For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 23, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:40 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President began his day early
this morning with a phone call to Turkish President Sezer. The
Presidents discussed a range of issues pertaining to the United
States-Turkey strategic partnership, which stretches from the Balkans
to the Caucuses, and the Middle East to Afghanistan. They discussed
cooperation on Iraq.
They agreed on the need for Iraq to comply fully
with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. And they
discussed other issues of mutual concern, including Cyprus, support for
Turkey's progress toward EU ascension, and Turkey's strong record on
economic reform.
Following his phone call to the Turkish President, the President
had his intelligence briefing, an FBI briefing, and then he convened a
meeting of the National Security Council. The President, earlier this
morning, signed into law the Department of Defense appropriation bill,
as well as the Military Construction appropriation bills. And the
President is now having lunch with the Vice President. He will
participate in a roundtable on children's online safety, and make
remarks on children's online safety later this afternoon.
And that's my report on the President's day. I'm happy to take
your questions.
Q Did the Turkish President express any concerns about the use
of its airbase for a potential attack on Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: John, you would have to leave it up to the Turkish
officials to characterize any remarks that the Turkish President made.
Q Ari, what happens if the Security Council fails to reach an
agreement on a new resolution against Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let's see what happens at the United
Nations. No one is going to know what the outcome of any vote at the
United Nations Security Council will be until members of the Security
Council raise their hand and vote. And there is movement in New York.
We'll see ultimately where it takes us, but the diplomats are earning
their salaries and are working very hard on the actual language now.
Q Do you all have any deadline? Are you looking at this week
for the U.N. to either reach some consensus, or are you planning to
take this resolution to the full council?
MR. FLEISCHER: They are hard at work in New York, and I think the
best way to describe where they are is the end is coming into sight,
but it's not here yet. They have some amount of time left, but not a
lot. And the President knows that, and I think the U.N. knows that,
too.
Q -- some amount of time left, what that means?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would not hazard a guess on it. The U.N. is a
very deliberative body -- and this has probably been the most
deliberative debate of the United Nations Security Council in the
history of the United Nations. It's been a thoughtful debate, a
deliberative debate and a lengthy debate. It's coming to an end, but
it's not here yet.
Q And I have one more. Not to go over the language, what you're
willing to accept or not, but are you all at the point where you feel
like you've negotiated enough, that you've made enough compromises that
your position is pretty set on what United States will support in a
resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that everybody clearly understands that the
American position is a position that's shared by many -- and we'll see
if it's shared by all -- is that there must be a tough inspection
regime, that there must be consequences if Saddam Hussein fails to
honor the previous United Nations resolutions, and that there must be a
finding that Saddam Hussein is in material breech, as the United
Nations has previously found.
Q Is the U.S. calling a full Security Council meeting for this
afternoon?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is movement and that is not ruled out. There
very well may be additional action broadened to the E-10 beyond the P-5
-- in other words, to all 15 members of the Security Council. Any such
announcement will come out of New York.
Q Does that mean that there has been or has not been agreement
reached between the U.S. and France?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, while there is movement which is, in and of
itself, a good thing, it is impossible to say whether or not movement
will yield to agreement. The process is moving forward and we'll see
ultimately if that process leads to agreement. It does not necessarily
mean that everybody yet agrees. That's why I said that there is only
one way to know if everybody agrees, and that's when they raise their
hand.
Q And on that issue, when it goes to the full Security Council,
the United States will need the votes of others outside of the
Permanent Five. Mexico is one of those countries. Does the President
expect Mexico to vote in favor of this? Has he talked to President Fox
about this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think it would be my role to describe how a
sovereign nation will vote. Of course, the President hopes Mexico will
support the American position. We'll find out.
Q Ari, if there's not an agreement among the P-5 on the language
of a U.N. resolution, might the United States take it to the Elected 10
as a form of putting a leaver on some of the intransigent members of
the P-5?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated there, there is movement and that's
a very good possibility. That could clearly be one of the ways the
movement is expressed. I think if that were to be the case you would
hear from people in New York. And it's something you should keep your
eye on.
Q Are we hearing from some of our allies on the E-10 that, let's
get going on this, bring it to us, and we'll put the arm on France?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think people understand that after 11 years of
Saddam Hussein defying the United Nations, the United Nations has to
face up to its mission. And one way or another the United Nations is
going to have to make a decision. They've been engaged in a very
thoughtful and deliberative debate, and the debate is coming to a
close. And the members of the Security Council feel the debate coming
to a close, and I think they want to do their part to constructively
engage on what type of closing this will be. The events are coming
together.
Q Would the French not see this as ganging up and dig their
heels in even further?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, it's not my place to characterize what other
nations would think or not think. I have no reason to believe that
would be accurate. Everybody understands that at a certain point, and
the point is arriving, the United Nations Security Council has to make
a decision.
Q Ari, if I can change the topic. We're heading into the
two-week stretch prior to election day, and the President has a pretty
grueling schedule. Can you talk a little bit about why he's chosen to
go to these various states? And do you share the same optimism that
was expressed by some of his political advisors about Republican gains
in certain newspapers?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the history, of course, of midterm elections
in the first year of a President is that there are massive setbacks for
the party in power. That's a historical trend that has seldom been
violated. It's a historical trend that is almost always honored. I
think there have been only three occasions in modern times where an
incumbent President's party has actually gained seats in the first
midterm election. So history suggests that the incumbent party would
have major losses.
These decisions will get made by the voters. We'll see ultimately
what the voters do. The President does look forward to traveling on
behalf of people who are running for office who would help the
President get through his agenda of, for example, getting prescription
drugs to senior citizens, providing fiscal restraint, improving
education. We'll see ultimately what the outcome is. But the
President will be traveling to a variety of districts where he may be
able to make a difference.
Q Does he plan to go to Florida to help his brother?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll keep you updated on the schedule as events
develop. He certainly has been there many times before, and we'll keep
you informed on all the scheduling events between now and the
election.
Q The President has always prided himself in having a lot of
patience. And you have told us from this podium that we're still
within the time frame for a resolution at the U.N. But were the
President's patience wearing a little thin yesterday when he said he
doesn't want the U.N. to be like the League of Nations, or when he
doesn't want it to be just a debating body?
MR. FLEISCHER: When the President says he doesn't want the U.N. to
be like the League of Nations, it's not a sign of patience or
impatience. It's a fact. And the United Nations has an important
decision before it, and it's the decision that the President laid out
on September 12th. And I think that this is why the United Nations
Security Council has approached this issue with the care and the
deliberation that it has.
The fact of the matter is, until the President went to New York and
made the speech on September 12th, the United Nations was slumbering in
terms of whether it would hold Iraq accountable for the resolutions
that it previously passed. And that wasn't acceptable. And now the
world is facing up to what is, or is not, acceptable, and we'll see.
Q On an unrelated subject, is the White House going to do
something, is it involved in doing something about the hacking that
took place yesterday on the Internet in which nine of the 13 world
global services were affected?
MR. FLEISCHER: The cyber division of the FBI and the National
Infrastructure Protection Center were aware of the attacks as they were
being made because of the vigilance with which the federal government
maintains the protections for the Internet and in which we work with
the private sector on it. The attack Monday was unique in that it
targeted the main servers of DNS's, but the method of the attack was
nothing new. There was some degradation of service; however, nothing
failed, and providers were able to mitigate the attacks very quickly.
The Cyber Security Office in both the FBI and the Department of
Commerce have been working with private companies that work the
Internet for a number of years now, and this has helped to raise the
awareness in the private sector about steps that need to be taken to
protect the Internet and to assist them with their protective
measures. There's an investigation underway to determine who was
responsible for the attacks.
Q Ari, does the President think this was an act of cyber
terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll get there.
Q If I can follow up on something you spoke about this morning.
You gave us a pretty comprehensive list of how many different federal
agencies are involved in the sniper investigation. I was wondering if
you could go beyond that and give us an idea of whether we're talking
about people who are in command positions, how many people we're
talking about in field positions. Can you give us just a little more
detail on what some of these folks are doing, specifically? Not
specifically, but in general, beyond just the raw numbers?
MR. FLEISCHER: At the President's direction, the federal
government is providing the manpower to catch the killer, and the
resources to counsel and comfort the community. And there is a joint
operation center that has been set up in Montgomery County that is
staffed by representatives of multiple federal agencies, along with
representatives of the local government, particularly any local
government where a shooting took place.
And that leads to the best interaction among federal officials and
local government officials, so they work shoulder-to-shoulder and
side-by-side, so information can be shared, leads can be pursued, and
resources can be brought to bear. That's what's happening on a 24-hour
day, seven-day-a-week joint operation center.
Q A related follow-up. Almost predictably, some of the pundits
and so-called experts on television are already questioning whether the
President might want to reconsider this comprehensive fundraising tour
that he has ahead of him simply because these attacks are happening in
the backyard. Has there been any talk of that, and do you think that
that criticism is fair in general?
MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, I haven't heard any such criticism.
Maybe I pay less attention to the cable pundits. But at all times,
what makes America free and strong is our democratic system. And at
all times, everybody in both parties should participate in our
democratic system; that's what sets America apart and that's what keeps
us strong.
Q Is that fair or unfair?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I've addressed it.
Q Ari, in connection with the President's forthcoming trip to
Mexico, since we have pressured Israel to give part of the land it
conquered in several defensive wars to the Palestinians, does it follow
that we will now seriously consider returning the claimed -- homeland
in the Southwest back to Mexico? Or does the President now agree with
President Fox that we should have open borders?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm really not sure I follow the thread that
connects those various arguments.
Q Well, I mean, if you give back all those states, that would be
no problem. But in lieu of that -- President Fox believes in open
borders. How does the President stand on these?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think there's no connection between the
points of your question. But I would point out to you that, of course,
with Israel, all the decisions that Israel made were made as a
sovereign government, that Israel makes as a result of the decisions
that Israel feels are in its best interest to pursue peace.
Q Michael Wellback (ph), the French novelist, who called Islam
the most stupid religion, was acquitted in a Paris court of Muslim
charges of inciting to hatred, at the same time that Oriana Falacci,
the author of Rage and The Pride, which strongly criticizes Muslims,
spoke in Washington last night despite death threats reported, page 1,
of The Washington Times. And my question is, does the President
condemn Wellback and Falacci?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, I'll take a look at exactly what they said.
Connie.
Q Thank you. On the sniper situation, does the administration
have a policy about negotiating with terrorists, which is apparently
what is going on here? And also are you considering a more visible
presence such as mobilizing or asking the states to mobilize the
National Guard?
MR. FLEISCHER: The law enforcement community is the proper place
to ask any questions about what steps they are going to take. These
decisions are not made by the White House. This is the law enforcement
judgment about how to proceed. And the federal government has been
providing many, many resources. National Guard issues, of course, are
state issues in terms of that.
Q What about the issue of negotiating with terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, nobody is -- it's not clear who is
responsible for this, if there is a connection or not a connection to
terrorists. And as you're aware, some types of lines of communication
have been opened. And law enforcement is pursuing it in their judgment
because it's the proper and wise thing to do.
Q Ari, on the sniper case, I know we discussed this a bit this
morning, but can you explain to us why you don't see a need for the FBI
to completely take over this investigation as some has suggested?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the collaboration that currently exists
between the local enforcement authorities and the federal government,
because the cooperation has been strong. People are working together
well and shoulder-to-shoulder on this. And the federal government has
dedicated a tremendous number of resources to help the local
government. It's a joint operation. It's a joint command. And that,
in the judgment of the law enforcement experts, is the best way to
proceed. These are judgments that are made by law enforcement
experts.
Q I understand that -- you don't see that a unified command
would be an improvement over judgment by committee, if you will, as how
things are going now?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think no matter what, you're going to have a
committee working together. You're going to have the myriad of
agencies working to lend their expertise to it. For example, the
federal government, through the FBI and the ATF, is doing all the
significant lab work on this matter. The FBI has been coordinating all
the evidence and all the forensics. But you want the local government,
in whose jurisdiction the shootings took place, to also have an
important role in this investigation. And that's what is being done.
Q But have there been discussions at the White House about the
FBI taking over? I mean, have you discussed this in the last couple of
days as things have looked so grim?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's just as I indicated -- it's a joint
operation, a joint command.
Q Have you discussed that issue of possibly, there's a need for
this now?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can only tell you what it is; it's a joint
operation, a joint command that is --
Q You're not answering my question. Have you -- has there been
discussions at the White House about the FBI --
MR. FLEISCHER: Elizabeth, there are none that I've been involved
in, so I couldn't tell you if there's anything beyond that. And this
is the status of it.
Q In the denial of service attacks, does the President view them
as acts of cyber-terrorism? And can you tell us what the United States
is doing to prevent future attacks from being successful?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, as a result of the focus that has
been made in both the private sector and in the federal government in
recent years, there is an increase in security for the Internet. There
is a recognition that the Internet is a vital part of our economy and
the world's economy and has become part of the critical infrastructure
that we, as a government, work with the private sector to keep
protecting. And so many new protections have been put in place.
In terms of who may have done this attack -- that's why I mentioned
to you that there is an investigation underway -- we don't know. We'll
take a look to see if there are any signs of who it may or may not be.
I'm not aware there's anything that would lead anybody to that
direction. History has shown that many of these attacks actually come
from the hacker community. But we're -- that's why an investigation is
underway.
Did you have one yet, Ken?
Q No. Just to go a little further on Elizabeth's question,
has
a federal takeover or an FBI takeover been raised and rejected for the
reasons that you outlined?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can only report to you the way it is. And as I
said to Elizabeth, there's no conversations that I'm aware of that go
beyond that.
Q You're not aware of anyone even raising the possibility of an
FBI takeover?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can only tell you the federal government is
deeply involved and involved in a way that the federal government has
the lead on many of these issues already. And that's why I cited you
the specifics about the lab work that is being done, the forensic work
that's being done. But there's also a desire to work collaboratively
and closely with the local community.
Q But to your knowledge, no one in the White House or the
federal government has proposed going beyond --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, there's nothing that anybody has brought to my
attention on that.
Q Ari, there is a French military cadet, a young cadet, who was
a trained marksman, and he's trained on the French version of the M-16,
which fires a .223 caliber bullet. He took leave to go to the Chicago
area back in August. He's turned up missing and the French government
says it has notified authorities, including the United States, that he
is now deserted. He's of Yugoslav heritage. And has the President
been made aware of this, and is there any evidence at all that this man
could be the sniper?
MR. FLEISCHER: On anything that may or may not involve any
particular theories or any particular leads, that's going to be a
matter that the law enforcement community would have to address, not
the White House; and that's something I think you'd need to bring to
anybody's attention there. They will make their judgments about what
type of information they think would be helpful to make public and to
provide, as they are also working to make sure that they can catch this
killer.
Q Has the President been briefed on this French --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not -- I'm never at liberty to discuss with you
any of the specifics of the President's briefings, either on
intelligence or the FBI matters, no matter what their jurisdiction is.
MR. FLEISCHER: Are you saying that there's still a chance whoever
is behind these attacks is linked to international terrorism? And I
ask, because it seems like with this communication, we should have some
light shed on that.
Q The answer remains what you've heard publicly. It was said on
the Sunday shows, and we've been saying for quite a considerable period
of time, we do not know. We have seen no evidence that would lead us
to think that was the case. But the only way to know is to catch the
killer, and we have not been able to catch the killer. And once he is
caught, obviously we'll be able to know. We don't know, but there is
no evidence that would point in that direction.
Q Ari, the full text of the U.N. resolution, as proposed by the
U.S., was introduced yesterday morning to the P-5. Has the U.S.
accepted any changes in that text since then?
MR. FLEISCHER: There are going to be continuing conversations, and
they are really working now on the every word, every sentence, every
paragraph level. The diplomats are earning their keep. They are doing
what they should be doing for a living. Nobody has ruled out that
there could be any changes. But the core of the resolution must be as
I described it earlier in order for the U.N. to keep the peace, and
that is that there must be material breach, there must be consequences,
and there must be a tough inspection regime.
Q Consequences -- a mention of serious consequences, or
consequences must be part of the language of resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's been made very plain.
Q So you're saying the U.S. is willing to accept changes, but
not to change those items you just mentioned?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me turn it around. Can you imagine after
a decade of Saddam Hussein defying the United Nations and after having
successfully thrown out the inspectors for four years, the United
Nations message to Saddam Hussein is, you can continue to do it because
there won't be consequences? That's rather hard to imagine now that
the United Nations Security Council is hard at work at bringing this to
a successful resolution.
Q Thank you. Ari, Pravda is reporting that Russia is
considering carrying out a coup against Saddam Hussein to guarantee
Russia first choice of lucrative oil contracts, after Saddam Hussein is
deposed. Is the President aware of this? And will he work with Putin
to aid any coup attempt?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the first I've heard of the reports. I
really can't evaluate it.
Q Has any local government jurisdiction asked the federal
government to take any steps at all that might reassure citizens that
the act of voting won't be potentially dangerous?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of any. I have not heard anything to
that.
Q Going back to APEC and President Putin, could you just say --
the White House or administration officials have placed great store by
the relationship between the President and Mr. Putin. What is
significance, coming as it does amid these negotiations at the U.N., of
the bilateral meeting with Mr. Putin on Saturday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as a part of an increasingly stronger and
stronger relationship between the United States and Russia, the agenda
for the meeting with President Putin will be full. There is a lot to
discuss. And that's going to include trade matters. After all, APEC
remains a trade summit.
It will also include discussions about the situation on the Korean
peninsula. I think Russian, itself, is very troubled by the recent
developments. It will include, likely, a discussion about events in
New York concerning the United Nations Security Council. And there
very well could be other issues that come up, too, as they talk. The
President and President Putin have a very good relationship and I know
the President is looking forward to spending time with President
Putin.
Q Ari, in the past year some evangelical leaders such as
Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell have made very disparaging comments
about Islam, calling it a religion of violence, Mohammed is a
terrorist. How come the President hasn't specifically repudiated these
statements?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has repudiated such statements every
chance he can. And I think that's evidenced by the events that the
President holds. When he holds the Iftar dinner here at the White
House, when he commemorates important Muslim occasions, when he invites
all the Muslim ambassadors to the White House, when he visits the
Afghani embassy and he makes clear his position, the President has made
perfectly plain that Islam is a religion of peace and that's what he
believes.
Q So actions not words?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, sometimes people make outlandish
statements hoping that they can, like flypaper, draw other people down
to their level and attract them into their issues the way they see
them. And the President would rather elevate a nation and educate and
work with a nation to make certain that we all understand that
everybody in this country is here because of America's 200-year history
of openness and tolerance. And that's why our country was founded.
And that's what the President does. He sets his sights up high and
doesn't drop them down low.
Q So you're saying Franklin and Falwell did that? They tried to
lower the --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry -- go ahead.
Q But Franklin Graham spoke at his inauguration.
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead.
Q Two questions. First, on the U.N. resolution, when he spoke
to the General Assembly on September 12th, he said a resolution would
be achieved in days and weeks, not months. And by that calculation, I
guess we have until November 12th before we have to use months,
plural. Is the President confident that a resolution satisfactory to
the U.S. can be achieved by then? And does he, in fact, even intend to
allow the debate to go that long?
Secondly, unrelated topic, on the sniper, putting aside the
question of whether there should be a change in command-control
structure, given the overwhelming number of tips -- local officials say
they're overwhelmed by the amount of phone tips they're getting -- is
the federal government considering boosting any assistance from federal
officials to help handle phone calls, other tips that are coming in?
Is there anything additional the federal government is planning on
doing? Again, not speaking to the issue of command or control.
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay, let me walk you through what actions the
federal government has taken. And much of it involves on the
investigative side. But it also involves helping to pursue the leads
and -- and doing a lot of the day-to-day work. As I mentioned, there
is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week joint operation center that's been
set up in Montgomery County. And the following federal agencies are
involved, as I said, to try to catch the killer or provide comfort and
counseling to the community.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has provided to the
Sniper Task Force 454 agents; 59 inspectors, nine canine handlers, and
101 support staffers to do lab and computer and intelligence analyst
work. The Customs Department has provided two A-Star helicopters,
which are light-lift helicopters. And to support them, Customs has
provided a 20-person flight team, as well as they have made a Blackhawk
helicopter available.
The United States Secret Service has provided 50 special agents to
the Sniper Task Force. The FBI has 600 personnel working on this
matter. They are focused on profiling, on working on the leads, the
Marshals -- the Federal Marshals are involved, as well as the Drug
Enforcement Agency are involved. I said earlier that all significant
laboratory work is being conducted at both the FBI and the ATF
bureaus. And the FBI is coordinating all evidence and forensic work.
On the counseling side, which is also very important, the
President, when he hears these reports, not only wants to know about
what steps is the federal government taking to catch who is
responsible, but he and Mrs. Bush, their hearts go out to the families
and the communities who have to alter their way of life for children
who can't go outside for their recess. These are things that the
President and Mrs. Bush, as parents, have tremendous empathy with the
community.
The Department of Education received a request from the state of
Maryland school superintendent late yesterday afternoon for financial
assistance in helping the schools obtain radio equipment for the school
buses here: $250,000 has been identified to meet that request.
In addition, the Department of Education on the federal level has
offered $250,000 to the Virginia superintendent for instruction and
$100,000 to the D.C. schools superintendent. And that money would be
left to these local jurisdictions to decide the best way it could be
spent to meet their local needs. This could include security
measures. It could include protective services, counseling, and other
security issues.
The Department of Interior Park Police is cooperating and working
with local enforcement. And the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, which is part of the federal Department of
Health and Human Services, has been working to provide assistance in
crisis response, training activities and risk communications to
facilitate and coordinate a regional response to these attacks.
Also money has been made available through Department of Health and
Human Service to the local communities to address counseling issues
to enhance hotline services, to provide public education. So the
federal government is -- launched an all-out effort on both the
counseling side and the catch side to try to bring this to a
conclusion.
Q You didn't mention DOD and the surveillance --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry. Thank you. And DOD, as I mentioned
last week, has provided the air platforms to try to catch the killer.
Q So we're talking -- it's been about well over a thousand
federal government personnel who are helping out here --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q There's been no contemplation of doing any more? And also I
had a question about --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, these are -- these decisions are reviewed every
day by the appropriate agencies. And they make their judgments knowing
that the President has urged every agency to devote all resources
necessary to catch the killer.
Q After September 11th the President called up the National
Guard to patrol airports, saying that it was -- for the feeling of the
traveling public to be safer. With the severity of the warning that
children are not safe, has the time come for the President -- or has
anyone recommended to the President that he consider some kind of
National Guard deployment for school areas around here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ann, I will report each of the actions and the
steps that have been taken. And in the event -- and as I mentioned,
these things are reviewed on a daily basis. In the event any
additional actions are taken, I will always do my best to report it.
Q Can you say whether that has been under consideration or
whether the President would think this is a feeling of security on a
par with the traveling public after September 11th?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think as has been pointed out, there are now more
than 1,000 federal personnel that have been made available. And we'll
continue to monitor it on a regular basis to determine every step
possible that can be taken to help catch him.
Q Ari, just one extra, because you're going to be gone a long
time.
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, Les, I'll see you next week.
Tim.
Q Mitch Daniels indicated today that he was -- the
administration is willing to go higher than the SEC's current $568
million. Do you know how much higher?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated last week, we want to work
with Congress on this matter. And the President places great priority
on helping crack down on corporate corruption. The budget that the
President did propose for the SEC is the largest increase in the recent
history of the SEC. We want to work with the Congress and see exactly
what the even higher level may or may not be. I think it's impossible
to specify.
Q Is it the administration's policy that you would be willing to
go more than $568 million if that's what's needed?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're going to continue to work with Congress to
determine what the appropriate level is, and do it in a fiscally
responsible way.
Q On appropriations, you got two bills signed today; 10 more.
And Senator Lott said recently that the time may have come for the
House and Senate to split the difference on the remaining bills. And I
just wondered what the White House reaction to that was.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, two down, 11 to go. And we'll see. I think
that nobody knows, given the fact that Congress has now decided that
these decisions won't get made until a lame-duck session of the
Congress takes place. Nobody knows what the ultimate outcome will be.
There are many different factors that influence how productive
lame-duck sessions are. And we'll have to wait and see what happens
when they come back.
The President's position will remain unchanged, and that is, that
it's important for Congress to fund the priorities the President has
established, such as the increases for education, the increases for
domestic homeland security, for bioterrorism, and the other items in
the President's budget. He's gratified that they passed a defense
appropriations bill. And then Congress has to adhere to the spending
ceilings that have been set in the level of the House budget
resolution.
Q Were you happy with defense spending?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, as he indicated in his remarks in
the Rose Garden, was happy with defense spending. He appreciates
members of Congress from both parties doing their share to keep the
country safe.
Q Ari, can I come back to the U.N. resolution one more time?
The French have proposed to substantially soften much of the language
in the U.S. version of the resolution, taking out the words, "material
breach," removing references to previous U.N. resolution violations.
What's the White House's position on that type of softening of the
language?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we'll see. We'll see ultimately where this
goes. They're talking, and that's important.
Q You have said in the past, when dealing with Congress, why
would we agree to a resolution that's weaker than something that's
already out there. Are you thinking along those lines with this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're going to wait and see. We'll see
ultimately what the positions are of the various parties as they sit in
earnest across a table from each other and talk.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 2:06 P.M. EDT
|