For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 14, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:34 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me fill
you in on the President's day, and then I have a rather lengthy opening
statement I'd like to make about events concerning the Pan Am 103
verdict.
The President this morning had his regular round of briefings from
the CIA and the FBI about the latest developments in the
war. The President will depart the White House shortly to
give remarks on global development assistance policy at the
Inter-American Development Bank.
In these remarks, the President is going to announce a new compact
and a new approach to helping the developing nations of the world, so
that they are able to lift up their citizens and give them economic
opportunities. The President is going to talk about aid; the President
is going to talk about reform; the President is going to talk about
trade. The President will also focus on the importance of
helping people to have lives that are economically successful, that
also include the educational benefits and the health benefits that we
want people to have around the world, by having governments that root
out corruption, that focus on human rights, and are governed by the
rule of law.
The President will then return to the White House. And
later this evening the President will meet with the Prime Minister of
Canada to talk about bilateral issues between our two nations,
including trade issues, border issues, thank Canada for their help and
hard work in securing our borders, our common border. The
President will also have dinner with the Prime Minister of Canada this
evening.
As far as the court ruling this morning regarding Pan Am 103, the
United States government welcomes the decision of the Scottish High
Court of the Judiciary, sitting in the Netherlands, to uphold the
conviction of Abdel al-Megrahi. We reiterate the need for
the government of Libya to move quickly to satisfy its remaining
obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions related to the
bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The completion of the appeal
does not end U.S. sanctions against Libya, but should spur Libya to
take quick action to fully comply with the requirements of the United
Nations Security Council.
We again express our deepest sympathy to the families of those who
were lost in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. As we have
stated previously, nothing can undo the suffering this act of terrorism
has caused. However, we hope that for all those who lost
loved ones in this tragic accident, they will find some solace in the
measure of justice achieved by today's decision.
This decision affirming the conviction of a Libyan agent for the
bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 represents a vindication of efforts by
successive United States administrations. It also underlies
the unshakable determination of the United States not to forget, but to
hold terrorists accountable for their acts.
The President also renews his congratulations to the Scottish
prosecution team, and his thanks to the Dutch government for its
assistance, and to the entire United States government team who
contributed to this outcome.
With that, I'm happy to take questions.
Q Ari, does the United States feel that
there were others at large who were involved in the bombing of Pan Am
103 still out there who haven't been brought to trial?
MR. FLEISCHER: The case remains an open
case. And the United States government will continue to
pursue any leads as appropriate if any develop. The case remains an
open case.
Q What exactly does Libya need to do to
comply, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, they need to pay all appropriate
compensation to the families. They are in discussions with
the lawyers for the families. It's the appropriate mechanism for the
determination of a level of payment to be arrived at. They
have to acknowledge responsibility in this matter and to pay the
reparations as negotiated. Those are their obligations that
they have to fulfill under the United Nations Security Council
resolutions.
Q Has the United States had any discussions
with the Libyans about this in recent months?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the discussions of the exact
amount of how much needs to be paid, the reparations, that's a matter
between the families and the Libyan authorities. Further
meetings are possible involving the United States
government. None have been planned at this
time. There have been occasional meetings in the past.
Q Ari, yesterday one of the few subjects
that did not come up in international affairs had to do with
Colombia. The Secretary of State recently gave testimony in
Congress in which he said that a project will be sent up there asking
for less rigid language on the aid to Colombia, so maybe some of it can
be used to fight terrorism, not just counternarcotics. Does the
President have a view on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration has consulted with the
Congress on this matter, and about the serious concerns that we have
involving providing help to the government of Colombia as it faces the
threats from within from the FARC. And the United States, in
these consultations -- as Secretary Powell has said, the
administration has determined that we seek new and more explicit legal
authorities for State and DOD assistance to Colombia, to support the
government of Colombia in its unified campaign against narcotic
trafficking, terrorist activities and other threats to its national
security.
So we have made that determination. We're going to
continue to observe all the requirements of current law as we work with
the Congress to try to figure out the appropriate way to bring more
help to the government of Colombia. The Congress has been
very productive, very helpful. Many people in the Congress
had some good ideas about how to proceed, and we're going to continue
to work with them.
Q But the restraints are in place, like the
number of troops -- I think 400 is the maximum
-- you can't help offices that violate human rights, and
some of those are -- those will still be kept?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, it's principally the Byrd and the
Leahy amendments which restrict or bind the activities that can be
undertaken. Of course, that is the law of the land, and the law of the
land will be obeyed. But we have gone to the Congress and
said, we do seek to make some changes now, to help the government of
Colombia.
Q The President says he will not provide a
sanctuary for the al Qaeda. And as you know, Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld and military leaders at the Pentagon have been
saying that one of the missions in the war in Afghanistan is to destroy
"the al Qaeda". And yet there are reports coming from
Afghanistan that some of the leadership there, some of the Afghan
leadership is willing to make deals with the al Qaeda of the Taliban,
that if they surrender, they will let them go free. Would
the President accept such a deal, if so, and if not, what would he do
about it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The purpose of the mission is to destroy
al Qaeda so they cannot regroup, so it makes it as hard as possible for
them in their ongoing efforts to regroup, and then to inflict more harm
on either the United States or any of our friends or other
allies. So the President's point, which is something that
DOD carries out every day, is to create an environment in which they
cannot regroup, and that means the notion of letting people go free is
not something the United States supports. And it's a fluid
situation on the ground in Afghanistan; that is a message that is
conveyed, and we continue to work with our friends in Afghanistan to
achieve that objective.
Q Ari, on Pickering, you said
earlier -- two questions on
Pickering. You said that the President and his staff are
making "a call or two." It doesn't sound like there's an
intensive, you know, calling or reaching out to senators to try and win
Pickering's nomination.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you have to keep in mind in a case
like this, where unless the Senate changes what their intentions are,
where it's the will of the Senate leadership to bottle this up and
allow the vote to proceed only in committee because they lack the votes
on the floor to stop the nomination from going through
-- that there just aren't that many swingable votes on the
committee. There's no point in calling people whose minds
are made up; they don't change their mind. It can be a
pleasant conversation, but nothing happens.
So there are just a small enough universe of people that it's worth
making a phone call to, to see if they want to think through some of
the arguments that the President made yesterday, they may be receptive
to those arguments. So a small number of calls have been
made, and we'll see exactly what the committee does.
But the President would regret it very much if the committee killed
this man's nomination after the full Senate voted unanimously just 12
years ago to support him for the district court, especially when there
are enough votes to pass him on the floor. And that's one of
the most troublesome aspects about this process. It's a hint
that the judicial process may be marred by partisanship and ideology,
when it should be marked by success and bipartisanship, especially when
the votes are there to pass people on the floor.
Q Let me follow up, because some Republicans
are already talking about consequences -- even
some senior administration officials are saying consequences for the
Democrats if this nomination is killed. What consequences
are we talking about? And would the administration support
what some Republicans are talking about, delaying the work of the
Senate to force action on other judicial nominees?
MR. FLEISCHER: Make no mistake, the greatest consequence
of this Senate committee killing this nomination, if they do so, will
be on justice in America, on delays in the courts, on the number of
vacancies in the courts. That's the greatest consequence of
all.
America has judicial emergencies. America has courtrooms
that lack judges, and that means justice is delayed, and justice
delayed can be justice denied. And that's the greatest harm
done if the Senate proceeds to kill this nomination and send a signal
to this White House that the circuit court nominations are not going to
go through, especially when the gold standard that the Democrats like
to observe, the American Bar Association's ratings, call him
well-qualified.
Q Consequences for Democrats,
though? Will there be consequences for Democrats beyond the
consequences --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the consequence the President
sees.
Q What does this episode suggest to you
about the future of getting your nomination approved, and in general
about efforts for the President to select judges that somehow reflect
his own views?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that what this process shows is
that there is a bipartisan majority to confirm the President's choices
on the floor of the Senate, but there is a determination made by the
Senate leadership to prevent bipartisanship from
happening. And that's a very unfortunate process, problem,
in the United States Senate. It doesn't serve the President
well, clearly, because I think most people agree Presidents are
entitled to have their nominees put in place. But, more
importantly, it doesn't serve the nation, because there's a judicial
crisis, there are vacancies in the court. And the Senate has
obligation to fulfill, under its constitutional requirements, putting
judges in place, as the President has requested.
And I think it would be a different matter if these nominations the
President was making lacked bipartisan support on the floor of the
Senate. There is a bipartisan majority to put his nominations through,
and that's why the Senate is going through extraordinary hoops to keep
it bottled up in committee to stop the bipartisan will.
Q If I could follow on the question about
consequences, there are people on Capitol Hill, Republicans who are
talking about there will be some consequences from the way this has
been handled by the Democrats. You make it sound as if the
White House is simply at the mercy of Democrats in the Judiciary
Committee; even if they're acting wrongly in your view, they have the
power to do so and there's not much you can do about it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is not a voting
member of the United States Senate. The President can make
his case to the American people, and the American people ultimately
will be the judges. But the President hopes that, number
one, that Judge Pickering will be approved today in
committee. Let's see what the vote is. If he is
defeated in committee, it's again a reflection of the fact that the
Senate leadership would resort to killing qualified nominees in
committee because the Senate leadership knows that it does not have the
votes to stop them on the floor.
And that's a very unfortunate result. And I think it's
also what makes people sour on Washington, when they know that there is
bipartisanship available, but there are leaders who choose not to take
it.
Q May I follow on Pickering
also? Could this be a recess appointment someplace down the
line? Is it possible in this type of position? Or
would the President consider another position --
MR. FLEISCHER: Connie, I'm just not going to
speculate. They haven't even voted yet.
Q Did the President meet with anybody on
this, bring anybody from the Hill to the White House to lobby them on
Pickering?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I'm just not going to describe
how the President goes about some of the contacts he has. He
has talked to people about it, and just out of respect for the privacy
of the President's conversations, I'm not going to get into that.
Q But usually when he's serious about
something like this, he'll publicly bring somebody down, we know about
it. A lot of issues he does that on, where he brings
somebody in the Oval Office and --
MR. FLEISCHER: Sometimes also when he's serious about
things, you don't know about it. But I think you saw his
seriousness yesterday.
Q Ari, on the same subject, Ari
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Then we go all the way to the back, and
then we come to you, Les.
Q On the same subject, I think this has been
brought up here and by you also, is the fact that when the shoe was on
the other foot, the Republicans have done the same thing to the
Democrats --
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question of that.
Q So maybe the law should be changed in the
Senate to try to put a stop to this kind of thing. It
happens all the time, Ari.
MR. FLEISCHER: It does happen all the
time. And I can tell you that was not the way Governor Bush
did his business with the legislature in Texas. And it's not
the way that the American people want business to be done.
The American people want to be able to look at Washington and say
that even though they have differences of approach and differences of
opinion, at the end of the day the Democrats and Republicans are able
to get together and get things done for the country.
And that's what's so distressing about the process that the Senate
leadership has chosen to take in this matter with Judge
Pickering. They have chosen a process that is a partisan
one, that defies bipartisanship -- because they know, the
Senate leadership does, that there are enough votes to pass Judge
Pickering on the floor of the Senate. Not by a lot, but in
our democracy, a majority, and it would be bipartisan. And
that's what makes it even more disappointing to see the Senate
leadership decide to try to stop a good man's nomination, a qualified
man's nomination, a nominee who received 100 percent of the votes of
the Senate before.
Something has changed, and what's changed is the Senate is pursuing
an unfortunate partisan direction, when you have a judicial candidate
who has bipartisan support -- especially
bipartisan support from within his own state.
Q Ari, I was hoping you could help me
understand two things that the President said yesterday during the
press conference, when he was asked about the nuclear posture
review. The first thing he said was, first of all, the
nuclear review is not new. It's gone on in previous
administrations. Did he mean by that to say that the process
of doing a nuclear review was not new, or the content of this one was
not new?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me state something
clearly. "We continue to maintain a nuclear deterrent,
absolutely devastating in its destructive power. Anyone who
considered using a weapon of mass destruction against the United States
or its allies must first consider the consequences. We will
not specify in advance what our response will be, but it would be both
overwhelming and devastating." That was said by Secretary of
Defense William Perry in 1996. Let me continue.
"We must maintain nuclear forces sufficient to deter any potential
adversary from using or threatening to use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons against the United States or its allies, and as a
hedge against defeat of U.S. conventional forces in defense of vital
interests." That was said by then Secretary of Defense
William Cohen in January of 2000. And that's what the President was
mentioning, that this is not a new policy. In fact, the most
new element of all the nuclear posture review is President Bush's
follow-through on its campaign promise to unilaterally lower the level
of offensive nuclear weapons, as he announced, down to 1,700 from
2,200.
The broader point the President was making yesterday is that, to
keep the peace, it's important to have deterrence, and that is the
ongoing context in which previous administrations have discussed
nuclear posture review, and the President yesterday.
Q If I can follow up on
that. When he said yesterday the President must have all
options available to make a deterrent have meaning, is it his belief
that the new nuclear posture review, the one just conducted, gives him
new options, particularly in regard to dealing with nonstate actors?
MR. FLEISCHER: It maintains all options. And
that's been the position of the government for quite a period of time,
that --
Q Do you think it creates any new options
for him? I didn't ask whether it closed any off, but whether
it creates new ways.
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the newest element in
there is the reduction in offensive nuclear weapons. But
when it comes to the United States sending a clear message that we
will -- we have the ability to deter and the
consequences will be severe of any nations that use WMD, I would just
again refer you right back to what was said by Clinton administration
officials; properly so.
Q I just want to follow on that, because the
Clinton administration officials are saying that it was never a Clinton
administration policy to have contingency plans to use nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear states such as Syria or Iran. And that's
where they see a big difference between what this administration is
putting forward and what they did. How do you respond to
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I just cite exactly what was said
by Secretary of Defense William Perry in 1996.
Q But they talked generally; they did not
talk about -- talking about targeting or using
against a non-nuclear state.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, this is Secretary Perry in
1996: "We continue to maintain a nuclear deterrent,
absolutely devastating in its destructive power." And then
he continues, and he says, "Anyone who considered using a weapon of
mass destruction against the United States or its allies must first
consider the consequences." And that says "anyone."
Q So this administration is saying there is
absolutely no change in policy between this administration and the
Clinton administration when it comes to nuclear
-- the use of nuclear arms?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a consistent policy, as I read those
two previous statements.
Q I'm wondering again, going back to the
President's press conference, if he misspoke or mischaracterized the
lawsuit by the GAO. I think the President talked about the
GAO asking for transcripts, among other things. I believe
the GAO is not asking for transcripts anymore.
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, as that has been explained to
me by our White House attorneys, that's a matter of legal
dispute. That is what the GAO has publicly
said. The GAO has publicly indicated that despite their
previous request for transcripts, for information of what specifically
was discussed in meetings, they subsequently said, no, we're no longer
requesting that -- publicly.
According to our lawyers, when they take a look at the legal
analysis of the pending court case -- and that
is, after all, what is determinative -- they
say that's not clear; that the manner in which the GAO has presented
their papers indicates that they still are seeking information that
goes into some of the specifics.
But the President's more general point goes right back to a very
important issue that the President is determined to take a strong stand
on, and that is prerogatives of the executive vis-a-vis the
legislature. And since Watergate and Vietnam, the
longstanding diminution of executive power to the
legislature. And the President does see this as an important
issue about his right as President, and rights of future Presidents, to
receive the counsel and the advice that the they seek.
It's not far removed to say that if an organization, indeed, the
Congress or GAO specifically, is able to demand and receive every name
of everybody the President meets with, it's not far from that to find
out everything they talked about. So it's a consistent point
that the President is making in defense of the executive prerogatives
which are protected under the Constitution. And the GAO is
determined to take it to court; the President has said, that's where
we'll see you.
Q So you're saying a list of
names --
Q Going back to Pickering for a
moment. The Senate has had a committee system for a long
time. Are you saying that the Judiciary Committee should
have no role in the vetting or passing on of judicial
nominations --
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course not. Of course not.
Q -- and that
judicial nominations should go right to the floor, with no vote in the
Judiciary Committee?
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't indicate anything even
resembling that. What I've indicated is that in the
Judiciary Committee previously, they have reported out unfavorably
recommendations so they could proceed with a vote on the
floor. That's not uncommon; it's been done
before. But if you want consistency in the United States
Senate, you can take a look at two very big issues that are pending
before the Senate right now. And one is the nomination of
Judge Pickering, and the other is energy security.
There's only one consistent action taken by the Senate leadership,
and that is to try to stop President Bush from getting his policies in
place. When it comes to energy security, the Senate leadership made a
decision not to even let the Energy Committee have any say in the
energy legislation. They immediately said the only entity that will
discuss this is the floor of the Senate.
On Judiciary, they said that only the committee will have a vote,
not the floor. There's no consistent approach when it comes
to how to ensure a fair, bipartisan debate. The only
consistent approach seems to be determined to inject partisanship into
the will of the Senate, when there is bipartisan support for the
President's nomination.
Q If a negative vote in committee doesn't
kill a nomination, then what's the point of the vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a procedure in the Senate and the
House that's been -- in the Senate that has
been allowed before, to report unfavorably, so that all 100 members of
the Senate can have their say.
Jim, you had a question?
Q Yes, but I want to switch from following
up on that, if I could. Can I just dissect for a moment this INS
thing? I mean, clearly this was a screw-up and was
embarrassing. But does the administration see that any harm
was done in this regard? Or is it simply a fear about that
much mismanagement possibly leading to some future harm with regard to
terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's exactly why we need to investigate
this, in the President's opinion. They need to determine
what took place, how it took place, why it could possibly have taken
place, and whether or not it's systematic of something broader that
could indeed do harm, that could suggest that we're not able to patrol
or control who comes into this country and who doesn't.
As part of the President's budget, he has proposed an additional
$400 million for next year to create a new entry and exit system, so
that we can improve the operations of the INS. It is a very
important matter.
It is also a very embarrassing matter. And when the
President woke up yesterday, saw it in the papers
-- which was how he learned of it -- he
immediately in his conversations in the Oval Office that morning set in
motion the series of events that you heard and read about yesterday,
where he announced in response to the questions how upset he was about
it. And the Attorney General has directed the Inspector
General of the INS to get to the bottom of it, and he's got 30 days to
do so.
Les, I told you, we're going to go to the back of the room, then we
come to the side of the room.
Q Back and forth, and back and
forth --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm kind of going back there.
Q So you're saying it suggests a level of
mismanagement that could be dangerous, but, in this particular case,
was not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, we're trying to determine
what the facts are. But clearly, in the case of the two
individuals, they killed themselves on September 11th. So,
in the specifics of it, it's a very embarrassing matter that suggests
there could be other problems at the INS that have got to be looked at
and dealt with to determine whether there are other problems there.
Q All right, but there's no information that
anyone in the U.S. government knew at the time or warned the border
checkpoints that these two guys had terrorist connections or
should --
MR. FLEISCHER: No. In fact, I think it's been
long recognized that in this matter, they came to the country legally,
and that was prior to these papers being sent to the school in
Florida.
Q In the context of the President's speech
this afternoon, what does he say to his critics and even his allies in
the hemisphere who say that the government has succumbed to
protectionist pressures, not just simply on steel but on anti-dumping,
on farm subsidies, on market access issues having to do with farm
products?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's kind of an ironic
statement for people to make, given the fact that this is one of the
most free trading Presidents we've seen. Take a look at the
President -- the President was really
challenged very strongly when he ran for President by Republicans, in
his own party, because of the President's determination to trade with
China, for example, to allow China to enter into the World Trade
Organization; to enter into a new round of global talks, which
Ambassador Zoellick was successful in doing in Qatar
-- I think it was in Qatar, but it was in the new round of
global negotiations that Ambassador Zoellick reached an agreement
at -- for the free trade vote in the
House of Representatives on trade authority for the
President. That had been unsuccessful for 10 years; the
President was able to get that done in the House of
Representatives. He's still waiting for the Senate to do
it.
So the President has not only taken on people in his own party who
don't believe in free trade, but he's been successful in bringing
Democrats and Republicans together as President to further the actual
legislation necessary to promote more trade.
Q Now, Ari? Now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les --
relax. (Laughter.)
Q Relax?
MR. FLEISCHER: I told you, we're going around the room.
Q Okay. There is nothing that has
happened in the trade area since he was inaugurated that has
represented a giving up or a compromise on a trade issue that has
resulted due to trade agreements.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd beg to differ. Because of
the process by which trade works, the process of trade begins, of
course, with -- as I indicated, the global
round of talks, which broke down in Seattle previously, which was now
successful under this administration. The House of
Representatives' passage of free trade legislation for the President,
which allows him, then, to enter into trade negotiations around the
world. You can easily make the case that it's very hard to enter into
bilateral or multilateral trade agreements around the world until
Congress gives him the authority to do so, and that's why we're waiting
for the Senate action.
Q Two things. One, how will we
get your reaction to the Pickering vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: To what?
Q To the Pickering vote. Because
you sort of deflected a lot of questions by saying the vote hasn't
happened. Will the President speak? Will you put out a
statement?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you can anticipate a statement by
the President.
Q Okay. In writing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Written statement.
Q And then, on an entirely different topic,
the President the other day was talking about the damaging effect of
the Jerry Springer show on America's image overseas. Does
the President feel it's good for America's image overseas to have a
convicted rapist licensed to box in the Nation's Capital?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not a topic I've really gone over
with the President, so I'm not going to comment on that.
Q Do you think that
-- do you think it's something he will choose not to weigh
in on?
MR. FLEISCHER: You were free to ask him,
Deb. He held a news conference yesterday. He took
22 questions, and nobody asked him.
Q I know, and I didn't get called on.
Q In Texas, the Andrea Yates trial, both
prosecution and defense acknowledged that she is mentally
ill. Does President Bush believe the death penalty is
appropriate for anyone who's convicted who's mentally ill?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ann, the President believes that those
are decisions for juries to make based on the laws of their states.
Q And Daniel Pearl? Is there any
follow-up on prosecution concerning Daniel Pearl's killers?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Attorney General is having a news
conference today. So if there is anything to be announced on
that front, you'll get it from the A.G.
Q Is there any reaction to the budget
resolution that was passed by the House Budget Committee last night?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is very pleased that the
House is moving forward with passage of a budget resolution that is
very strongly supportive of policies and priorities that the President
announced, which is to fully fund the war on terrorism, to protect
America's homeland, and to provide responsible increases in spending on
domestic programs. The President is gratified by the action
that the House Budget Committee took.
Q Well, there has been some criticism,
though, in how they arrived at some of the numbers by using White House
rather than CBO assumptions.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is not the arbiter
of whether it be CBO or OMB or any other bunch of initials that
Congress uses as they put together budgets.
Q There's been a lot of debate in this GAO
debate about the diminishing of presidential
authority. There's been a lot of general talk about it, but
no specific talk. How, over the years, has the President's
authority been diminished?
MR. FLEISCHER: In multiple ways. I think when
you look statutorily at some of the areas --
take, for example, appropriations -- much of
the domestic spending done now is earmarked, far more than it ever was
before, removing the Executive Branch's ability to take a look on the
merits in a broad, national sense, to decide what programs should or
should not be funded. Depending on the various program, you
will see earmarks in giant excess of where they used to be, where
Congress will decide exactly where the money gets spent, often because
of the power of a committee chairman or because of arrangements that
are made between members of Congress to decide where money gets
spent. You see it in several of the restrictions on the
administration's ability in matters military that Congress has put
restrictions on the Executive Branch. And, of course, the
President obeys anything that is statutory law of the land.
I think you've also seen it throughout the last decade in terms of
many of the investigations that took place of the Executive
Branch. The sharing or the yielding of information by the
Executive Branch to the Congress as investigations were launched and as
investigations accelerated. That's been a longstanding, gradual
process. And the Executive Branch is a co-equal branch of
government.
Q Ari, the New York Times reports from Tel
Aviv a demonstration of 30,000 Israelis, some carrying signs
reading: Sharon, learn to fight like George
Bush: Bomb them. The Times also quoted the
President's statement on the same day, America encourages and expects
governments everywhere to help remove the terrorist parasites that
threaten their own countries and peace in the world. And my
question is, since "everywhere" surely includes Israel, you would
never, by any evasion, leave the impression that the President does not
regard suicide bombers as terrorist parasites, would you, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, Israel is a very healthy and vibrant
democracy and the President does not comment about events within
Israel.
Q Are the suicide bombers terrorist
parasites or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made very plain that
anybody who takes the lives of innocents --
Q And the President has sent General Zinni
back to Israel to meet with Sharon and either Arafat, who either can
stop suicide bombings and won't, or he can't, or other unnamed
Palestinian leaders. And my question is, would the Bush
administration reject or receive a retired Israeli general sent by
Sharon to try to reduce our violence in Afghanistan and possibly in
Iraq, and help promote our talking with Saddam Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure there is any proposal like
that on the table.
Q Ari, speaking of the budget, the budget
that was passed by the committee yesterday does not include an
extension of the President's tax cut. Aren't they ignoring a
major -- one of the President's major
priorities by not doing that?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is something the President has
called for. The President hopes they will get it done, and I
think it's clear that it's the will of the Republicans to get that
done, perhaps a few Democrats, and that's something the President will
continue to push for. As I said, the President was reassured
over the fact that the budget resolution strongly support much of his
proposals that he's made. No President gets
everything. But I have to --
Q But that's a big part of the President's
agenda, isn't it?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's also a longer-term issue.
Q Is he concerned that there may be less
appetite for that on the Hill, given the growing concerns with the
deficit and Social Security and so forth, that there may not be much
appetite for tax cuts for a while now?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, again, that's a longer-term
issue. The President would like to see it get done as
quickly as possible. It's something the President is
committed to and will work to get done.
Q Ari, this morning, you said it in the
gaggle, but for the record, does the President still have confidence in
Commissioner Zigler of the INS?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President said that himself
yesterday. And the President said that this is a wake-up
call to the INS to make certain that it reforms itself; that it takes
the actions necessary to get to the bottom of how this could have
happened with the approved visas that were sent to the aviation school
in Florida. And I refer you right back to the President's
words.
Q You also said this morning that the
President called for splitting the INS into two separate units.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
Q And when will this come about?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's already in the works. The
President made that announcement last fall. They can be
administered mostly administratively. We will continue to work with
the Congress on it. And the President thinks that's one of
the most vital reforms the INS can take, because it creates a clear
mission and focus at the INS that a big portion of their job is to
enforce our nation's laws. And it creates another mission
for a separate part of the INS, to welcome people to this country and
to be a nation that welcomes immigrants.
But the two missions right now are not being done well by the INS.
And that's why the President thinks you need to split them so that they
can have a real enforcement mentality in one part of the INS that stops
people from getting to this country before they get here, if they don't
belong here.
Q Ari, we saw Bono coming
in. What's his role in the aid announcement.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Bono has been a real proponent
around the world of helping developing nations to achieve
growth. The President's staff spoke with Bono in the
formulation of the policy the President is making
today. He's meeting with the President. And I
think he's actually going over to the speech with the President.
Q They don't just think it's cool to hang
out with him?
MR. FLEISCHER: You, too, think
that? (Laughter.)
Q Going back to Pickering, some
conservatives feel the administration got geared up too late for this
lobbying effort, that this was really a winnable nomination but the
White House misread how truculent the Democrats were going to
be. Is it fair to say he didn't see the Democrats were going
to play hardball on this, and so he got started late?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't share that
analysis. In fact, the President has heard very good things
as a result of what he said yesterday. The message we received back
from the Hill, that was very helpful.
But the fact of the matter is that the Democrats control the
committee. And it is entirely a matter of Democrat
decision-making about whether or not they want to stop a bipartisan
vote from taking place on the floor. Perhaps it will be one
Democrat who will show a little independence and some
flexibility. We'll see when the vote takes place.
Q So you don't feel it was winnable if you'd
done more earlier?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President approached it in a
sound way.
Q Ari, just behind Jacobo, you know
Sensenbrenner came out earlier in saying why not completely separate
the INS? You have this completely separate agency focused on
enforcement, completely separate and independent agency focusing on
welcoming immigrants. Why not --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's the President's
proposal. The President's proposal is to reform the INS by
breaking it in two -- one entity
focused on enforcement, the other entity focused on welcoming people to
the United States.
Q But they'd still be under the same
umbrella of the INS, under the President's proposal. Is that
right?
MR. FLEISCHER: But the purpose is you have two with
distinct missions. Right now you have one entity with
conflicting missions.
Q You said some of that could be done
administratively?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q What do you need congressional approval
for, and how much can you do on your own?
MR. FLEISCHER: Much of it can be done administratively,
and that process is already underway. I'm not clear about
exactly what may be necessary, if anything, statutorily. But
we've been consulting with the Hill about that, and we'll continue to
do so.
Q -- conflict
between the Justice Department and INS at this point? I
think Sensenbrenner was saying have Justice Department have more
enforcement.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I can't speak to what Congressman
Sensenbrenner is proposing; that's his right to propose. I
can just tell you what the President believes in.
Q Ari, just a quickie. The leak
on the nuclear posture review, has that been personally embarrassing to
the President, now that Ivanof is in town? And will it hurt
U.S.-Russian relations, particularly with the big summit coming up?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think U.S.-Russian relations are
very strong, and continue to be. And I think it's
interesting, because there have been many an issue that people have
said would be a setback, will reignite a Cold War. And those
analysts continue to be proved wrong about the enduring strength that
President Bush and President Putin have been able to create in
U.S.-Russian relations. The President is looking forward to
his trip to Russia in May, and I anticipate that you will see a
continued growth in the strength of U.S.-Russian relations.
Q Ari, to follow up, has it been
embarrassing that the leak took place now?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think from the President's point of
view, he looks at this as a matter of -- he
takes classified documents seriously. Classified documents were meant
to remain classified. And I think that the President would
regret that anybody in the United States government in any position,
whether in the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch, would take
it upon themselves to release classified documents.
Q Can I just follow up on
that? You say there's nothing new in there, in that nuclear
posture review. But it does seem to call for --
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I said the most new
element in there was the reduction in offensive weapons.
Q But some people feel that really the
newest thing in there is the call for smaller-than-now-exist nuclear
weapons. And of course critics say -- and the
President was asked about this yesterday --
this makes the possibility of nuclear was more likely. Isn't
it true that this does call for smaller nuclear weapons, and isn't that
an important new development?
MR. FLEISCHER: It does not call for the development of
new nuclear weapons, and the President has not directed the Department
to undertake such action. It's always under the purview of
the Department of Defense to modify existing weapons as appropriate,
and that's a different matter.
But I'd refer you back to what I said earlier: The
President believes that the best way to keep the peace is through
deterrence, and it's through having a strong military and sending an
unequivocal message to anybody who would do us harm that they ought not
even think about doing the United States harm because the United States
will protect itself.
Q You're saying that if the yield from these
weapons is smaller, that's not a new weapon?
MR. FLEISCHER: Now you're above my pay grade, when you
start wanting to talk about yields and throws and
throw-weights. I think you ought to talk to DOD on that.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:12
P.M. EST
|