendations, until the President has
something to say, I'm not going to discuss the specifics of it.
Q Ari, on that topic, why does the White
House continue to resist the idea of making the Office of Homeland
Security a Cabinet-level department with its own budgetary authority
and its own responsibility to Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the Office of
Homeland Security, under Governor Ridge, is working extraordinarily
well. It is fulfilling the exact mission that the President
set out for homeland security when the President announced it in the
wake of the attack on our nation.
If you remember, the President's speech to Congress on September
20th announced that for the first time the White House will have an
Office of Homeland Security, that really is parallel to the
long-standing bipartisan tradition of the Office of National
Security. It is a coordinating entity that works with the
operational agencies.
The President believes that Governor Ridge is doing a superb job at
it. He believes that Governor Ridge is an excellent advisor
to him, and that the Governor does a very important function for the
President and the White House by coordinating the various agencies,
just as the National Security Advisor does in her capacity.
Q But if we're talking about consolidating
all of these agencies, why not create a Department of Homeland
Security, as many lawmakers have suggested? And rather than
take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring
it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of Homeland Security?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take
a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of
agencies, there are more than a dozen agencies, many of which have
components that deal with homeland security in one form or
another. I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill
that would take every single one of those agencies out from their
current missions and put them under Homeland Security.
So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet
level Office of Homeland Security, the White House would still need, in
the President's estimation, an advisor on how to coordinate all that
myriad of activities the federal government is involved
in. So creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the
problem. You still will have agencies within the federal
government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is,
creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White
House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies, wherever they
are.
Q So why then is the Lieberman bill a bad
idea, in your estimation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Lieberman bill? I
don't -- your specifics. Do you want
to define the Lieberman bill?
Q Well, it would take a lot of those
agencies that you just talked about and put them under the auspices of
a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, for the exact reasons I mentioned,
that even if you had a Cabinet level office, the White House would
still need somebody to help coordinate the entities that, whether
they're in a Cabinet agency or wherever they are, they still require
coordination. Just like the National Security Advisor has
proved to be, over decades, a very informative and helpful way for the
Congress and for the President and for the people to have national
security coordinated.
Homeland security, whether it's under a Cabinet agency or whether
it's elsewhere, still needs coordination, and that's what the President
is getting out of the Homeland Security Advisor.
Q So you're saying, even if you had a
Department of Homeland Security, you'd still need a Homeland Security
Advisor to advise the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: That creating a Cabinet-level post
doesn't solve the issue of how do you coordinate all the agencies that
are involved.
Q Ari, the President and the First Lady will
do a stop over in El Paso on the way to Monterrey. He said
he'll be talking about the importance of border
security. Will he make any definite proposals that day about
some of the measures he's considering, or will he just speak on broader
terms?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll see exactly what Thursday events
will be. I think it's -- today's only
Tuesday, so I think we'll see exactly what the President has on his
mind to talk about on Thursday.
Q I want to ask one another
question. This has to do with Zacharias Moussaoui who is
going to be -- I don't know if he's going to be
asked for the death sentence or not, by the Justice Department, there
are some versions that that might be the case. He seems to
be the only surviving member of the terrorist group that took over the
plane, at least that is the accusation. Would the President
back a death penalty request by the Justice Department for Zacharias
Moussaoui if he's found guilty of the charges?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not a determination the President
makes. The matters of justice, matters of the charges that
should be brought in courts of law are matters that the President
delegates to the professionals and the Department of Justice to
decide.
I can share with you that when the President made the determination
that Mr. Moussaoui would not be tried in a military tribunal, that he
would indeed be tried in a civilian court, he was aware of the
possibility that one of the charges could be brought included a death
penalty. But this was a decision made by the professionals
at the Attorney General's office. The President is not
involved in that process.
Q But I would assume with a case of this
significance and well-known case, there would be a discussion between
the President and the Secretary of Justice before the --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I just indicated otherwise.
Q Before the session is --
MR. FLEISCHER: I just indicated otherwise. I
think that's an important part of protecting justice in
America. Those decisions, and this is the way the President
leads, get delegated to the professionals who have responsibility for
reviewing the facts as they see them that are gathered by the
Department of Justice. And decisions about at what level
people should be prosecuted should be made by professionals, and not
the White House.
Q Two quick questions. One on the
(i)245. Some senators are hard on this 245 because of the
blunders at the INS, or they had already made their minds that they do
not want to go through with this President.
And number two, I have just returned from India, and President Bush
is very popular in India, including on the borders in
Kashmir. But what they're saying is really that this is the
first President ever publicly and officially came out against
terrorism. But he should go beyond Afghanistan to fight
terrorism against India, or in India. And also the it is
thought that President -- General Musharraf said
that war in Afghanistan is over. Does President Bush share his views?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, welcome
back. (Laughter.) Let me remember all the
questions.
On (i)245 -- on 245(i), anybody who properly
points out that there are problems with the Immigration and
Naturalization Service should vote for this bill, because this bill
involves and includes enhanced border projections to protect
Americans. And I went through the list of more tamper
resistant and secure identification requirements, enhanced screening
processes. So the lesson to be learned from what happened
with the INS is, vote for this bill, it's a way of enhancing border
security.
As far as the war on terrorism is concerned, the President, as you
know, has been working very hard with India and Pakistan to relieve any
of the tensions that have occurred there as a result of the terrorist
attacks that have taken place, and with some success. I
think the tension has eased in the region in great part because of the
President's role that he played, and Secretary Powell's role that he
played in working directly with India and Pakistani officials.
It's an important area that continues to be a priority of this
administration. And, so, too, as you know, the war against
terrorism, the Vice President's trip to the region is a part of
that. And I think anybody who pays just a little bit of
attention to what the President has been saying as he travels
understands how clearly the President feels that it's important for us
to carry on this war against terrorism, to protect our
country. And the next phase has already begun, and that is
denying sanctuaries to would-be terrorists.
Q If I could return for a moment to the
homeland security meeting this morning. During the steel
decision you managed to give us a pretty good texture of the debate and
the trade-offs that were involved, without prejudging the President's
decision. Can you do that in this case? Can you
give us some sense of what the pluses and minuses would be of
doing --
MR. FLEISCHER: David, if I recall, I did that after the
decision was made. I want to share that information with
you, but until --
Q You did some before, as well.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't think so. I think
I waited until after the decision was made, and that's what I would do
here again. I'll be more than happy to try to provide you
insight, but right now the President has received a recommendation, as
I indicated, and I think it's only fair to let him consider it.
Q On Colombia, does the President see
helping Colombia fight the FARC as part of his global anti-terrorism
campaign?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a little bit
different. The situation with the FARC involved a group that
is listed by the State Department as a terrorist group. I
don't think it's fair to say that FARC has global reach. But
it is clearly a significant problem for the government of Colombia and
for the region.
But, nonetheless, terrorist attacks are a serious threat to
Colombia's democratic institutions, and that is why the administration
has gone up to the Hill and has asked for additional authorities to be
able to help the government of Colombia to counter the
FARC. It's not quite the same as --
Q Ari, under what conditions would the
President ask Vice President Cheney to meet with Arafat, even it means
returning to the region?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the Vice President said this
morning in Israel, General Zinni is on the ground and has made
substantial progress. And we are very hopeful that as a result of the
talks that General Zinni has had with the Israelis and the Palestinian
Authority that a cease-fire will be able to take hold.
The Vice President has indicated directly that he will be willing
to return to the region -- he even indicated it
could possibly be next week -- if Chairman Arafat and the
Palestinian Authority put in place General Zinni's plan to create a
cease-fire.
So the ingredients are there and it's very important now to see
what the events are on the ground. As you know, the
President measures these matters in results. The President
is very realistic. He's less interested in talk and more
interested in results. And that's the next step that the
President is looking to and he'll be listening carefully to General
Zinni's thoughts.
Q Regarding the Vice President's trip to the
Middle East, if it weren't for the prohibitive word "if," I would ask
that in his talks with the Arab leaders, particularly Crown Prince
Abdullah and those in Kuwait, if the United States went back into Iraq
to dump Saddam Hussein, would the U.S. be denied bases and ports in the
Middle East?
But since I can't ask
that -- (laughter) -- I
will ask under what conditions in the talks --
MR. FLEISCHER: If there were a jury here, I'm sure you'd
instruct them not to pay attention. (Laughter.)
Q Disregard that. But under
what -- based on the Vice President's talks
again, under what circumstances would the U.S. be denied bases in the
Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not a question that I can
answer. And I think there are too many hypotheticals built
into your premise, even based on "ifs."
Q Just, generally, why would you need to
reorganize any agencies if you have somebody who is
coordinating -- effectively coordinating the
activities of agencies?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one of the things the President
asked Governor Ridge to do when he came on as Homeland Security Advisor
is take a fresh look at how the government is doing its
business. Obviously, the government, in any
issue -- whether it's homeland security or
anything domestic -- has been doing it a certain
way and doing it for a long time. And you just reach a point in
government where people stop asking the question "is it effective" and
they continue to say, "well, that's the way it's always been."
So Governor Ridge's challenge and charge was to come in and take a
new look and a fresh look at the government agencies with an eye toward
what can and should be improved, learning the lessons of September
11th. And that's his mission and that's what he is working
on.
Q And my other question is, do
you feel though, that -- I mean, nothing's more
difficult than trying to reorganize the bureaucracy --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's true.
Q -- that any proposal that you
might forward is going to be jeopardized or made less likely because
you continue to refuse to let Mr. Ridge go to the Hill to
testify? I mean, I know you say it's tradition, but
traditions are often broken. I mean, why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't think there's any sense that
there should be a connection between what is the right, best policy for
the country based on substance, and a totally unrelated issue that is a
much more process-related issue that involves changing a long-standing,
successful, bipartisan tradition that Congresses have honored going
back decades.
Q But you know it's not
unrelated. I mean, it is very related --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that if somebody were to say that
this is a good -- if the President were to act on
this recommendation and say on the Hill, this is a good idea, but we're
going to oppose a good idea because we don't like the
process. I think the American people want the focus to be on
substance and on the quality of ideas. And that's where the
President is going to focus his thoughts and his attention.
The other issue is something that you've heard the President talk
about directly. Now, the President feels very strongly about
it and I don't see that changing.
Q Ari, last week the President said that he
was going to work with his friends in relation to the situation in
Zimbabwe, with Mugabe. And today, Nigeria and officials from
South Africa are dealing with the issue of the elections in Zimbabwe.
What are the thoughts of the administration and what are the
options that are on the table for dealing with these elections?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States is continuing its
conversations with allied nations about what the proper response should
be to the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe. The President's
concern remains about the violence that took place leading up to the
election and including in the election, and his concern about the
importance of democracy as the best way to help people who suffer
around the world. And that includes in Zimbabwe.
So those conversations will continue because the President wants to
make certain that no decision be rushed, that whatever decisions are
taken will be constructive in improving the conditions for people on
the ground.
Having said all that, I think it's also fair to point out that the
President is disappointed that some African nations that profess their
support and practice for democratic values nonetheless have been
willing to turn a blind eye to what happened in Zimbabwe and the abuse
of those values, which the President thinks are important
everywhere. So that is disappointing.
Q And also back home, in New York, we're
hearing reports about the Pentagon looking to change the air patrols,
Combat Air Patrols. This morning you said that there will
always be a robust presence. But how can you say there will
be a robust presence when it will take 15 minutes to deploy aircraft to
fight whatever terrorist attack may come?
MR. FLEISCHER: On that question, this is an issue that
will always be reviewed to provide the greatest protection for the
American people, wherever they are. And that's based on
intelligence information, it's based on threat analysis, it's based on
a whole series of items, including the fact that since September 11th,
domestic security -- as any traveler can tell
you -- has been changed. And that
involves a strengthening of cockpit doors, for example; it involves the
presence of federal air marshals on an increased basis; it involves
changes that have been made on the ground, in terms of the procedures
when people board airplanes.
So a series of enhancements to security have taken place since
September 11th across the nation. And any decision about
operational matters involving CAPs will be based on intelligence and
other items, as I indicated. And there will continue to be
security measures that include CAPS on a changing basis, depending on
what those threats and analyses show.
Q But it's ad hoc,
temporary. And, I mean, is it too costly? Why is
there a major change and why can't we know when this change happens?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, not all the decisions are
final on this; issues are continuing to be talked
through. But it's not ad-hoc; it's based exactly as I
indicated, which is based on intelligence information, threat analysis
and a recognition that security has been enhanced broadly since
September 11th in all the ways I mentioned.
Q Ari, among the Israelis and the
Palestinians, have the extremists taken over? Is it a
perception among the administration that the extremists on both sides
are in charge? And, if so, how does the U.S. rectify that
and negotiate with the moderates?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, General Zinni is in the region
for a purpose, and that is to meet with the responsible officials who
speak for the parties, and to meet directly with the
parties. And the President is very hopeful that as a result
of the Zinni mission the chances for a cease-fire have been enhanced;
the chances to begin security talks have been enhanced. And
that was the purpose of sending General Zinni over. And as I
indicated, the President is hopeful that as a result of his visit,
those conditions will now be created.
Q Is he meeting with opposition groups from
either side?
MR. FLEISCHER: General Zinni has met with the
Palestinian Authority, as well as Israeli officials, of course.
Q Ari, to go back to Ridge just briefly, I
mean, if he's in charge of reviewing the situation and coming up with
fresh ideas, I mean, wouldn't
he be the most logical person to explain these ideas to Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, this goes back to a case that
could be made about any number of people. That would be a
real change in the way Congress does its business, in terms of who they
seek to come up from the executive branch to testify. And
the reason I say that is, Governor Ridge has gone up to the Hill on
numerous, numerous occasions. He has met with members of
both parties in private and the caucuses, answered their questions,
they have received answers to all the questions they have in multiple,
different forums.
The question is, Congress is indicating they want to change that
long-standing bipartisan tradition and have him come up now and
actually testify. That would be a significant change from
the way Congress has treated people who are in an advisory context to
the President. And that is what Governor Ridge does; he is a
coordinator, he is an advisor to the President, just as the National
Security Advisor is, just as many other people who are assistants to
the President fulfill that role.
The people who are charged by statute and by a concern for good
government who are going up to testify before the Hill are the
operational officials -- the Attorney General,
the Secretary of Defense. Congress receives its information
on a regular, ongoing basis through the testimony of those
officials. I think it's unusual for Congress to turn it
around and change the way it's worked and worked well for many a decade
and now, for the first time, say we seek to have an advisor to the
President who does not have operational responsibility come up and
testify, even though they've gotten their questions answered in
multiple other forums by Governor Ridge.
Q To get back to your opening statement,
would you prefer -- would you go so far as to
suggest -- the President would suggest that the
Senate put away the cots, and put aside the campaign finance reform
bill? Because that seems to be where so much attention is focused this
week.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not determine the
Senate schedule; the Senate leadership determines the Senate
schedule. So this is a matter in the discretion and judgment
of Senate leaders.
The President merely points out that it is very important to
protect our borders and to do so quickly; and to let people who are
here not be forced to leave this country, to be separated from their
families, when there is widespread bipartisan support, as the House of
Representatives has already done, for the legislation on border
security and 245(i). Debt limit is
approaching. Those are decisions that can only be made by
Senate leaders.
Q Has he tried to talk to Senator Daschle
about this at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think through regular contacts, the
message has been received about the importance of passing the border
security and 245(i) measure.
Q Ari, has the administration reached an
agreement with the Congress on the supplemental? And will
the failure to get -- if there is a failure to
raise the debt ceiling, what impact would that have on the ability of
getting the supplemental through?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's really no connection between the
two, because the nation will hit its debt limit in the next week or
two. And under no circumstance have I heard that the
Congress will pass any type of supplemental that quickly, so it's not
connected.
The administration will be proposing a supplemental appropriation
bill, and that will get sent up to the Hill.
Q How much?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to discuss the details in
it yet. That will be something you will hear from
the --
Q Is it more than $25 --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't do
breadboxes. (Laughter.)
Q And when, Ari? When will it go
up?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll let you know the exact date.
Q As you know, Jane Swift announced today
she's not going to run for a full term. And Mitt Romney is
going to announce his candidacy later today. Did anybody in
the administration talk to either party to make this switch occur so
neatly?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I asked about that after I saw the
announcement, and the answer is, no. Senior White House
staff heard about that this morning. That was the first
inkling that anybody here at the White House had that the announcement
was coming. There were no conversations with the Governor or
her staff, as far as anybody shared with me.
Q And what is the President's reaction to
this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Governor Swift has done an excellent job
for the people of Massachusetts. The President wishes her
well. And the White House will work with whoever the nominee
is. It appears that it will be Mitt Romney, who has done an
outstanding job as the head of the Olympics. And the White House will
support the Republican nominee, of course.
Q What will the vehicle be for the tax
provisions that the President is announcing? Will it be
minimum wage or some other vehicle?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no determination about what the
appropriate vehicle would be. The regular process would be
the measures get sent up to the Hill. The Ways and Means
Committee will consider them. And then it becomes a matter
of legislative decision-making about what the appropriate vehicle is.
Q First Mrs. Gore and then yesterday the
Washington Post called for the ending of any armed forces restriction
and recruitment including don't-ask-don't-tell, so that our armed
forces should be open to any sexual orientation. And my
question is, does the President, as Commander-in-Chief, believe that
that would be wise or unwise?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is seeking no changes to
the current don't-ask-don't-tell policy.
Q Now, the second
question. Independent Counsel Robert Rey's report concluded,
"sufficient evidence existed to prosecute such evidence, would probably
be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." But Mr.
Rey declined to seek an indictment and prosecute a perjurer and
obstructor of justice whose fines were paid by his defense fund, and
who's currently getting $300,000 for a speech and $10 million for a
book.
And my question is, since Article III of the Constitution commands
the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, what
is his feeling about Rey's failing to prosecute? And will he
endorse Rey for the U.S. Senate?
MR. FLEISCHER: In terms of the legal question you asked,
the President is looking forward, not backwards. It is not a
discussion the President is --
Q Doesn't he think that he should be
prosecuted?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's not an issue the President has dwelt
on.
Q Back to -- you
mentioned regular consultations with the leadership. I don't
think you've had a leadership meeting up here in -- this
might be the third week. Are you out of the every-other-week
habit, and when will the next one be?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the other
one -- the last meeting was a couple weeks
ago. I don't remember the precise date. Congress
leaves for recess next week. The President, of course,
leaves out of the country on Thursday. I haven't seen
tomorrow's schedule yet, so if there's anything, I'll let you
known. But they'll continue to have regular
meetings. I can't speak to the exact frequency of them, but
they're going to continue.
Q Same old topic, Ari. If you say
that Governor Ridge has gone up and given a lot of briefings to
committee, caucuses, whatever, what do you make of all of this talk
coming out of the Senate about possible subpoenas to get him up to the
Hill, letters from Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, the Republican
side, requesting a meeting with the President to explain why Governor
Ridge needs to come up? What are they doing up there?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a surprising
development. I think it's a surprising departure from the
usual bipartisan way Capitol Hill for decades has treated advisors to
the President who are not in operational roles. The people
who will be subjected to these types of subpoenas, if this is the case,
are not Cabinet-level officials who have a statutory obligation and an
importance to good government of going up and testifying on the
Hill. This would open up a whole new development where the
legislative branch would then bring down to the Congress advisors to
the President whose jobs are to give the President advice.
Now, this has been treated with honor and respect for
decades. What I think is surprising and is unusual is that
the Congress for the first time seeks to change and break that
long-standing tradition. It's worked, and worked very well
for the Congress, for Presidents of both parties, and for the
country. And under that, the Chief of Staff to the President
could be called to testify, that hasn't happened; the legal counsel to
the President could be called to testify, that hasn't happened; the
National Security Advisor, that hasn't happened.
So why the departure, why the break? The President
thinks the system has worked, and worked well. And he asks
Congress to honor that long-standing bipartisan tradition.
Q Do you see this as another little step in
the erosion of Presidential powers?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that there is no question that
when you open these doors, Congress keeps swinging them open wider,
particularly given the fact that Governor Ridge has met with numerous
members of both parties to answer all the questions that they
have. The contact is regular, the contact is
frequent. The contact is not in the form in sworn testimony
or testimony before a committee. That's as it's always been,
and that has served the Congress well, the President well and the
nation well for decades.
Q But aren't you sort of falling back on
precedent? And can't you see from their perspective that
Governor Ridge is in what is a new job, created post-September 11th, a
job that is about how to protect the country in the wake of the
attacks, and that Congress might feel equally responsible in the way
the executive branch does for ensuring that this doesn't happen again,
and that they want to be a part of it. And it's not quite
the --
MR. FLEISCHER: They are a part of it.
Q And it's not quite the same as it has been
in the past. I mean, you can't just say, oh my God, they're abandoning
tradition that's held for years, when, in fact, everything changed on
September 11th, and that's why Ridge is in this job.
MR. FLEISCHER: But that same argument would suggest that
every advisor to the President should and can be called before the
Congress to testify. That same argument can be made about
national security. It's not being made because the Congress
is honoring a long-standing bipartisan tradition of the National
Security Advisor being seen as an advisor to the President,
coordinating the Departments of Defense and CIA and other entities
involving the war against terrorism. That same argument
could equally be made to somebody else whose role has changed
dramatically and importantly since September 11th.
The point I'm making is we have a system of checks and balances
that is based on bipartisanship and on sharing of
information. And it's a surprising development for Congress
to be seeking to change that at a time when everybody needs to be
working together.
Q Ari, can I just follow
up? Because that being said, Democrats -- it's
not just coming from Democrats. Even some Republicans are
saying that there should be an exception made --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q -- and Ridge should come
before the Congress. So can you confirm if there are any
discussions between the administration and the Congress about a
compromise? Maybe coming before a group of members, a
televised briefing -- some kind of middle ground,
not the sworn testimony?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can only tell you the President feels
very strongly about it.
Q You can't say if there is compromise, any
discussion about a compromise?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President feels very strongly about
honoring that tradition that has worked, and worked so well, for
everybody concerned. The President thinks it would be a mistake that
would not serve the Congress well, the executive branch well or,
frankly, the country well.
Information continues to flow, and flow
freely. Questions should be asked, they are asked by members
of Congress. Governor Ridge answers them; they have the
answers. So the only issue is the forum by which members of
Congress hear those answers. And that's the issue that
involves a break of precedent.
Q Could you explain why there have been no
consequences for Secretary Rubin for publicly criticizing the
steel --
Q O'Neill.
Q O'Neill.
Q Oh, Secretary O'Neill, thank
you. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Did you have to correct him? I
was going to work with him. (Laughter.)
Q And I was thinking I was doing so well
this time. Sorry. It's President Bush,
right? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Why there have been no consequences for
him for publicly criticizing administration policy on steel, when
Michael Parker, who criticized the budget, lost his job over the
issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President just doesn't see them as
the same, that's why. And I'm just not going to get into
anything involving personnel for an issue that is over and dealt with.
Q Well, one other on that. Does
he take exception to O'Neill's contention that the steel decision
actually lost -- will lose more jobs than it
saves?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think the issue was
satisfactorily dealt with, as far as the President is concerned.
Q How about Mr. Zigler? Does Mr.
Zigler enjoy the President's 100,000 -- 1,000
percent endorsement? Or is he shaky?
MR. FLEISCHER: He does.
Q He does?
MR. FLEISCHER: And keep in mind what the President said,
that this is a wake-up call to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. They've been charged with reviewing what
happened. They have 30 days to complete that
charge. And the President will eagerly await that report.
Q And he wants Mr. Zigler to continue
indefinitely in that role?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I said, the President has confidence
in Mr. Zigler. So the answer is yes.
Q What about Cardinal Eagan and Cardinal
Law? Do they still enjoy the President's full support?
MR. FLEISCHER: Campbell, you asked that question to the
President just about a week ago --
Q Well, there have been a number of new
developments since that time.
MR. FLEISCHER: There's been no change in what the
President told you when you asked it directly to him.
Q Ari, back to this issue of Governor Ridge
testifying, not 15 minutes ago you just told us one of Governor Ridge's
missions was to take a look at the way things have traditionally been
done and change them. Why not just take that rationale and
apply it to Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because that's a rationale to change
anything and everything for no reason. That is not something
that's a blanket policy, to just change things for no
reason. In this case, I've walked you through why that would
be a bad procedure to undertake -- that would
change precedent, it would change the long-standing bipartisan way
Congress has done its business.
I think the question really should be focused on, is why, when the
information has been as flowing as it has been, and members are getting
the questions answered in different forums than hearings and testimony,
is Congress seeking to change a long-standing bipartisan tradition
that's worked very well?
Q Ari, can I get back to April's question
earlier? Has the White House begun to reach out to members
of the New York congressional delegation that have concerns about
bringing the fighter cover down over the city?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's something that Congressional
Affairs would handle, and I presume -- I haven't
talked to Nick specifically, to say who have you talked to today, but I
presume that in the ongoing operations of Congressional Affairs,
something like that gets done.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:33 P.M
Return to this article at:
/news/releases/2002/03/20020319-7.html