For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 24, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
Listen to the Briefing
12:41 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I would like
to give you a report on the President's day, and then I have several
announcements for you. The President this morning had an
intelligence briefing about the latest developments in the war, met
with the FBI, then convened a meeting of the National Security Council
to discuss homeland defense.
The President earlier this morning gave remarks to the U.S. Mayors
and county officials, in which he announced a major increase in funding
for homeland security to help protect America as we go through a
difficult period, given the war. And as we speak, the
President is having lunch with the Vice President, his customary
lunch. And then the President will convene a Cabinet meeting
at 2:00 p.m. today at which he will discuss several of the messages he
plans to share with the nation and the upcoming State of the Union
address.
I have a couple announcements. President Bush will
welcome to Washington King Abdullah of Jordan for a meeting and working
breakfast on February the 1st. The President welcomes the
official working visit to Washington of the President of Pakistan,
President Musharraf, on February the 13th.
One final announcement, then I'll be happy to take
questions. As the Senate returns to work this week, the
President would like to remind the Senate that they have left many of
his 169 nominations languishing before them. They have
actually left a total of 169 nominations languishing before
them. Of those awaiting action by the Senate, 49 have had
hearings. They have been passed by their committees and only require a
simple vote on the floor of the Senate. These individuals
could easily be hard at work for the American people, but because of
inaction the President continues to operate without his full team in
place.
The Senate has failed to confirm 20 of President Bush's senior
foreign policy nominees, including officials who will be directly
involved in the war against terrorism and the humanitarian crisis in
Afghanistan. For example, Roger Winter, the assistant
administrator at USAID for Humanitarian Response, has been passed by
committee, but has not been given an opportunity to have a vote on the
floor. Gaddi Vasquez, the Director of the Peace Corps,
similarly has been passed by committee but has had no vote on the
floor. And Frank Ricciardone, Ambassador to the Philippines,
passed by committee, no vote on the floor.
Despite the President's action of nominating a record of 90 highly
qualified individuals to the Federal Bench, the Senate has left 47
languishing. By this point in previous administrations, by
way of comparison, only 20 of President Clinton's nominees were left
languishing or still awaited action. Only nine of former
President Bush's nominees at this point in his administration awaited
action, and only four of President Reagan's.
The pace of this Senate is by far way behind the pace of previous
Senates. It's too slow, for example, with only three of the
original 11 judges that President Bush nominated on May 9th have even
received hearings -- only three who were nominated back in May have
received hearings.
There are currently 101 vacancies in the federal
judiciary. Chief Justice William Rehnquist recently stated
that there is a judicial vacancy crisis. This vacancy crisis
is an impediment to justice in the President's opinion and the American
people deserve better.
The President deserves to have his team in place, particularly
during a time of war, and the American people deserve to have a
government fully staffed. The President has done his
part. It's now time for the Senate to do its.
Q What is the President's reaction to
Chairman Greenspan's testimony that it's not clear another economic
stimulus plan is needed now, and it is not critical for the economy,
the economy would recover anyway?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, without characterizing what
Chairman Greenspan said in reaction to the President, I can tell you
that the President wants to err on the side of protecting America's
workers, to err on the side of protecting the unemployed and those who
have jobs and worry they may lose their jobs.
So the President prefers -- as the evidence is coming in now,
indicating there are healthy signs of a recovery. There are
still clouds on the horizon, however. And the President
prefers to err on the side of creating jobs. And so that's
why he continues to call on the Senate to reach an agreement, to take
action, so that jobs can be created along the lines of the
comprehensive package that he's proposed.
Q Will he be promoting that package in his
speech, his State of the Union speech on Tuesday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to get at great
length into what the President is going to do on
Tuesday. But I think you can rest assured the President is
going to talk about the need to help protect America's workers, and to
create jobs and have a strong economy. That will be an
important part of the President's speech.
Q There seems to be a little bit of a
zero-sum game, economically, when you look at the stimulus plan and
what Mitch told us about the budget yesterday. He said that
there will be no debt reduction this year because of the expected and
projected size of the federal deficit. But he also said, if
there was no stimulus plan, the deficit numbers would be much smaller,
possibly making room for some debt reduction. I wonder if
you could explain to the American public why it's more important to
have a stimulus plan and not have debt reduction, than the other way
around?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, because if you're an unemployed
American, the debt that you want to have reduced is your debt for not
being able to work -- the debt that you worry about in terms of paying
your electric bills, your gas bills, and your rent and your food, the
health care for your family. And that's why, again, the
President would prefer to err on the side of helping create jobs and
helping the unemployed.
Now, if the year goes along and the Senate continues to fail to
take action, and there are increasing signs that the economy is coming
back to sufficient levels, then that could change
events. But that's not the case today, as we speak, and
that's why the President continues to urge the Senate to take action.
Q We've got American troops now in the
Philippines. I wonder why the President hasn't said more
about the operation down there, and how it fits into the larger mission
of routing terrorism wherever it may spring up?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that that is a topic that the
American people are going to want to hear a lot about on Tuesday
night. The President looks forward to sharing with the
American people his thoughts about the war on terrorism, what has been
accomplished so far, and what is next in terms of winning the war
against terrorism. I don't say that in regard to
specifically any one country, but the President does look forward to
sharing with the American people his sense of what this war is all
about, how it can be won. And that will happen on Tuesday
night.
Q What is the difference in his mind between
the sort of ramp-up to the fight in Afghanistan, conditioning the
American people about what the Taliban was all about, what al Qaeda was
all about, and operations like the one ongoing in the Philippines,
where the stakes, presumably, are just as high?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think that's -- you're
going to hear a lot of those points raised Tuesday night by the
President.
Q So he'll talk specifically about the U.S.
operation in the Philippines?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to get into specifics this
far before the President's speech, but when you talk about the
President making the case and the war on terrorism and what the war on
terrorism means to the American people, and to what he is looking at in
terms of how to win the war, beyond the immediate theater of
Afghanistan, that is something the President is going to talk about and
make that case on Tuesday.
Q So he will talk more specifically about
other theaters? Because we know what the general principles
are of the war on terrorism. That's not the
question. The question is some meat on the bone, where we
are next, what's going on in places where we are currently.
MR. FLEISCHER: He'll talk about winning the war on
terrorism beyond the Afghanistan theater alone.
Q Can I just follow up on
that? In the Afghanistan theater, one of the ultimatums the
President delivered to the Taliban was to release American missionaries
who were being held there. There are obviously -- Abu Sayyaf
is holding two American missionaries. Is there a similar
ultimatum to this group?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I'm not going to preview the
President's speech Tuesday. If I told you everything, you
might not watch it. So I would just urge you to wait until
Tuesday night, and then you'll be able to judge the President's speech
in its entirety.
Q That's a policy question, not necessarily
a speech question, Ari. What is the policy of this administration --
MR. FLEISCHER: Separate question.
Q I'm sorry?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a separate
question. The United States government has made it plain
that the United States is very concerned about the taking of hostages
in the Philippines. There is nowhere in the world, including
the Philippines, where the United States would ever countenance the
taking of American hostages.
It is another reminder about the risks that the United States is up
against, with terrorists around the world who resort to the capturing
of innocents to pursue their terrorist purposes.
Q Is there an ultimatum there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I'm not going to go beyond what
I've said.
Q Can you unravel the numbers a little bit
for us on the increase in homeland security? The President
said $38 billion, which if you add that with defense spending, would be
more than we understand the total increase in spending will
be. So, clearly, some of this money is in the budgets of
other departments, perhaps in defense, and so forth. Could
you clarify for us --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no question, homeland
security is cross-cutting. Homeland security funds programs
in a variety of different agencies. Such as, for example,
Health and Human Services with money to increase biotechnology,
prevention against bioterrorism. Public health
infrastructure improvements. Tomorrow the President will be
traveling to Portland, Maine, where the President is going to be
talking about announcing a new initiative and new funding figures for
border security. That obviously involves programs mostly in the
jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, but it also involves the
Coast Guard, which is under the Department of Transportation.
So the homeland security budget is cross-cutting. It
also does include some areas within the Department of
Defense. So it is a cross-cutting budget that the President
announced today.
There was another question earlier about the exact funding levels,
and as is the way budgets have always been done, any funding
appropriated as a result of emergency funding would not be counted in a
baseline. I think you're all familiar with that bit of
wonkery.
Q You're right. Now, how much --
as far as Tom Ridge's office is concerned --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sure you'll all get over it, as
well.
Q Well, aside from operating funds, will he
have any money, any programmatic money, any money for programs which he
is supervising? Is there anything that is actually run out
of Homeland Security, or is it largely a coordinating --
MR. FLEISCHER: Homeland Security has a budget as part of
the office of the White House, just as the National Security Council,
for example, does not have tanks in the field, the Office of Homeland
Security serves a similar purpose as the National Security Council,
which is to coordinate the various entities and agencies of the
government that do have appropriated line accounts.
Q So he will not actually have programmatic
money? He won't actually be running federal programs on
homeland defense?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. As I mentioned, those are
cross-cutting. The Coast Guard, for example -- the Coast
Guard budget is under the Department of
Transportation. Tomorrow up in Portland, Maine, the
President is going to make a new announcement about --
Q -- terrorism, public health, all of that
--
MR. FLEISCHER: -- Health and Human Services --
Q -- all of that will be done in other
departments, so they will --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. And here's how
it works, as well. The President this morning had a meeting of his
Homeland Security Council, which was chaired by Governor
Ridge. Seated at the table with Governor Ridge and the
President and the Vice President were Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Attorney General, the CIA Director, many others, as
well.
The President called the meeting; Governor Ridge briefed the
President; the Cabinet Secretaries made their presentations about the
various agencies and what they are doing as part of Governor Ridge's
homeland review.
Q On these, the homeland security, they're
going to be block grants to some of the cities, et
cetera. How are those going to be administered? Are they
going to be where they have to fill out an application, or are they
going to be automatic? And how long do you expect that
that's going to take to get the money to the cities?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in many of the cases, for example,
in the first-responder money, which the President announced today,
would have a tenfold increase in money for first-responders, up to I
think it was $3.5 billion. That money was going to go to
fund police, firemen, ambulances, the emergency first-responders in
those communities. The money will go to the states and then
the states are going to work to bring it to the local
level. That's how the money will be --
Q Have predetermined levels for the states,
in other words?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's a formula that involves the size
of the different states, size of the different cities. And I
think it's fairly logical that if there's a state -- one entity that is
10 times the size of another entity, you can expect somewhere along the
line they'll receive 10 times the amount of resources that
traditionally would have 10 times as many people.
Q Ari, on this question of border security
that he's going to address tomorrow, where does the President stand on
the idea of consolidating some of the many agencies that handle border
security -- Customs, INS and the other agencies that are involved in
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is a proposal that is under
review. The President is aware of the thoughts of different
members of his Cabinet about it. The President has asked
Governor Ridge to take a careful look at whether or not it can make the
borders more efficient in terms of allowing the flow of people and the
flow of commerce that we welcome into this country, while at the same
time preventing people and goods that we don't want in this country
from getting into the country. In other words, having a
border system that keeps terrorists out and keeps people in who want to
come to the United States. Keeping drugs out, but letting
commerce in. And that is again, a cross-cutting aspect of the United
States government.
There are a host of different agencies that are involved in things
along the border, including food inspectors, for example, from the
Department of Agriculture. So the review is being taken, to
see whether or not there is a more effective and efficient way to
consolidate any of those agencies. But no decisions have
been made. They're still talking about it.
Q To get back to the earlier funding
questions, how is it going to be determined where bioterrorism, for
example, begins or ends, and another disease begins? I mean,
anthrax versus some disease that could be used as an
attack? Are you going to say to HHS, you have to use this
money on a specific anthrax --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think one of the interesting things
here, is that you're going to see a large public benefit as a result of
the homeland security aspects that goes beyond bioterrorism, because
the benefits that are gained in fighting bioterrorism can also help in
ongoing health endeavors.
For example, the more laboratories there are that can do
examination and research of anthrax, they also have abilities to do
research in other areas, too. The more improvements that are
made to help the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta become more
modernized and have more resources, that has a magnificent benefit
throughout society, in areas that are just health related.
So the purpose is homeland defense and bioterrorism. But
it's undeniable that there are going to be ancillary benefits to
society as a whole as a result of that. But the funding is
earmarked toward those purposes.
Q Ari, have you gotten any more information
on Ben's request from yesterday, on additional Bush family members who
may have owned Enron stock?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not.
Q Last night an interview President Bush
gave Tom Brokaw of NBC, he mentioned that Afghanistan was just the
first step, and he was watching -- your government was watching other
countries. Specifically, he mentioned Iraq, and said that as
long as Saddam Hussein does not allow inspectors to come in, et
cetera. My question is, the United States, maybe Great
Britain is backing it, but I see no rush in the Security Council
either, in the five corp groups or 15 or something member group for the
inspectors to go back. So is this White House just going to
wait for inspectors to come back, or not, or are you going to take
other steps?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President was very clear in
what he said. And the reason the President said it is because Saddam
Hussein signed an agreement that helped end the Persian Gulf War, in
which he committed himself and promised to allow inspectors into the
country. That was one of the terms of
surrender. And it's another indication of the risks that
Saddam Hussein presents to the world -- when he made that agreement,
swore to the world, and then as soon as he was able to, he reneged on
the agreement. And the President stands strong and firm in
his insistence that Saddam Hussein live up to the agreements that he
himself made, that he committed his country to, to protect peace and
stability in the region.
And the President believes very deeply, having not
decided -- and I'm not indicating any next
course of action specific to Iraq -- but that the world follows strong
leadership. And I think that's one of the lessons that
you've seen in Afghanistan -- that the President was strong
in Afghanistan and the world has followed; President Musharraf was
strong in Pakistan and the Pakistani people have
followed. And that's how the President believes that the
United States can lead the world and lead the world to a more stable
world, a more peaceful world.
Q What I would like to add to my original
question is, is the United States doing anything with its partners in
the Security Council of the U.N.? Nobody else seems to be
interested in pushing that issue of the inspections, the return of the
inspectors.
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, I don't share your point on
that. The United Nations has spoken. The United
Nations has passed resolutions about it, and Iraq is violating those
resolutions.
If you're asking, can I tell you today is the President going to
take a specific step because Iraq is violating that, the President has
indicated up to this point that Iraq needs to return the inspectors to
Iraq. That's the extent -- that is the extent of what the
President has said to date.
Q On those lines, Ari, a U.S. official in
Geneva today said that time was running out for Iraq to allow U.N.
inspectors in. Is there a decision pending? Is
there something -- a new U.S. policy likely to be unveiled soon?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing -- nothing to report.
Q Getting back on the formula for money
that's going to the states, you mentioned size would be an important
factor. Will you not also consider threat? And if
so, how you factor that in?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, mostly -- the spending on homeland
security, which is now going to -- as I mentioned, doubled up to $35
billion, will come in a variety of different
categories. Within those categories, there are going to be
different spending allocations and decisions. For example,
on the first-responders, which there is no telling where our next
threat may be. Hopefully, there never will be a next attack
on the United States. But I think that will flow along the logical
lines of the different sizes of the different entities have different
needs. New York City and Los Angeles have much more need for
first-responders, for example, than a smaller city would. So
there can be a formulaic approach when it comes to that.
On health, for example, where you have the Centers for Disease
Control, which does a lot of work across the country, but most of it is
located in Atlanta, you're going to have a more focused approach there,
because the Centers for Disease Control is unique; it's not formulaic.
What they do is they spread out across the country.
On the funding for border initiatives, for example, obviously, the
funding on the border initiatives is going to be located on states that
have borders, which will be the northern area of the country and the
southern tier of the country. I don't think you'll see a lot
of border funding given to Iowa. So there's just a certain
logic of these programs and how they work.
Q You don't see these reports, though, of
alerts from the CIA or FBI or any kind of that data weighing into how
--
MR. FLEISCHER: No, Jean, because remember on those
reports there was no site-specific information in almost every case.
Q Ari, do you have any detail on the
upcoming Karzai visit, his schedule and who might be coming with him?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know who is coming with
him. I know that he will be meeting with the President on
Monday, and we will, of course, have information about the meeting on
Monday.
Q He arrives in the country on Sunday?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have his itinerary; I just have
the President's.
Q Who would have his itinerary?
MR. FLEISCHER: Afghani authorities or the State
Department.
Q Do you know what he's doing Tuesday
night?
MR. FLEISCHER: You almost caught me, Ron.
Q Sitting in the front row?
Q -- you should know. (Laughter.)
Q Good head fake, Ari.
MR. FLEISCHER: I need a quick dodge.
Q Along those lines -- this is not a
flippant question, but is the President going to talk about the Enron
situation, either directly or perhaps indirectly, in the State of the
Union speech?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I'm not, on any of the specific
questions you're asking, indicating what the President is going to
say. This is Thursday. The President is going to
practice the State of the Union today. He'll do probably additional
practice over the weekend. He's still reviewing his
remarks. And so I'm not just, on any of the levels of
specificity that you're very appropriately asking about -- the news
will be made by the President. The news will be made by -- I
appreciate the opportunity to preempt the President's State of the
Union. I like my job.
Q Let's make some other news on campaign
finance reform.
MR. FLEISCHER: Wait, we still have people who haven't
had questions yet.
Q Thank you. We saw what the
President said last night -- that was a good
feature, by the way -- about John Walker. In the wake of
what Walker and his parents and attorney said today, does the President
have any fresh thoughts, especially about the charges that he had asked
for legal representation, or the father's claims that the son had done
nothing anti-American?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has faith in our impartial
system of justice. And the system of justice does not
respond to news conferences of the day. The system of
justice responds to evidence that is presented in a court of law and to
strict adherence of the laws that protect all citizens, including John
Walker. And that's where the President's faith
lies. And the President looks forward to justice being done
in a court.
Q Ari, following up on your opening
statement, who in the Senate is responsible for the inaction on the
judicial nominees?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you take a look at the pace of
what's happened, the President made his first nominations in
May. The Senate then changed parties in June. And
so for that short one-month period where the Republicans controlled the
Senate, I don't think anybody's expecting one-month action on judicial
nominations. So since the change in the Senate, since June,
when it came under Democratic control, it really has been a very slow
movement on the President's judicial nominees.
I know some of the Democrats like to say they confirmed more
nominees in the last six months than the Republicans confirmed in the
first six months. Well, of course, they did. The
President didn't make any nominations until May. So I think
that wherever it is, whether it's with any one senator, or whether it's
more than one senator -- which is often the case in the Senate -- and
there have been cases, isolated, where Republicans put holds on
nominees -- again, those were isolated -- it doesn't matter to the
President who individually has placed a hold on a
nominee. What matters to the President is that the vacancies
on the bench be filled up, so that Americans can go to court and expect
quick action in a court, and not a delayed action because there are so
few court rooms that have judges sitting in the chairs. And
that's where the President's concern is.
Q On one other Senate issue, the faith-based
plan. The President in his speech to the mayors today gave
pretty spirited defense of it. Has he or anybody at the
White House received any new signals from the Senate about the
prospects of faith-based?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we have, and the signals are
somewhat mixed. It appears that there are some senators who
would very much like to work in a bipartisan way with the
administration on faith-based legislation to help people in
poverty. There's also a hope that perhaps it will get
scheduled for a vote. But I don't believe we have received
any commitments about a scheduled vote.
But there are, indeed, some senators who want to work closely with
the White House on that. And the President welcomes that and
the White House has been reciprocating, working with those senators.
Q Daschle specifically committed to bring it
up this year. Is that commitment still valid? He
did that last year. Is that commitment still valid, as far
as you're concerned?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can't speak for the Senate
Majority Leader. Only he can schedule votes, so if he were indicating
a date and time specific -- he has indicated that on several other
issues, such as energy, there will be action. And he has
committed to time frames on some of these issues. So that's
a question that only the Senate Majority Leader can answer.
Q Are you going to try to hold him to that
timetable?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly, the President thinks
it's important to help people who are in poverty and people who can
benefit from his armies of compassion initiative or the faith-based
initiative. The only way that can happen is for the Senate
to vote it.
Q Related to scheduling of votes, campaign
finance in the House has now achieved the necessary signatures for a
discharge position to force House consideration of
that. One, White House reaction? Two, the
Shays-Meehan bill, the White House and the President would sign?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, I have not gotten confirmation on
what you just said about the petition. So, without accepting
the premise of that, because I just have not -- the petition process,
as you know, is a very complicated process in the House.
Q Is there some doubt in your mind as to
whether --
MR. FLEISCHER: But in any case, as you recall the House
of Representatives did last year take up campaign finance reform and in
a very complicated series of actions. As campaign finance
reform emerged from the Rules Committee, there were a series of test
votes on the floor, and the result was, actually, a defeat of campaign
finance reform, because of an unusual coalition where many Democrats
voted against campaign finance reform. There is a split in
the Democrat ranks on several of the campaign finance reform
proposals.
In all cases, the President is committed to having campaign finance
reform enacted into law. He believes that improvements can
be made in the current system of campaign financing. And the
President -- as well as electoral reform, and election reform, which
the President would like to see move forward.
But the President does think that we need to abolish soft
money. The President thinks that soft money should be
abolished for individuals -- that it should be abolished for
corporations, that it should be abolished for unions. Those
are the two groups that the President strongly believes soft money
should be abolished.
He believes that there should be an increase in the limits of how
much people individually can give in their hard money contributions, to
be a more accurate reflection of inflation. The President
believes in full and prompt disclosure. He himself, during
the campaign, of course, released all his information virtually
instantly on the Internet.
So the President has made it very clear to Congress that they
cannot count on him to veto campaign finance reform. And I
think in that process, it forced the debate to become a real one. And
that's one of the reasons I
think you've seen many Democrats really start to question whether
or not they want campaign finance reform to eventually be sent to the
President.
Q Will the President sign a campaign finance
reform bill that comes out of Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: It depends on what it
says. But the President has made it clear that he can't be
counted on to veto it. Which I think was a calculation that
many people made previously, which is one of the things that stopped
campaign finance reform from ever getting done.
Q You say he wants campaign finance reform,
but you won't say unequivocally that he will sign a bill that comes out
of --
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course. No President is
going to give a blank check to Congress and say, you pass anything,
I'll sign it. No, of course --
Q Have you ever said that he'd sign it
before?
MR. FLEISCHER: You can check the transcript,
David. But I will reiterate what I've always said, that the
President has made it clear that he can't be counted on to veto
it. The President very much wants something that he can
sign.
And you've very cleverly got people asking who had questions before
-- I'm trying to spread it around, then we'll come back.
Q If the United States can find two
witnesses who will testify in court that John Walker committed an act
of treason, would the President like to see him charged with treason?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a question of Justice, that's a
question of judiciary matters, and that is not something that the
President of the United States decides. That is a question
that needs to be addressed to the people who would gather evidence,
would know whether or not such witnesses existed, and that means the
Department of Justice. The President of the United States
does not determine charges that are brought in courts of law under our
system. Those decisions are made by professional
prosecutors, and the President has faith in those people to make those
judgments.
Q Ari, the President will oppose the ideas
from members of the Democratic Party to restore welfare benefits to
legal residents?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President announced just the
opposite. The President would support a change in the 1996
welfare law, which limited the ability of non-citizens, or immigrants,
to come to this country. And if their circumstances changed
and they needed to go onto food stamps, there was a provision in the
'96 law which denied food stamps to people who are legal residents of
this country. And the President has opposed that
provision. He opposed it as governor of Texas, and in any
reauthorization of welfare reform, the President has made it clear that
he would oppose that now.
Q Does the President have any specific idea
in terms of combatting the narco traffic in the border with Mexico, and
the fact that in the last couple of months there have been reports of
increase of drug smuggling from Mexico to the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Governor Ridge has been in contact with
Mexican officials, and Governor Ridge will be traveling to the region
shortly, at the President's direction, to talk about border initiatives
with Mexico.
This remains a top priority for President Bush. The
President, despite what has happened on September 11th, sees it as
vital to America's interest to work closely with Mexico, so that our
border with Mexico facilitates the free flow of goods; that people can
come to the United States legally, for opportunity, while having a
border that keeps out drugs. And that remains an important
priority. The initiative the President is going to be
announcing in Portland, Maine tomorrow, will be very helpful in
addressing these border issues, both to the north and to the south.
Q On the homeland defense funds, obviously
homeland defense is an evolving situation. Six months from
now, our needs could be very different than they are
now. Has there been any thought in this new allocation of
money to sitting on some of it for a period of time, or is it all going
to be allocated to be spent immediately?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, remember, what the President
announced today is a funding proposal that will be part of the budget
that is sent to the budget on February the 4th. That
proposal is for spending that begins in fiscal year
2003. The first date of that is, of course, September 1,
2002. So this is a proposal the President will make. It
will now go to the Congress and it will go to the various committees,
and the committees will decide whether it's the right amount, too much,
too little. And then it gets appropriated, and then spent by
the agencies of the government throughout fiscal year
2003. So it's a 12-month process.
Les, you seem to have something on your mind today.
Q Ari, since both United States Senators
from New York have now contributed money equal to their contributions
received from Enron to a fund to help laid-off and pension-destroyed
employees, my question is, has the President ever considered the
possibility of inviting all of these laid-off Enron employees, mostly
Texans, as I understand it, to Enron Field in Texas, along with Enron
officers like Lay, and suggesting that Lay contribute $29 million of
the $30 million he got away with to the employees fund?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has been very focused on
the whole issue of how to protect the workers at Enron, as well as
other companies whose pensions have been either wiped out or severely
diminished as a result of this. And the President thinks the
best way to help them is through changes that can possibly be made to
the nation's pension laws, as well as the review that the Secretary of
Labor is carrying out right now, aimed specifically at those Enron
employees. So the President does think that there can be
things that need to be done. And I think you'll hear more
about that at some point.
Q C-SPAN radio provided nationwide coverage
on Monday at Washington's Metropolitan AME Church, where a program by
Black Voices of Peace, arranged by John Hutto of Amnesty International,
declared, the U.S. has no right to hold detainees in Cuba; Ariel
Sharon, George Bush, Kissinger and Clinton are terrorists; and America
got what it deserved on 9/11. And since you and Secretary
Rumsfeld so effectively refuted European critics of the detaining,
surely you will refute these American critics, won't you, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, I have not heard those specific
remarks, but I don't think it matters, in the President's opinion, the
source of any remarks that would suggest that what the United States is
doing is not fully consistent with the Geneva Convention in Cuba,
because it is. And the President has great pride in the way
that the men and the women of the military are treating these very
dangerous people who have been brought to Guantanamo Bay, so that they
are not free to go around the world and engage in more terrorism
against our citizens.
Q So you are appalled at what was done --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I've answered it.
Q You used very strong language that I think
painted President Bush as potentially a campaign finance reformer --
very strong language. I mean, you've made comments like
this, similar, but never strung together, I don't think, the way you
did earlier. Is it Enron -- the fact that we had an Attorney
General who had to recuse himself, New York senators who have given
back money, your former employer, Elizabeth Dole, who has offered to
give back money -- is it Enron that is moving the President now in a
position where he now says, there's just too much money that's being
thrown around this town? Is that advancing the President's
position?
MR. FLEISCHER: I appreciate the, I think, compliment
that you gave me. But there's nothing new I've
said. I mean, that's what the President himself has said
from the very beginning of the year. And you can just check
the transcript and check the records of both the President's remarks
and mine. And you'll see that's what the President has
always said.
The times that this issue came up the most were, frankly, about the
time that the Senate took action on campaign finance reform, when it
was a red-hot topic, and I said the same thing then. And, of
course, last year, when the House tried to take up campaign finance
reform, but many of the Democrats voted against it and it did not pass
in the House.
Q Well, if the Democrats are now united, or
if there's enough of them to come along, will he specifically sign
Shays-Meehan, if that's the legislation that comes up? A
solid, soft money ban.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, given the fact that what the Senate
passed is not exactly Shays-Meehan, so even if the House passed
something similar to Shays-Meehan, it would still have to go to
conference. But I think the President would view that as --
the President wants to see progress made on campaign finance reform so
he can sign something into law. And that's been what he's
been saying all year.
Q Ari, may I follow that? If
you're right and you haven't gone any farther on campaign finance
reform -- I want to take another stab at Ken's question -- do you think
that Enron underscores the need for campaign finance reform?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Enron underscores the need for a
couple things. One is for a full-blown criminal investigation to
determine who did something wrong, wherever they are -- whether it was
Enron, whether it was any of the accounting firms, or wherever they
are. That is ongoing.
Enron underscores the need to take a review of how the pensions in
this country are administered, given the fact that we have many people
who lost a lot of money, while also protecting people who work for a
great number of companies -- some of the most successful companies in
America, where there are literally tens of millions of people who are
going to retire, already retired, thanks to a pension system that
allows people to invest in 401Ks. That's what the President
thinks of the lessons of Enron.
Q But does it also underscore the need for
campaign finance reform, do you think?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you accept the premise that if
contributions were somehow limited, would that have changed
what anybody inside Enron did -- I don't know that anybody
could give you that answer. Only the people who were inside
Enron can give you that answer.
Thank you.
END 1:16
P.M. EST
#133-01/24
|