For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 23, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:23 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President this morning began
his day with a CIA briefing, followed by a briefing by the FBI. Then
the President signed into law the Yucca Nuclear Waste Repository Act.
Following that, the President in the East Room later this afternoon
will, in an effort to promote more adoption across the United States,
announce a new public service announcement with Mrs. Bush and the
actor, Bruce Willis, and will also announce a new website to promote
adoption in the United States.
Then the President is going to have two meetings with members of
Congress, two different groups, one a Republicans, one a Democrats, on
his plan for homeland security. And that will be in the Cabinet Room.
The meeting with the Democrats will begin at approximately 3:00 p.m,
last for approximately 30 minutes; and then with Republican members at
4:00 p.m. I anticipate a stakeout after that.
And the President also this morning spoke with President Megawati
to express his appreciation for her government's efforts to combat
extremism and terrorism at home, and to work with other leaders in the
region who are similarly committed to the fight against terror. The
two leaders discussed strengthening cooperation between the United
States and Indonesia, and they also discussed Secretary Powell's
upcoming trip to the region.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions. Campbell.
Q Can you be more specific on the Democrats that are --
MR. FLEISCHER: Campbell.
Q The Israelis today are calling the military strike on Gaza
City justified. Prime Minister Sharon called it "one of our biggest
successes." Nine children died in the attack, obviously. What's the
White House reaction? Has the President spoken with Sharon or conveyed
any concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said repeatedly that Israel needs
to be mindful of the consequences of its actions in order to preserve
the path to peace in the Middle East. The President views this as a
heavy-handed action that is not consistent with dedication to peace in
the Middle East. This message has been conveyed to Israel this morning
through the embassy in Israel, and that is what the President thinks
about this.
Q Does the President plan to call Sharon directly?
MR. FLEISCHER: This message has been conveyed to the Prime
Minister's Office through the embassy. Included in the conveyance of
the message and the President's thoughts about this is the regret of
the innocent lives, including the children's lives, that have been
lost.
Q But, Ari, Israel's response to that has been it's in a war, as
is the United States. And in war, innocent lives are lost. What is
the difference from the President's perspective in Israel's action in
Gaza, and United States actions against al Qaeda in Afghanistan where
innocent lives have also been lost?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is inaccurate to compare the two. And the
crucial difference here being that in this instance, in Gaza, this was
a deliberate attack against a building in which civilians were known to
be located. And that does separate it from the activities taken.
There are going to losses of innocents in times of war. And I
think that that's recognized around the world. What's always important
is in pursuit of the military objectives, as the United States does in
Afghanistan, to always exercise every restraint to minimize those
losses of life. But in this case, what happened in Gaza was a knowing
attack against a building in which innocents were found.
Q And so it's the President's position that Israeli commanders
did not take sufficient care in avoiding civilian casualties, and even
beyond that, targeted the building where there are known civilians.
That borders on some transgression on the laws of war, it sounds like.
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, I have given you the President's statement
about what he thinks about this.
Steve?
Q How will this complicate your efforts to encourage Palestinian
reform?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President continues to call on all
parties to honor their responsibilities, to make certain that the
political solutions are found to bring peace to the region. This
President has been and will continue to be a big defender of Israel and
Israel's right to self-defense. The President will also speak out, as
he sees appropriate, as he sees fit, depending on the events. At the
end of the day, all parties must continue to remember the
responsibility is to pursue a political path, a political process, so
that negotiations can be successful, so the Arabs, the Palestinians,
and the Israelis can live together, side by side, in peace.
Kelly.
Q Ari, what evidence does the administration have that the
Israelis knew that civilians would be in that building, and that the
attack would result in the loss of innocent civilian lives?
MR. FLEISCHER: These were apartment buildings that were targeted.
Q And when the Israeli defense forces said that they are sorry
for any harm, but regretfully, this is the result of terror which uses
civilians as human shields. If the Hamas leader had civilians there to
protect him?
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, again, this President has been and will
continue to be a lead defender of Israel around the world and will
speak out about Israel's right to self-defense. This is an instance in
which the United States and Israel do not see eye to eye.
Jean.
Q Getting on to domestic issues for a second, homeland defense,
first of all, can you define better what these meetings are? Are these
senate Dems who are coming and -- or is this a mix?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll release the list after the meeting, as is our
usual practice. My information here is not clear on whether it's House
or Senate. But the purpose of the meeting is, as you know, the House
of Representatives looks like it may be able to vote this week before
they leave on legislation to create a Cabinet-level Department of
Homeland Security. And the President wants to talk to members of
Congress about this to make certain that the legislation that they
worked on comports with his requirements, his requests, to the Congress
so that this agency can be set up in a way that maximizes the defense
of our nation by providing flexibility in management, flexibility in
personnel, flexibility in funding, so that this is an agency that is
not bogged down or impossible to move quickly as events would require
in the effort to combat terror.
Q So is it primarily his goal to use this meeting to make the
pitch on the flexible management that the White House views as
critical?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's going to be to hear any concerns
that members of Congress may have that they want to bring up, but also
to express with the President his heartfelt case to the Congress, and
how deeply he holds his views. That for the Department of Homeland
Security to be successful, it must have flexibility. It must have
personnel abilities to make certain that people are trained and trained
well, and if they're not, they need to be able to bring people on who
can do the job and do it right.
Q If he doesn't get this, is that -- would he veto the bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not -- the purpose of the meeting is to bring
people together, and they need to know how strongly the President does
feel about the flexibility provisions in here.
Q Ari, yesterday Secretary of Justice John Ashcroft said United
States will apply the law that's been on the books for 50 years that
legal resident aliens have to notify the government if they move,
change address, within a period of 10 days. This law has been on the
books, but it has not been invoked. Does the President agree with
Secretary Ashcroft's position?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have no information that's been provided to me on
that topic, so it may be something you just need to follow up with
Justice. There's nothing I've got on that.
Q Next question. Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill, Harvey
Pitt, Director of the SEC, have been criticized. The President has
come to their defense. Who else has tried to help the President with
the problem presented by the drop in the market and the lack of
confidence? The Vice President isn't saying much. Who else does the
President have around him who can come out and say things?
MR. FLEISCHER: As the President indicated yesterday, he has great
confidence in his team. And I think what you're witnessing here is the
typical, old Washington phenomenon of that whenever there is some
difficulty anywhere, there are some people in Washington who look for a
scalp while this President looks for a solution. And that's to be
expected in town like this. We've all seen that game be played before,
regardless of whether it was Democrats or Republicans. But that's not
what the President focuses on, and he doesn't think that's what the
American people want people in Washington to focus on.
Keith.
Q Ari, given that at the very least the market has not reacted
positively to the accounting reform legislation that is being
considered on the Hill, does the President now have any questions about
it, any questions about whether or not Congress is moving too fast, or
whether some of the provisions in the legislation being considered may
be too draconian?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me take that in two steps. One, on the
legislation, the President, as you know, feels very strongly that
Congress this week needs to finish its work on corporate corruption
legislation, because the President thinks it's important to have
certain laws on the books so everybody in corporate America and the
investor community and the employees who have been affected by these
layoffs will know that the federal government is serious about taking
action to combat and fight corporate corruption. It's now up to
Congress. Congress is very close. But the President hopes that
Congress won't leave this week without finishing that legislation and
sending it to him.
On the premise of your question, I just don't know how you can say
with any certainty that market behavior is the result of any action or
inaction by the Congress or anybody else. That was the premise of your
question. I really don't know how you can reach a conclusion.
Q It's not the premise of my question. The premise is that at
the very least, the markets do not seem to have reacted positively. So
what I'm wondering is -- and there has been some criticism from some
conservatives that some of the measures may be too draconian, the
bills, and may ultimately chill business activity. And I'm wondering
if the President shares any of those concerns.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is looking forward to signing this
legislation. He hopes that Congress will finish its work on it and get
it to him.
Jennifer.
Q There's some evidence that this is perhaps more than just this
old Washington game that you talk about. There's some public opinion
polls saying the President's approval ratings are dropping into the
60s, I believe, a couple different polls. Is the White House concerned
at all that the economy is starting to -- concerns about the economy
are starting to erode that approval rating?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. Number one, the President does what he thinks
is right, based on the merits. And he believes that the best way to
talk to the American people is to fight for what you believe in and let
the country come to its own judgments. And I think the judgment of the
country has consistently been to strongly approve of the job the
President is doing. And it happens to be that the country has strongly
approved of the job the President is doing in rather unparalleled
fashion.
But, no, that's where the President's focus is. This President is
going to continue to focus on the fundamentals that drive the economy.
And he believes that those fundamentals are solid and strong. And much
of the recent economic data that has come out, as Chairman Greenspan
pointed to, and others have pointed to, demonstrates that there is
strength in the market -- I mean, in the economy -- and markets
ultimately are driven by fundamentals in the economy.
Goyle.
Q I have two questions. One, in the past we have been dealing
and negotiating with -- in trade and on the Capitol Hill, and now we
are making deals and negotiations with the terrorists talking about the
two cases -- If the President is aware of this, then how can we make
deals with the terrorists who killed Americans and they fought against
America, and now the President is fighting against global terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say
that the United States is making deals with terrorists.
Q Those two terrorists who plead guilty -- guilty plea.
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, I see what you're saying. We do have a
criminal --
Q -- plead guilty.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think you can say that's negotiating with
terrorists. Typically negotiating with terrorists is something in
terms of ransoms and things of that nature, or release of prisoners in
an exchange. I think that's typically what's associated with those
words, negotiating with terrorists.
What's happening here is we have a criminal justice system in which
justice is served as a result here of plea bargains, in which people
have pled guilty -- in this case one individual, John Walker Lindh
has pled guilty, which will now lead to a 20-year sentence without
parol, a rather strong sentence which the President concurred in, as
well as freeing front-line prosecutors so they can continue their
efforts against other people who have been detained without being tied
up in a lengthy trial.
David Sanger.
Q A follow, please?
MR. FLEISCHER: What was your second?
Q Second one is that now Secretary of State Powell, he leaves
for Asia -- for India and Pakistan. At the same time, this week, the
new Deputy Prime Minister of India, Mr. Advani he calls on President
Bush to declare Pakistan a terrorist state because infiltrations and
all the terrorist activity have not stopped. So what message is he
carrying -- what does he think?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, President Musharraf has taken strong
action in the war against terror. And that includes against al Qaeda
or the Taliban, as well as taking steps to diminish the cross-border
incursions into Kashmir. And the President is pleased with the actions
that President Musharraf has taken.
The situation between India and Pakistan has twice this year
reached almost a boiling point. And as a result of a lot of
intervention and diplomacy by the President, by the State Department,
by Secretary Powell, the travels to the region, that situation has been
managed to the point now where the situation is much more defused, the
risk of violence is defused. And that's going to be an ongoing part of
America's diplomacy in the region. It's an area of the world the
United States is going to continue to actively work.
Mr. Sanger.
Q All right, two questions. First on the phone conversation
today with President Megawati, did the President indicate a desire to
resume military-to-military contacts and training, which is something
that you've all been discussing on the Hill? If so, what was the
response, what's the conclusion on it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have any additional information on that
call, so let me see if there was anything else I can get for you,
David.
Q If you could get that, that would be useful. Also, you said
yesterday the President and others were going to be calling around the
Hill on trade promotion authority. I'd be interested to know whether
that's happened, whether the President has indicated particularly to
Republicans whether he's ready at this point to sign something that
includes some trade adjustment assistance, and if you could define a
little bit of that. And if this doesn't happen this week, what damage
is done, since there's nothing that is being negotiated right now that
leads --
MR. FLEISCHER: There are three main areas that the Congress is
working on this week where the President has called on the President to
act. And keep in mind that the House of Representatives is leaving at
the end of this week and won't be back until the end of September. And
then they have a very abbreviated session this fall before the Congress
leaves to campaign for reelection. The Senate is scheduled to leave a
week from Friday. So time is running out on this Congress, and there
are three major issues that are pending in the Congress where the
President wants to work with the Congress to help them complete action
this week.
One is on trade promotion authority, which can, the President
believes, be resolved this week in a conference committee, so final
action can be taken and then a bill can be signed this August. The
second issue is corporate corruption, as I discussed earlier. And the
President again sees the House bill and the Senate bill, both of which
are tough, which can easily be brought together and presented to the
President for signature.
The third issue in which the Congress has been moving forward
rather -- at a strong pace is a legislation to create a Cabinet-level
department of homeland security. All three of those, the President is
looking for action this week. On trade promotion authority and on
corporate corruption, final action, sending a bill to the President.
On homeland security, House passage and then, next week, Senate
passage.
The risk of inaction is you don't have to be a helicopter pilot to
know that Congress is heading for a giant traffic jam. Congress has a
lot of unfinished business left on its agenda, and if Congress fails to
pass trade promotion authority this week, or it fails to pass the
corporate corruption initiative this week, or if it's unable to have
initial passage of homeland security, it's presenting itself with a
gigantic traffic jam which is hard to get out of this September, and
for the shortened session they have before they leave.
The other items that are pending in Congress that they hope to come
back to when they return in September are a patient bill of rights,
which is still stuck in the House-Senate conference committee;
legislation to make America more energy-independent, which is still
stuck in the H-Senate conference committee; faith-based legislation;
welfare reform; a ban on cloning. The Senate has yet to even pass a
budget. And of course, they also have all 13 appropriation bills to
get through.
So from a very practical point of view, if the Congress is not able
to get it done this week, it does endanger the possibility of getting
it done at all because the roads will be too crowded and clogged to get
anything to its final destination.
Q And on the specific question of trade adjustment assistance,
which -- the differences don't seem all that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Trade adjustment assistance is an issue where the
President does support trade adjustment assistance. It's part of the
budget that he sent up to the Hill. There is a conversation going on
on the Hill right now about what the appropriate level of a tax credit
should be. I think the Senate provision included a 73-percent rate on
trade adjustment assistance. And the President believes that trade
promotion authority that includes trade adjustment assistance can and
should be agreed to by the conferees this week. He'll work with the
Congress on that.
Q Is he making the calls --
MR. FLEISCHER: He hasn't made any phone calls yet this morning,
but he will. The President, the Vice President, Dr. Rice, Secretary
Powell will all be making calls underscoring the importance of trade
promotion authority.
The other issue with trade promotion authority is while it's not
impossible, it's certainly harder to get it enacted into law the closer
the election is. This is an authority the President used to have
routinely, but no President has had it in almost the last decade.
There's been great progress made by the Congress this year; the House
of Representatives for the first time in almost a decade was able to
pass it in the House. The Senate has been historically a more strong
supporter.
Q -- trying a whole bunch of trade deals in its absence?
China WTO, Jordan -- I could go on with the list.
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll be able to sign far more in the event we have
trade promotion authority. And there are a number of trade agreements,
Mr. Sanger, which I know you're aware of that are being negotiated
without the United States because we don't have trade adjustment --
trade promotion authority.
Q On Yucca Mountain, Ari, the signature today by the President
-- does he really think that this is the end of the story? Does he
acknowledge that there's going to be a lengthy legal battle, regulatory
battle --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think -- first of all, there's been more
progress made now on having a more rational storage policy for the
entire United States as a result of this action than at any previous
time. So this is an important step forward on the way to a
comprehensive policy for dealing with our nation's nuclear waste. It
also is a very helpful sign to the scores of states which have nuclear
power plants where the waste has been piling up and backing back,
contrary to the commitment the federal government made more than a
decade ago where the federal government pledged to these states that
they would take that waste out of the states and put it in one
comprehensive location.
But the history of these type of activities is certainly one that
includes legal challenges. I don't think that anybody was expecting
other than that. But without this important step, progress would not
even begin to be made. This is an important step in having a more
comprehensive and rational policy for dealing with waste. And it's
very helpful to these states.
Q The target date was 2010. Is that going to be met?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to speculate about the dates. The
Department of Energy has its time lines and they'll work actively to
promote them. Certainly the ability to get this done is now enhanced
as a result of the action the Congress took on an overwhelmingly
bipartisan manner. This was an issue, if you recall, I think the
Senate leadership said it would never happen. There are some people in
the Senate Democratic leadership who said they would do everything in
their power to block this from happening. And the President is very
pleased that there is a bipartisan coalition that agreed with him and
disagreed with their leaders and has been able to allow this to take
place.
Connie.
Q Ari, returning to the Israeli missile strike, are you making a
moral equivalence between the Israeli attack and Palestinian terror
attacks against Israelis in settlements and in public places? And was
U.S.-supplied equipment used in this strike?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's statement speaks for itself, as I
read it. That's what the President thinks about it. He makes no
comparisons. He judges it in and of itself.
Q What about U.S.-supplied missiles and equipment?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's statement speaks for itself about
the topic.
Q Could you detail for us the role that the President played and
the role that the White House staff played in the decision not to fund
the U.N. population fund --
MR. FLEISCHER: Under the law, the Secretary of State makes the
determination of whether the Kemp-Kasten provisions that would prohibit
funding in the event there is coercive abortion are found. And that
was a review that was undertaken by the State Department, and the
information was shared with the White House and the President
concurred.
Q The President signed off on this decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Any White House staff people play a role in formulating this
decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would imagine there were a number of people who,
as any decision made by the agencies, work as a liaison with the
agencies.
Q Did Karl Rove play a role?
MR. FLEISCHER: I couldn't tell you who everybody was.
Q Ari, why won't the President ask the SEC to release all Harken
documents?
MR. FLEISCHER: No change in anything on that, Holly. That
question was asked yesterday, asked last week. No changes, as you're
well aware of.
Q What is the reason why?
MR. FLEISCHER: Same reasons -- you can just check the
transcripts from the last time you asked the same question.
Q I don't think I -- could you repeat it, possibly?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's in the transcripts.
Q Ari, there's been more talk over the past couple of days about
a wider domestic role for the military. Is there any definitive policy
on this? Is something evolving that it is being redefined?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as a result of the strategy that came out on
national homeland security, there is a review about the military role
in the promotion of homeland security. And these are things that are
going to be taken a look at by the appropriate agencies. And I'll just
give you one instance why a review, in the President's judgment and
Governor Ridge's judgment, is warranted.
Quickly after September 11, when a decision was made about sending
the National Guard to the borders to provide enhanced security at
border crossings, that decision and the legal issues that involved were
very, very complicated and it could have significantly delayed the
ability of the federal government to have the Guard deployed in a way
that would have protected homeland security as a result of the various
overlapping legal jurisdictions. And, in fact, it took National Guard,
Customs and INS and DOD some four months to negotiate memoranda of
understanding among the various agencies for that deployment, which is
something I think the country recognized was in its interest. And so
that deployment was called up literally by the state governors to
enhance the federal role at the borders. And then there was some four
months of negotiations to come out with the memorandums of
understanding.
So these issues can often involve complicated legal matters where
there is a law on the books that we want to make certain is working and
working well in the modern context. So that's why these reviews are
being called for.
Q Does it go beyond the National Guard, this National Guard
matter that you're talking about? Are there other ideas, number one?
And number two, is the President sensitive to the ramifications of
expanding the domestic role of the military?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why it's a review, that's why no action is
taken, but that's why a review is in order, a review is underway by the
lawyers involved here.
Q Ari, given what has happened with Israel and the White House's
feeling about the action done today -- or yesterday, whenever --
over the period of the night, does the White House have the same
feeling that if Osama bin Laden were in a cave or in a house and we
could get him, kill him, but perhaps there would be some innocent lives
lost in terms of his children, would the White House still be opposed
to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to speculate about any type of
military action against somebody who we don't know is dead or alive.
He may be dead already, he may be alive; we don't know. I'm not going
to speculate about any type of action.
But suffice it to say, as always, no matter what the target,
America's policy that we have military operations that always focus on
minimizing the loss of civilian lives. And any time anyone is lost,
whether it's as a result of an errant bomb or whether it's a result of
any mistake made possible by anybody in American theater of operations,
we deeply regret the loss of any innocents.
Q You're not saying that the Israelis should not have gone after
the head of the military wing of Hamas?
MR. FLEISCHER: The statement speaks for itself.
Q You're not saying that they shouldn't have gone after him?
MR. FLEISCHER: The statement speaks for itself.
Q Are you suggesting there is some other way they could have
gotten to him that would not have involved --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I'm just not going to get into a world of
hypotheticals about what could have happened or what might happen in
the future. We are dealing with the realities on the ground here in an
area where it remains very important for people to remember the
consequences of their actions. And those consequences have to always
keep in mind the fundamental, overriding importance of finding a
political solution to the violence in the region. And that also makes
it separate and apart from what's happening in Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, there is no political future for Osama bin Laden or
for the al Qaeda or for anybody that we're working with over there who
are involved in having attacked the United States. Israel is the first
to acknowledge that the way to peace in the future does involve
contacts with responsible Palestinian officials and Arab leaders. The
Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, for example, have stepped
up and been very, very constructive and helpful in trying to create
that political atmosphere. That is not and will not be the case with
what's happening in Afghanistan.
Q On corporate corruption, is there any provision in either of
the bills that would prompt the President to veto?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's fair to say the President viewed the
House bill as a tough bill, the Senate bill as a tough bill, and he's
looking forward to signing a tough bill. He only hopes that Congress
will be able to get it done and do it this week.
Q So there is nothing on the table at the moment that would
prompt the President to veto or push for --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, given the fact that he viewed the House bill as
a
tough bill and the Senate bill as a tough bill, the only thing that
could be tantamount to a veto is if Congress vetoes itself by failing
to get the bill done this week.
Last question.
Q What about Priscilla Owen and the confirmation hearings?
First, I want to ask you what you make of the arguments against her.
And, second, could you clarify a remark apparently made by Judge
Gonzales himself in reference to one of her decisions in which he
referred to her way of thinking as an unconscionable act of judicial
activism?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President views today's hearing of Priscilla
Owen as a very important hearing. There is a judicial emergency, a
judicial vacancy crisis throughout this country, and that's because the
Senate has failed to act on many of the President's nominees.
Priscilla Owen is one of 32 circuit court nominees that the President
has made, while the Senate has confirmed only 11, leaving 21 with no
action taken. The President is very concerned about that.
In the case that you are citing, Judge Gonzales is the first to say
that he supports Priscilla Owen's appointment to the circuit courts.
So if people would want to cite what Judge Gonzales believes, then they
should be consistent and vote to support her, just as Judge Gonzales
did. Simply because they disagreed on a case does not mean she's unfit
to serve.
This is the final question you get.
Q Well, you know, these are all matters that you obviously want
to address, so let's not -- (laughter).
MR. FLEISCHER: In that case, I'll argue with myself.
Q The question of judicial activism, which would seem to go
against the President's own standard in selecting judges, is not a
question for the White House in this particular matter?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, given the fact that Judge Gonzales
says himself that because they had a disagreement over one case does
not mean she's unfit to serve. He's looking at her record in its
totality, just as the President does. And if you want to get down to
the complications of that issue or into the weeds of the issue, it is
much more complicated than the critics suggest on there. The actual
opinion with which Justice Gonzales had written that about was penned
by somebody else, concurred into by Justice Owen.
Q Ari, we're coming up on the 12-year anniversary of Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait and subsequent ouster. But among the former
coalition partners, it almost seems as though that's ancient history.
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz has just come back from Turkey, which is the
latest former coalition partner to suggest that it does not --
publicly, at least -- want the ouster of Saddam Hussein. And Hussein
in the meantime is reaching out and trying to end his isolation with
his neighbors. Is this all undermining the President's position that
he still wants a regime change?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think given the fact that, one, in a bipartisan
act, the Congress of the United States and signed into law by President
Clinton made the United States policy regime change; two, the fact that
Saddam Hussein has fought wars with his neighbors that led to the loss
of more than a million lives, he invaded Kuwait, he's used chemical
arms against his own people; I think there's no question in the region
that the region would be safer and at more peace without Saddam Hussein
in power. Saddam Hussein being in power has led to massive deaths.
And so the position of the United States is a moral position that has
been taken with overwhelming bipartisan support in the interest of
preserving stability in the region and preventing future wars.
Q He's even reaching out to the Kuwaitis who also have some
concerns of an attempt to try to oust him.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's a clear sign of how seriously Saddam
Hussein views President Bush's statements.
Q Back to TPA. Would the President sign a TPA bill that
contains the Dayton-Craig amendment?
MR. FLEISCHER: Dayton-Craig amendment is something the President
feels very strongly about should not be a part of it. He has conveyed
that message directly and personally to members.
Q Would he accept something that falls short of the Dayton-Craig
amendment --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it clear that he does not
support that position.
Paula.
Q On the legislative items the President would like action on,
you didn't mention the prescription drug benefit, which Congress is
starting to debate today. Does the administration have any way or are
you attempting to find any way to get them out of the log jam they're
in, since there's not enough votes on either side, or have you given up
for this year?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that is something the President would clearly
like to see done. The reason I didn't mention it, because unlike the
other issues which were in conference committee, this has not even been
acted on by the Senate yet. Certainly if the Senate is able to pass it
this week, as they take it up, this would become one more car in the
Senate's traffic jam. The President hopes that the Senate will be able
to take it up -- I should say Congress' traffic jam. The President
hopes that they'll be able to take it up. He thinks it is a priority
to get prescription drugs to our nation's seniors.
But I could have also added to that list the Treaty of Moscow is
another item that the Senate has to act on this fall, or the President
hopes that they'll act on this fall. The simple fact of the matter is
that time is running out for this Congress, given the very busy agenda
they've set for themselves. And if Congress fails to take action this
week on these three pending issues, they will jam themselves up in such
a fashion this fall that it's unrealistic to expect them to take action
on almost all these items.
Q And also, on homeland security, you mentioned there was
concerns about flexibility provisions. Are you saying that in the
interest of comporting with the President's principles on this, that
you do not believe that civil service protections should be extended to
all employees in this department?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, actually civil service protections are
guaranteed under both the House bill and the Lieberman mark. There is
flexibility in transferring and flexibility in funding. But the civil
service protections, including the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC, Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission regulations, The Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Social Security Act, the Government Ethics Act, the Hatch Act
on political restrictions, whistle-blower protections -- all of these
do apply, properly so, and with the President's support.
Q Are there any that don't?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's the flexibility provisions in terms of
transfer authority that the President's looking to. The very same
provisions and protections that are given to other agencies will
continue to apply. What the President wants to make certain happens is
that the Department of Homeland Security, which in many ways will be
the front line of protecting America from terrorist attack, is the same
flexibility given to screeners at airports, the President thinks should
be given to workers at this agency. Somehow it doesn't seem right to
give these protections to screeners at airports, yet to deny it --
the flexibility protections, the transfer protections -- but to deny
it to the managers and the people who work at Homeland Security.
Q Ari, NARAL today in its press release on Priscilla Owen says
they want to prevent her from joining a court "already tilting far
outside the mainstream." One of the things they've taken exception to
is her rulings on Texas's parental notification law. We've heard the
White House defend Justice Owen on the grounds of judicial restraint,
but will, as this moves along, the White House take a stand on parental
notification itself, considering the fact that she was in the majority
on most of these cases and that this was a law that was overwhelmingly
favored by the Texas legislature and by the American people?
MR. FLEISCHER: The job of a justice is to enforce the laws
regardless of personal views. And groups like the one you cited
obviously have a litmus test. And this is something where hopefully
the Senate will not have its own litmus test, where one party imposes a
litmus test on the other party. Justices and judges at all levels,
their job is to interpret the laws -- is to enforce the laws and make
rulings that do not legislate from the bench.
Q Could it make it harder, though? I mean, we're in a case
where -- you're always, obviously, talking about the process working,
there being civility in the process, when now we have a situation
where -- Republicans generally, when a bill -- or when a judge comes
to the floor, have generally -- you know, look, for example, Justice
Ginsberg only had three Republicans vote against her. And in this
administration, we've seen Senate Democrats vote in large majorities
-- or in large minorities -- against administration appointees and
judges.
MR. FLEISCHER: At a time when there are so many judicial vacancies
and judicial emergencies resulting from these vacancies, it would
indeed be unfortunate if litmus tests were imposed by the party that
receives the President's nominees, in this case the Democratic Party.
This is a time for bipartisanship on the bench.
Bob?
Q Ari, two if I may. One on the Gaza strikes. In the message
that the President sent via the embassy today, did he make clear that
he did not regard this strike as self-defense?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the message speaks for itself, when the
President says that.
Q The message certainly suggests as much, but the President's a
pretty clear-speaking fellow, I'm sure he wouldn't want us to
misinterpret --
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly when the President says that this
heavy-handed action does not contribute to the path to peace, that's a
different measure from Israel's legitimate right to self-defense.
Q And, Ari, second, if I could, you said that while some are
looking for scalps, he's looking for solutions. With respect to the
stock market, could you tell us when was the last time the President
huddled with his economic team to discuss whether there was anything
the White House might be doing or should be doing, and sort of options
resulted from that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's focus is on the economy, and
wisely so. The President knows that in the long-term, the economy --
and in the medium-term and the short-term, too -- it is the economy
that is most fundamental to the pocketbooks issues in our society.
That is, it's the economy that drives markets, it's the economy that
drives mortgages, it's the economy that drives interest rates. And
that's where the President is focused.
And by any measure, given the fact that the economy grew at a rate
in excess of six percent in the first quarter this year, that growth
looks like it is continuing, albeit not at that rate, and that
blue-chip private forecasters are projecting growth in the ballpark of
approximately three to four percentage points for the entire year, the
economy has recovered from the recession that began in March of 2001.
The stock market decline began in March of 2000. And that's why the
President's focus is where it should be, on the fundamentals in the
economy that ultimately drive these other factors.
We've got to keep moving here, because we're running out of time.
Q Ari, are you concerned that the weapons used in this attack by
Israel were U.S. supplied and possibly in violation of the rules of the
FMS regime?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has spoken out rather strongly about
this, and I leave it at what he said.
Thank you.
END 1:00 P.M. EDT
|