For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 8, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Personnel Announcement
- Judicial Nominations/ABA
- Purchase Of U.S. Telecom Assets by German Company
- Mexico
- Energy/California Power Crisis/Gas Prices
- Internet Taxation
- United Nations
- China/U.S.
Surveillance Plane
- Pope in
Syria
- FEMA
Director/Emergency Readiness Statement
1:35 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have two personnel
announcements. The President intends to nominate William
Henry Lash III to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access
Compliance. And the President has nominated Susan Morrisey
Livingstone to be Under Secretary of the Navy.
And with
that --
Q How
do you spell the first name, Ari?
MR.
FLEISCHER: William Henry Lash III, Roman numerals; and Susan
Morrisey Livingstone, Under Secretary of the Navy. And I'm
pleased to take your questions.
Q Ari,
will the judicial nominations be sent up tomorrow, and can you give us
an update on where the process is that had been sort of bogged down
because of Democratic objections in the area of consultation and the
like?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President will have an announcement to make
very soon as far as the first round of judicial nominations he will be
sending up to Capitol Hill. We'll be putting out tomorrow's
schedule a little later this afternoon, and so that may have
information that you're looking for. Just wait to see what
the final information is this afternoon's guidance.
Q On
the question of dealing with Senate Democratic objections.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I was just getting to that. It was a
two-part question. The President takes very seriously the
Senate role of advice and consent. And throughout this
process, at the President's direction, White House Counsel Al Gonzales
has been talking with senators of both parties and will continue to
talk to senators of both parties about the process.
The
President wants to make this a cooperative, collegial
process. That will be his intention, and that's how he will
proceed with all his nominations for the Bench.
Q Ari,
what message are you sending to Senate Democrats who may threaten to
blue-slip some of your nominees without a valid reason?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's message is that the nominees he
is going to send up are going to be people that the nation will be
proud of. There are going to be people who will not
legislate from the Bench, there will be judicial scholars, there will
be people who will represent the nation well serving on the
courts. And he hopes to take that message to Democrats and
Republicans alike.
He hopes
that the process will not become politicized, and he is also concerned
about the vacancies on the Bench and what vacancies on the Bench mean
for denial of justice, as cases are not heard, where cases are
stretched out or people have slow access to the courts because there
are judicial emergencies in effect, and where there are not sufficient
justices or judges to serve in various regions in circuit courts or
district courts. So the President is going to move forward and work
very closely with the Democrats and Republicans.
Q And
if the process does become politicized, what is he prepared to do?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is going to have a first round of
announcements to make. Then I think it will be interesting
to see how well received they are. The president hopes they
will be received well; and that way, the process of filling up the
courts can begin so people's justice is not delayed or denied.
Q Ari,
on the subject of politicizing this process, Democrats would say it
already has been and this White House has been part and parcel of that
politicalization, A, by taking the ABA out of the system and by giving
a green light to a new standard, this blue slip process in the Senate
itself, where under the old system, you had to have two blue slips from
each of the state senators or the senators from the states from which
the nominee came. Now it's merely one. And by
doing that, you have shifted the whole groundwork in dealing with the
judicial appointees.
MR.
FLEISCHER: As far as the American Bar Association is
concerned, the American Bar Association is and will be
involved. The only question is, is there any one group in
America that should have a preferential role earlier than all other
groups and above all other groups.
So the
American Bar Association will have an equal role of all the other
groups who are entitled and the President will welcome their input and
their ideas once the nomination is made.
As far as
the so-called blue slipping issue, that really is an internal Senate
matter. The President's approach is going to be to work with
Democrats and Republicans alike to convince them to support his
nominees. That's his approach. I think you have
to talk internally to the Senate about whether they set up any
procedures that some say are in accordance with the way it's always
been and others on the Hill say it's not in accordance with the way
it's always been. That's an arguable point up on Capitol
Hill.
Q Ari,
would you agree that there is an unprecedented conflict between the
Executive Branch and Congress over these judicial nominees?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think you have to let the process
begin, and the process begins when the President sends his nominations
up to the Hill and I think it will be very noteworthy to see how these
initial round of nominees are received.
The
President believes that he has every good reason to see these nominees
received well, to be received in a vein that is productive so that the
confirmation process can quickly move forward.
Q Since
you've drawn so much attention to how this first list of nominees will
be received, can you comment on some analysis that I have received from
people on Capitol Hill that there has been a culling of this list
already to eliminate from this first list any potential judicial
nominee that might be blue-slipped? But this first slate, if
you will, is a very clean slate, politically speaking, and that the
controversies may, in fact, be visited upon the second, third and
fourth list of judicial nominees.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I would urge you to await the submission of the
names and you'll come to your own conclusions about the quality and the
caliber of the men and women that the President sends up to the Senate
so it can play its constitutional role in advice and consent.
Q So
the administration has not in any way changed the list of the number of
people -- would send up on the last two or three days based on advice
its gotten internally from Senate Republicans?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's hard to change something that hasn't
happened yet. The administration has not yet submitted any
lists up to the Hill.
Q Isn't
it true that the number of nominees that were intended to be submitted,
has been changed by the number of three?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has not made any announcements
yet. So until the President makes an announcement, any such
speculation is conjecture or premature. The announcement is
made when the President makes it.
Q Does
the White House have any reaction to the U.S. being voted off of the
U.N. International Narcotics Board?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The White House views that as a disappointment,
and it's not going to stop this President, however, from vociferously
carrying out America's role around the world in reducing the flow of
narcotics and fighting the drug war at home.
In fact,
the President, this week will have some announcements to make about
fighting the war against drugs, and he'll have some announcements to
report on that front. And so, despite this action, the
President will continue to hold America high in fighting the scourge of
drug abuse around the world.
Q A
follow-up. That, in conjunction with the Human Rights
Commission, is there any thought that a message should be sent to the
U.N. by the U.S. by perhaps withholding dues?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President believes we should pay the
dues that we owe to the United Nations. But the President is
also concerned about the signal the United Nations, through these two
entities, is sending to the world about the seriousness with which
these entities will carry out their mission in fighting for human
rights or fighting against drugs.
It's hard
to be committed to the cause of human rights when you've put Sudan and
Libya on a panel that's dedicated to fighting for the cause of human
rights. The real losers in this equation are people around
the world who are struggling to be free. The United States
is going to continue its role as a beacon of freedom and human
rights. And the President will continue to speak out.
It's
unfortunate that this one panel of the United Nations will be a
weakened voice in that effort. But I remind you that this is
not the full United Nations. The full United Nations will be
able to carry out its work on human rights and other
areas. These are two entities within the United Nations.
Q On
the same theme, Ari, it seemed last week as if the White House was
taken somewhat by surprise on the first vote, the Human Rights
Commission. And then, Secretary Powell said that he wasn't
going to spend time trying to figure out who voted against us, it was a
secret ballot, and so forth. At the same time, given the
pattern that's emerged here between this and the narcotics vote, it
does seem as if there's some kind of problem that the U.S. has to
figure out whether we're the central player in. What are you
doing to figure out what is going on in these votes? Are you
interested in who the countries are --
MR.
FLEISCHER: As you acknowledged, Secretary Powell has pointed
out that in a secret ballot, where people give you a written assurance,
saying, yes, we are voting for you, and then they don't keep their word
when it counts, it's not likely that they're going to keep their word
when you ask them, or tell you, oh, yes, we're one of those nations
that gave you a written commitment, but then we voted against you in
reality. It's not exactly the type of action or behavior
that most nations fess up to.
The United
States had the written assurances of those nations. Those nations did
not keep their word. But the --
Q The
same thing in the narcotics case?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The same thing in the narcotics case, that's
correct. But the point is, the real losers here are people
around the world who are struggling for freedom and whose human rights
need to be protected. They're the ones affected by this
vote. It's not the United States. The United
States is the land where human rights prevail, and the United States is
a nation where its President will continue to speak out on behalf of
the cause of freedom and human rights.
Q On
China, what is the President's understanding of what's happening with
the plane, our plane in China? And is it conceivable the
President would make the trip to China if the plane is still there?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Connie, as far as the plane is concerned, the
discussions are underway with Chinese officials about returning the
plane, and the President is going to allow those discussions to
proceed, and allow them to take place so that we can get the plane
back. And Secretary Rumsfeld said the most efficient and
effective way to bring back an airplane is to let it fly, and if the
plane is judged capable of flying, then we'll just continue the talks
with China and hopefully that will get resolved somewhat soon.
Q Ari,
considering the President's warm commendation of the Navy pilot who
saved the lives of that surveillance plane's crew, and this morning's
page 1 report on The Washington Times is the Pentagon is considering
sending fighter escorts, my question is -- part one and two -- part
two, would you deny that the President will never again allow a
surveillance crew's lives to be threatened by no U.S. fighter support,
or will your neither confirm nor deny not be an obvious refusal to deny
the very good news about the Bush administration?
Q Could
you repeat the question? (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: Oh, no, no. I understand
it. Les, as you've indicated, the United States is not going
to be put in a public position of telling other nations when we are
flying military missions, whether they are reconnaissance or
otherwise.
Q That
wasn't my question. The question is fighter support. He's
not going to risk any more lives, is he?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Fighter support, of course, is a military
mission. And so I am not going to indicate to you whether or
not we are, indeed, operating any escorts anywhere around the world.
Q So
you're not denying it. (Laughter.) The second
question. Does the President believe that Pope John Paul in Syria
should have immediately denounced Bashar Al-Assad's incredible and
disgusting Jew-baiting, or does the President believe that the Holy
Father may have been emulating Jesus' silence in front of Herod, as
well as far more effective than a Syrian shouting match, given John
Paul's frequent outreach to Judaism?
MR.
FLEISCHER: A question about Bashar's comments was addressed
yesterday at the State Department, and I think they have expressed the
position of the United States government, as far as what Bashar said.
Q Well,
this morning we got news and so forth. Does the President --
doesn't feel that Pope John Paul was wrong, does he?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's focus is on what Bashar said.
Q Ari,
has the Energy Policy Development Group essentially completed its work
at this point?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Has it?
Q Yes.
MR.
FLEISCHER: They're well along. I think that until
the President makes an announcement, you can always anticipate that
there is room for something to be changed or added to it or
subtracted. But they're very well along.
Q And
my other question related to that is, do you have any concerns that
with all this focus on the long term when this thing comes out, a lot
of people who are worried a lot about high energy prices right here and
now are going to say, you know, where's the help for us in this thing?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think what the American people want to know is
that the government takes these problems seriously and has a plan to do
something about them, and to do something about them in a way that can
help as much as is doable in the here and now. But the
American people also want to know that the government is moving forward
on a variety of fronts, that involve conservation, that involve
production, that involve modernizing our aging, deteriorating
infrastructure, so that there are long-term solutions to the energy
problems that people face.
I think one
of the frustrations that people in the country have with Washington
over the years is that Washington doesn't focus on long-term
problems. If people had focused on long-term problems five
or 10 years ago, people would not be in the spot they're in today.
Q Ari,
but that's small consolation if you're pumping $3 a gallon.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, again, the plan is going to have a series
of initiatives in it, such as conservation and clearly, to the degree
that people can conserve, it can have a short-term
impact. But the program will also, in addition to
conservation, focus on long-term solutions, and I think that's
something that the American people will take comfort in.
Q A
couple of new economy questions. The House and Senate are
both looking at anti-spam legislation. Some consumers don't
like it. But there are some 1st Amendment concerns raised on
the other side. What is the overall President's position on
anti-spam legislation, this particular bill, HR-3113 from Heather
Wilson and Gene Green?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President, of course, has nothing but
the deepest respect for all the Constitution provisions; it's the 1st
Amendment that deals with freedom of speech. At the same
time, he believes that consumers should be empowered and individuals
should not be subject to numerous or unwanted spam
messages. And that means working very carefully with all
sides on this issue to find the appropriate balance to protect people's
1st Amendment rights, also protecting consumers and individuals' rights
to not be spammed when they do their work.
Q Secondarily,
the Internet tax is up this year. What is the overall White
House position on should it be extended and whether dot-coms should
face the same tax obligation as brick and mortar companies?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President favors an extension on the
moratorium on Internet taxation, and he favors a permanent ban on all
Internet access taxes. Now, he'll continue to work with the
Congress for the exact duration of it.
What the
President has indicated on that topic before, Major, is the Internet
economy represents a new world and it has a lot of new consequences for
not only consumers who like to buy products off the Internet, but also
for governments who rely on sales taxes for their
revenues. So he wants to have an appropriate period of time
to let the moratorium continue so that policymakers can take a very
careful and deliberative look at how this new Internet world is shaping
revenues for the government, as well as people's abilities to shop
on-line and do so in a tax-free way.
Q What
constitutes an appropriate time?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He's going to work with the Congress to determine
what that should be.
Q Ari,
a little while ago Vice President Cheney said on CNN about California's
problem that they, for years they've had the attitude, well, we can
conserve our way out of this problem; all we have to do is conserve; we
don't have to produce any more power. And the office of
Governor Davis is calling those comments inflammatory. Was
it constructive to say that for the Vice President?
MR.
FLEISCHER: This has been a very difficult issue for the
state of California, and the position of the President and the Vice
President is that we will continue -- this administration will continue
to do all it can to help California. Governor Davis has sent
a letter to the President thanking him for all the actions that the
President has taken, and the President has been very pleased to have
responded to the Governor's request and to be of assistance to the
Governor. So, too, the Vice President.
I think the
people of California recognize the difficult spot, the unique spot that
their state is in, and the President and the Vice President are going
to continue to help California while they move ahead with the plan that
represents fundamental long-term thinking, so other states don't have
to go through this and so California can recover from it.
Q But
is it fair to characterize the Vice President's comments as essentially
blaming Californians for their energy problems and saying, Cheney to
California, drop dead?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's not what the Vice President
said. I think no matter how you analyze it, California,
while doing its best with its economy and with its environment, has not
built any new plants in 10 years. And California's electricity usage
has soared, and the fact that no new plants have been built during that
10 years has contributed mightily to the problem. There's no
debate about that. I think everybody recognizes that.
Californians
recognize that, and that's why the Governor of California has worked
diligently now to bring new plants on-line. And he, himself,
has said they'll have some new plants on-line this summer, and
additional new plants on-line after this summer. And I think
that's a recognition of what the Vice President has said is valid.
Q And
so it is partly their fault, they made some miscalculations?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The Vice President is not interested, and neither
is the President interested in pointing fingers. They're
both interested in solving problems.
Q But
he did point fingers.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't think it's pointing a finger to say no
new plants have been built in 10 years.
Q Is
the Vice President inclined to try to instruct through this report
states to build plants, and any particular states that he has an eye on
for new power plants?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the report will speak for itself as far as
what regulatory actions can be taken, what incentives can be given so
that new plants can be built. And it's not going to be the
role of the United States government to pick the sites for those
plants, it's going to be determined by the market and by other factors
that are local.
But the
purpose of the report will be to help in a way that encourages
conservation, that encourages production, and addresses some of the
infrastructure problems. One example on infrastructure when
we talk about the price of gasoline is that capacity utilization of our
refineries, even if you have an abundance of supply, if you don't have
the refineries to get gas to the market, prices will remain
high. And that's a reason that the report will also focus on
capacity utilization.
For
example, in May of 1990, refinery capacity utilization ran at 85
percent. In May of 2000, capacity utilization for refineries
was at 96 percent. They're running
full-speed. It's a reflection of the fact that we have an
aging infrastructure that needs more capacity, that needs more
modernization, so that prices can be lowered.
Another
example of capacity utilization that's impacting the market is that the
average capacity utilization for refineries for all of 2000 was 94
percent; across all industry as a whole, capacity utilization for all
types of products ran at 82 percent. And that's a reflection
on how tight utilization, tight infrastructure needs are inhibiting
people's ability to get more gas at a lower price. And
that's an area that the report will focus on.
Q Ari,
is it still your contention that it would take a magic wand to offer
Americans some short-term relief from $2.50-$3.00 a gallon gasoline
prices this summer? And two, what level of urgency will the
President attach to implementing this national energy
policy? It seems that the White House is being quite casual
about it and saying, well, we can't do anything for five or 10 years.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Wendell, this White House is the first White
House in many a year to focus immediately and to focus at all on a
comprehensive national energy policy. The American people
might not be in this position had there been previous thinking about
how to address our nation's energy woes. Many of these same
problems persisted last year, for example. And the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve was tapped. That did not turn out to be a
fruitful way to address the problems.
This
administration, under President Bush's leadership, takes very seriously
the problems of energy costs, the impact it's having on low-income
Americans particularly, and the problems it presents for American
people when they have blackouts, when they have brownouts, and that's
why the President ordered, from the very beginning of his
administration, a comprehensive national energy policy to be
developed.
In fact,
the President as you know, announced the heart of this proposal in
September during the campaign. So it's been a top priority
for President Bush all along, and it's been a top priority now that
he's in office. And you will be hearing more about that very
shortly.
Q So
give us some sense of what level of urgency you will attach to
implementing it.
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's why the President has moved -- the
President attaches such a level of urgency to solving the nation's
energy problem that he moved on it as quickly as he
has. This is something that he immediately addressed upon
becoming President. And it is a reflection of the fact that
the President recognized America was in the middle of a serious crisis
dealing with a lack of energy. And he immediately, upon
taking office, put in place the review group led by the Vice President
to recommend policies. And that is now coming to fruition.
And once
the recommendations are received, the President is going -- or once the
President makes his recommendations, he will travel across the country,
he will meet with Americans to promote his proposals. He
will work very closely with the Congress and he will urge the Congress
to take action, because time is of the essence.
Q Well,
that makes it about the -- at least secondary to his economic
policies. So are we to assume since he is following
basically the pattern he did with his tax cut, he figured the tax cut
was more important than dealing with the energy problem?
THE
PRESIDENT: It's not linear. The President has
many top priorities. This is, indeed, one of the most
important.
Ari,
for 60 years, federal law has prohibited foreign government takeover of
U.S. telecommunications assets. Last month, the FCC rewrote
the law and allowed German government Deutsche Telekom to buy
VoiceStream.
Senator
Hollings is upset. He is going to introduce legislation to
reverse it. And in the 92-page decision by Michael Powell,
the son of Colin Powell, the head of the FCC, he basically said foreign
government controlled companies, no problem, come in. I was
wondering, does the President side with Michael Powell, at the FCC, or
does he side with Senator Hollings who's going to introduce legislation
and who said, we didn't deregulate the telecommunications market so the
German government can come in and buy this.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me see if I can't get you anything on that.
Q This
is about trade. And I would like to know if the White House
was informed by the Mexican government when President Fox was here last
week, did they intend to establish -- re-establish their relations with
Cuba? Apparently, there is conversations to pursue with a
trade agreement between both governments sometime before the end of
this year. Do you have any information on that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That was not a topic that came up during the
course of their conversation in the Oval Office.
Q And
what about the Helms-Burton law? Would you be willing to
implement this law if Mexico pursued this initiative?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to deal with any hypothetical
situations involving Mexican initiatives if the United States has not
been informed of those initiatives. So I view that as a
hypothetical.
Q Some
in the environmental community are already objecting to the
formulations of this energy policy, in that they have not been brought
in to even informal discussions here with the White House as the policy
has been developed. They allege, however, that industry
representatives from the oil, gas, coal, nuclear industry have
been. Can you summarize for us the kind of consultations the
White House has undergone, and if in fact this contention from the
environmental community that they've been frozen out is in fact true?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the task force did meet with a number of
groups from the environmental community. I'll try to get
that for you, or you may want to talk to Claire right after the
briefing, because she might have it, but I don't have it in front of
me, or talk to the Office of the Vice President. They'll be
able to make that available.
But the
goal of the task force from the beginning was to reach out and listen
to a variety of voices and concerns. And that involved
people who produce energy, that involves people who consume energy, and
that involves people from the environmental community who also have
important thoughts to share.
Q If
I could follow up on the U.N. situation. Does this
administration think now would be a good idea for the Senate to move on
its nominee to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John
Negroponte? He was nominated, but he has not been dealt with by the
Senate. And do you believe that this is in any way
inhibiting the U.S.' ability to deal with some of these controversies
going on at the U.N. about whether it stays or does not stay on these
various panels?
MR.
FLEISCHER: On the second point you're making, I don't think
the fact that the Senate may or may not have confirmed somebody for the
U.N. Ambassador position would have had an impact on people keeping
their word when they made a written promise to the United States
government.
On the
first point, the President would urge the Senate to move quickly on all
the nominations that have been submitted that are now under review in
the Senate.
Q Ari,
also on the U.N., you expressed earlier that the White House is
disappointed in the recent votes. I am wondering if the
votes are also a source of any embarrassment for the administration.
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President views it as, frankly, a source of
trouble for people who love freedom around the
world. They're the ones who are affected, not the United
States. The United States is going to continue to be a
country that fights the war on drugs. And the United States
is going to continue to be a country that speaks out for human rights.
The real
losers in this vote are people around the world who need a strong
United Nations and a strong voice on behalf of human
rights. They are the ones most affected.
Q Could
I follow? Is Kofi Annan going to be talked to about this by
anybody in the White House?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I can't rule that in or out. I know
he's --
Q I
mean, he's the Secretary General -- is not the --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, the underlying problem again is when a
nation gives you a written commitment that it will support you and does
not honor that written commitment, it is hard to imagine how to get
something more in concrete than a written commitment.
Well,
again, it's a secret ballot, Connie. So, as I indicated
earlier, if you go up to somebody and say, we had your written
commitment, did you honor it, it's not likely they're going to just
fess up to you when you ask them the question.
Q Are
you willing to publish the list of the commitments you
got? Not the vote, obviously, but can we get a list of the
countries that committed in each of these two votes?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me talk to State and see where we stand on
that.
Q What
was the vote going in and what was the vote coming out? Do you know
that off the top of your head?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I am not the vote-counter.
Q Earlier,
there was a question about whether we were trying to get to the heart
of this problem, which is I guess multilateral relations between the
U.S. and those countries that did not honor their commitments to vote
in favor of U.S. participation in these two U.N. groups.
Are we
trying to do that? And do we feel that there is some
difficulty in U.S. relations with these countries that can be traced to
the new administration?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think I've exhausted this
topic. I've answered that question previously.
Q But
I don't think you have answered that question. You've talked
about a secret ballot. But there's no indication that we
even care what countries didn't honor their commitments. Are
we endeavoring to find out, and do we feel -- are we trying to deal
with those countries?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, as I explained, it's a secret ballot.
It's not exactly clear how you find out who did not honor their
commitment.
Q How
do you feel about torture? (Laughter.)
Q A
quick question. The Secretary of State and the FEMA
Director, up on the Hill, talking about the threat of terrorism within
our borders and home on defense, is the administration, as part of this
effort, considering asking for new legal authority, or revising posse
comitatus laws to enable a greater involvement of the U.S. military in
homeland defense?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's not any information that I have, Terry.
There is an announcement that's going to be made up on the Hill today
by Joe Allbaugh concerning preparedness for any type of chemical,
biological or nuclear threat that would take place within our
borders. Administrator Allbaugh will be announcing
that. I'm going to have a statement out a little bit later
today explaining that in further detail. But that's not
anticipated.
Q Is
this a major effort of the administration to begin coordinating what is
right now a sort of scattered set of commitments across agencies?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q And
I'm wondering if, as part of that, there will be an integration of
military into this issue, which would require reform of --
MR.
FLEISCHER: The military is involved, not in the terms that
you were using, but the military, of course, is involved in any matters
of preparedness at home and dealing with threats that I just
mentioned. Several government agencies are: The Department
of Justice, the military, FEMA will be playing a lead role in that, and
the Vice President will also be coordinating and chairing a group
that's focused on protecting Americans from any such events.
Q Ari,
last week, President --
MR.
FLEISCHER: You only get one today. Heidi hasn't
had one yet.
Q On
China, why resume spy planes so soon when we know this is an irritant
and a potential obstacle to getting our plane back?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As you know, I'm not going to confirm or discuss
the military operations in a detailed level like that.
Q Going
back to the U.N. vote for a moment, some commentators have pointed the
finger of blame at the State Department in general and Secretary Powell
in particular for being blind-sided by this vote, not doing their
homework. Does the President share that criticism?
MR.
FLEISCHER: If you're asking me does the President have a
blame America first reaction to something that hurts people all around
the world when it's these other nations that cause this to take effect,
the answer is clearly no.
Q Does
he think -- is he satisfied with Secretary Powell's performance in this
matter?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Absolutely. He understands.
Q Ari,
in terms of the education bill, there's been some talk surfacing on
Capitol Hill that there may be an amendment that would prohibit school
curricula from discussing or including materials on the subject of hate
crimes, including those directed against Lesbians and gays and sexual
orientation.
And would
the President have a feeling one way or another on whether that sort of
thing should be included?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I have not seen or heard anything on such an
amendment, so I would hesitate to answer a question on
that. The President hopes that the Congress will pass his
education plan, which included no such provision.
Q Going
back to the subject of Internet taxation, do you know if the President
has discussed his view with his brother, Jeb, who has a very different
point of view?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I couldn't say if they've spoken
recently. I can tell you that the President's position is a
long-held position about extending the Internet moratorium and having
no permanent taxes. That's what President George W. Bush
believes.
Q Is
your assumption that they have had conversations --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I couldn't tell you.
Thank you.
END
2:10 P.M. EDT
|