For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 21, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:22 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: The President began his day with an early morning
intelligence briefing, followed by an FBI briefing. Then the President
this morning, in the Rose Garden, announced a new program that the
administration will take action on to provide generic drugs at reduced
rates to more American citizens so seniors and all people in our
country can have access to affordable prescription drugs. Then the
President convened a meeting of the National Security Council.
Later this afternoon, the President will sign into law the Sudan
Peace Act. Then he will meet with NATO Secretary General Lord
Robertson. And this evening the President will make remarks at the
Republican National Committee Regents Dinner.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions. David.
Q Ari, the Democrats are accusing the President of an election
year conversion on this prescription drug issue, suggesting that, in
fact, the President was opposed to this legislation when it was broken
out separately from the prescription drug bill. The timing is
questionable. Do you understand how people would feel that way?
MR. FLEISCHER: David, to be clear, there are two parts of this.
One, so everybody understands, it's important to get prescription drugs
to our nation's seniors and to everybody in our society. But the
Senate way of doing it contained a poison bill.
The Senate provision had liability provisions that they knew were
never going to be accepted. So given the fact that the Congress failed
to act and the Senate way of getting drugs to people contained a poison
pill, the President felt it was so important that he decided to move on
his own and use the authority of the administration to do so.
He wishes Congress had gotten it done while Congress was here, but
this is one of many issues that the Senate failed to get done. For
example, the House of Representatives passed legislation to help
seniors get access to prescription drugs as part of Medicare. The
Senate failed to get that done, too.
Q Are you suggesting that the President now believes that the
only way to ultimately give seniors and others access to more
affordable prescription drugs is to do it in a piecemeal way, do
whatever can be done through the executive branch and basically forget
Congress, because they can't be trusted?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's not a question of trust. Of course
Congress can be trusted. But the question is, will they get it done.
And the history has been that the House has and the Senate hasn't. And
the President does want to have a comprehensive way to get prescription
drugs, particularly to our nation's seniors, under the Medicare
program.
He proposed it. The Congress passed something similar, the House
passed something similar to what the President proposed. But the
Senate failed to act. So the President wants to make certain that
whatever powers he has in the executive branch can be put to use to
help people get access to prescription drugs and that's why he's moving
forward on a prescription drug discount card, by making generics more
available to people who need drugs. If Congress can't do it, the
President is going to do everything in his power to do it.
Q Just to clarify, it's not that the Senate didn't act -- even
though that's sort of the mantra -- it's more that they acted in a
way that you guys opposed, right?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you're asking two questions. On prescription
drugs, as a part of Medicare, the Senate did not act. And as I
indicated before, on the question of generics, the Senate acted with a
poison pill that they knew that the administration would not accept.
Ron.
Q Two breaking events. One, do you have any reaction to the car
bomb in Israel? And what has the White House been told about the
arrest or arrests made in the sniper case?
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. The administration, the President condemns
the most recent attack in Israel. It's another reminder of how it's so
important for peace to be pursued and for terror to be stopped. On the
arrests, it's a fluid situation. I do not have any reports for you.
Anything will come from law enforcement authorities. And it remains a
fluid situation. And it's unclear, precisely at this moment, about
what is unfolding.
Q Just to be clearer, you said arrests, plural. Your
understanding is there's been two arrests, more than one?
MR. FLEISCHER: I know there has been more than one.
Q And do you what they've been arrested for, what they're
suspected of?
MR. FLEISCHER: That will come from law enforcement authorities,
not the White House.
Q At what level is the White House being informed about this,
that you would know?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House stays in close contact, of course,
with law enforcement agencies, particularly on the case of the sniper,
where it's a joint operation.
Q But can you just explain that further, Ari -- I mean, is it
coming up from law enforcement, and informing the FBI -- at what
level in the White House are they learning --
MR. FLEISCHER: David, you can assume on a variety of levels the
White House maintains close contact with the agencies, but particularly
on the case of the sniper, that we are working, as the federal
government, at the President's direction, has dedicated itself to
working with local authorities, so that we can arrest whoever is doing
this as quickly as possible.
Helen.
Q There's some feeling that the administration may be backing
away from the goal of regime change in Iraq. Is that valid?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, ma'am. Regime change remains Congress' policy,
assigned by the President, remains law of the land, it remains the
American position and a position that the President and everybody in
his Cabinet strongly supports.
Q So Powell's remarks are not -- were misinterpreted?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, ma'am. Yes, if you take a look at what the
Secretary said, it's identical to what the President said when the
President was in Cincinnati. If you recall, when the President went to
Cincinnati, he said, "By taking these steps, and only by taking these
steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking
these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself."
And that's what Secretary Powell said on the show yesterday. He
said, "When I said that if Saddam disarmed entirely, and satisfied the
international community, that, in effect, would be a change in
attitude, a change in the way the regime is looking at its situation in
the world." And the Secretary continued, "And it was consistent with
what the President has said previously and subsequently."
So unless somebody thought when the President went to Cincinnati
he, himself, was saying we no longer support regime change, I think
it's a mischaracterization of what the Secretary said.
Q Well, the President went on to say, but it's unlikely Saddam
will. Did Powell say that yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: He went on and said, the Secretary went on and
said, "We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a
different leader, a different regime."
Q So it's a change in the nature of the regime that the
administration is after, not necessarily a change in the leadership.
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, what we're interested in is disarmament.
What we're interested in is an end to Saddam Hussein and Iraq using
hostility as a way to treat its neighbors, repression of minorities
within Iraq. We have an objective in mind, and the objective is to
secure the peace through disarmament and through the honoring of the
U.N. resolutions. It is the view of the Congress that regime change is
an effective way to secure those goals.
And we're also talking with the United Nations, as you know, and
making progress on the terms of the resolution that would send a clear
message to Iraq that their decade of defiance has come to an end, they
now need to comply with the United Nations resolutions.
And so the objective remains the same and our position remains the
same. I really think this was much ado about nothing, that the
Secretary said what the President said.
Q But the President has also repeatedly characterized the Iraqi
dictator and laid out facts which demonstrate a level of criminality,
cruelty and brutality which cries out for regime change of the
leadership. But now it sounds as if the administration is saying, if
the U.N. resolutions are complied with, the nature of the regime will
have changed regardless of who's at the top.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's exactly what the President said on September
12th, when he went to the United Nations and gave that speech. That's
what the President said on September 12th. And that's why I think --
I fail to understand how when the President makes the same statements,
people don't think the President is changing from regime change. And
if the Secretary says the exact same thing the President does, people
subject the Secretary of State to a different standard than the
President. I think it's nonsense. I think it's much ado about
nothing.
Q So he is -- you describe the objective, is Saddam, then,
irrelevant to that objective?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's up to him. The regime needs to change. And
we want to make certain that it changes in a way that promotes peace.
And the way to promote peace is by Iraq to live up to the resolutions
it commit itself to at the United Nations.
But I think to get to the bottom of the matter is if anybody really
thinks that Iraq is going to do all these things with the same despot
in charge, with Saddam Hussein in charge, where on earth could anybody
be getting that idea, based on Saddam Hussein's history and his current
practices. I think it's a rather unrealistic notion.
Q Ari, you reacting pretty cooly this morning to North Korea's
request, or expression of desire for talks about its nuclear programs
with the United States. Are you trying to rule that out, dismiss it
entirely, or are you leaving open the door to the possibility that you
may resume talks with North Korea about its weapons program?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the next step is the United States will talk
with our allies in the region, and those talks are underway. And we
will continue to talk to Japan, we will continue to talk to South
Korea, we'll continue to talk to China. And I think it's fair to say
that international pressure will come to bear on North Korea to make
them realize the dangers that they are pursuing, in terms of the future
for them will be increasingly isolated if they go down the road that
they have indicated they're going done.
So that's the course of action and I can't predict every next move
that the United States will make, but we're working the consultation
process right now.
Q But to follow up on that, why is there any reason to believe
that further isolation of North Korea -- which is already an
astoundingly isolated country, its people are starving -- why is
there any reason to believe that this particular regime would react to
additional isolation in a way that the United States might prefer? Why
wouldn't they just hunker down and batten down the hatches and just
keep starving their people and ignore anything you might want?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the trend around the world has
been regimes like North Korea's that exercised their authoritarian rule
in that manner have found that an opening up of a society, the
development of more freedoms has been in their interest. And the
United States hopes that through diplomacy, North Korea will see that
message. There's no guarantee that will happen, though. But we will
continue to pursue the path we're pursuing in consultation.
Q Zbigniew Brzezinski said that the chances of war are now
greatly diminished. Does the President agree with that? And can you
give us a -- on what's happening at the Security Council?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Security Council came in at 11:00 a.m. this
morning for discussions among the Permanent Five on the resolution.
And I think it's fair to say that the discussions will continue and we
feel that progress is being made on getting an agreement around the
language that's been under discussion for several weeks now. We'll see
exactly what course the United Nations Security Council takes. I can't
predict the exact dates that they will take concrete action, but I
think it's moving forward nicely.
Q What about Brzezinski saying that war is now reduced, the
chances of war?
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen what he said, so I'd hesitate to
comment.
Q Ari, does the United States government see any merit
whatsoever in the fact that Saddam Hussein has decreed practically a
general amnesty?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as Secretary Powell said yesterday that can
also be read as a political ploy. Nobody knows how many prisoners
there are in Iraq. Nobody knows if Saddam Hussein has released a tenth
of them, a quarter of them, half of them. So it's very hard to make
sense of what Saddam Hussein has done.
The other issue that would be important here, too, is the
President, when he went to the United Nations in September, talked
about the need for Saddam Hussein to account for the 600 people that
remain unaccounted for since the Persian Gulf War. We have no
indication that his actions yesterday have touched on the fate of any
of those 600.
Q As far as the negotiations at the U.N., do you feel that
Washington and Paris are closer now to an agreement, and do you expect
a resolution this week?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to predict the ultimate
course. I think that's very risky for anybody to predict what the
United Nations will do in final form. But as I indicated, progress is
being made. The talks are continuing, but it's moving forward and
moving forward nicely.
Q Ari, yesterday Secretary of State Powell indicated that there
may very well be a second resolution that will ultimately be voted on.
However, it's his position, or the United States' position that once
the initial resolution is accepted, if it is in the U.N., that the U.S.
will have all the authorization it needs to take action should it come
to those steps. Can you explain exactly what kind of language there
would be in such a resolution in which the United States could very
well still act on its own, however, there may be nations -- other
member nations who say, no, we have to have another vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the resolution that's being discussed is a
very strong resolution. It makes clear that the inspection regime of
the '90s will be replaced with a new and much tougher, more effective
inspection regime in this century. And it also makes clear that there
will be serious consequences if Saddam Hussein fails to honor his
obligations. And it's a very important action for the United Nations
Security Council to adopt this resolution. We hope that they will.
It is always the right of any nation that is a member of the United
Nations Security Council to come forward at any time, and all times,
with any resolution that they see fit. But it will -- clear, based
on this resolution that the United States will have all the authority
that it needs, along with our allies.
Q Do you expect at this point that there will be a second
resolutions? Are you anticipating --
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, it's always the right of a
sovereign nation of the 15 nations of the United Nations Security
Council to step forward with a resolution at any time of their
choosing, on any issue, at all times. I'm not in a position to predict
in this case, vis a vis Iraq, whether that will or will not take
place.
Q Secretary Powell said over the weekend that the Korean
agreement, 1994 agreement was nullified and therefore, it was
nullified. Is it the official position of the White House now that
that agreement with North Korea is null and void?
MR. FLEISCHER: What the Secretary said is that the North Koreans
informed us that they nullified the agreement. And as both the
Secretary and Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that when one party nullifies
an agreement, it's obviously important to have that party's support for
an agreement to move forward. Our position is still we are consulting
with our allies about it. We will continue to consult, but North Korea
has made it plain that as far as they're concerned, it's a nullified
agreement.
Q And does the White House consider that 1994 agreement null and
void?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House is continuing to consult.
Q And has it made a decision on fuel assistance, whether or not
we'll freeze or cut fuel assistance?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're continuing to consult. And that's what we're
going to do for a short time-being, as we gather with our allies and
focus on this together and work in a multilateral way.
Q Ari, if I could just change topics a little bit. Could you
explain why the White House feels it's necessary, going back to Friday,
to cut the SEC's budget, or to not increase it as much as had been
previously agreed to and supported by the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we've proposed the largest increase in the
SEC's budget in modern times --
Q -- increased it more, and now you want to increase it less
than that, even though it's still an increase. And I know that there's
some back and forth about increases and cuts, but it's still less than
what you had supported before.
MR. FLEISCHER: Can I answer your question?
Q Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you. We proposed the largest increase in the
SEC's budget of modern times, and that was part of a fiscally
responsible budget that has been submitted to the Congress. Congress
has not finished its work. It continues to work on the budget not only
for the SEC, but for every agency in the government outside the defense
and military construction.
When Congress returns we're going to continue to work with them on
the SEC's budget, and we want to pass a large increase for the SEC and
make sure we do so in a fiscally responsible way.
Q So you're willing to put it back up, is that what you're
saying?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're continuing to work with the Congress on what
the exact budget will be. And I do want to draw your attention to the
fact that the budget that is proposed is the budget that the SEC asked
for. The SEC in July notified the President and the Congress, and
publicly in a letter, that their needs were -- they recommended that
their initial budget request be increased by an additional $100
million, bringing it to $567 million. That is the level of funding
that the President has proposed to the Congress, which is almost a 30
percent increase in the SEC's budget, and it is the amount that the SEC
said it needed.
Q Ari, at a Baltimore Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for governor
rally on Friday, attended by former President Clinton, the Baltimore
Sun reports that Baltimore Congressman Elijah Cummings, a Democrat,
announced -- and this is a quote, I heard it -- "I still consider
him" --
MR. FLEISCHER: Were you there?
Q Yes, I was there.
MR. FLEISCHER: At a Townsend fundraiser?
Q I was covering it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, okay. (Laughter.)
Q "I still consider him" -- that is Clinton -- "the
President," with which Mrs. Townsend and Senators Sarbanes, Mikulski,
and Baltimore Mayor O'Malley expressed no disagreement. And my
question: does the President believe that Congressman Cummings, who
took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States, was loyal to that oath when in this statement at a college,
Cummings disregarded the Constitution's presidential term limitations?
And I have a follow-up.
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, I haven't heard the Congressman's statements.
I'm sure your translation of it is entirely accurate, but --
Q Well, it was there and -- so help me -- and it was
reported by the Sun. Now, he said that. Does the President believe
that's loyal to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, if I were to answer your question, then I
would be changing my standard on Zbigniew Brzezinksi's question. And
since I have not heard what they have said, I always, as Press
Secretary, as you know, want to take a look at the context in which any
remark was made before I comment. I appreciate the opportunity, but
until I see what is said, it's best not to comment.
Q I appreciate your appreciation. How is it that the President
can stand up against an evil attack on our citizens, vow to track down
and prosecute to the fullest extent those who are found responsible,
and turn around and tell another nation, Israel, that it's not a good
idea if they wish to do the same?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, as you heard, the President addressed this
issue with Ariel Sharon in the Oval Office, and I'm not sure that your
comparison is apt.
David.
Q Ari, just following up on what Arshad and Suzanne were asking
about. On Thursday there was a delivery of oil to the North Koreans,
under the existing framework accord. That was roughly two weeks after
the White House was notified that the agreement was nullified. Was
there discussion of turning that ship around, not delivering that oil?
And if not, does it give any indication -- does this send any message
to North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't know about any possible discussion or
not. But as I indicated, that we are pursuing this in a multilateral
fashion with Japan, South Korea and China and others. And that's going
to be our approach.
Q Maybe I should ask it another way. Why did you go ahead and
deliver it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, we are pursuing this with our allies. I
think people have a very clear understanding how seriously the United
States views this breach, and we do. But our path is going to remain a
path of consultation with our allies and we feel confident we will have
a common approach to this problem.
Q One final question on that. The State Department statement
last week said that you would be approaching this diplomatically with
North Korea. There seems to be some difference I'm hearing among
different officials about whether that means negotiations with North
Korea, discussions with North Korea. I'm not clear I understand what
the difference would be. How do you interpret the diplomacy phase?
Does that mean we talk to them, or we don't?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think, again, we're going to continue to
consult with our allies and once the final determinations have been
made about which course to pursue it will become clear at that time. I
can't predict each and every step that's about to take place, but
that's the path that we are on.
Q I'm still not clear about the status of the United Nations.
Is there actually a U.S. draft on the floor that's being discussed?
You made reference to something that's being discussed.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. The technical word at the United Nations is
to "table" a resolution -- which, unlike in the Congress, when you
table something you put it off. At the United Nations, when you table
something, you put it on. And I would have to refer you up to the U.N.
to see what the exact timing of it is going to be. That's going to be
a U.N. matter and they can discuss with you the exact timing of it.
Q You referred earlier to something that is being discussed
there now that you liked, that you thought was strong. You're talking
about our version of events, what we and the British have come up with;
are you not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure, that's the way everything has been talked
about. The United States-British draft language that has been shopped
around and is making progress.
Q Thank you. Is there any update on the terror alert status in
this country, especially in the wake of what George Tenet said and the
fact that we're approaching the U.S. elections?
MR. FLEISCHER: The alert level remains at the same level. Within
that level, however, many of the sectors that we feel need to be talked
to have been talked to; a series of phone calls were made last week.
And when the code system was announced it was made clear at that time,
and has now been implemented last week, that you can stay at the same
overall national alert level, but within various sectors additional
steps are taken so that all precautions can be in place. That's what
took place last week.
Q Either way the level --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the level remains -- the overall national
level remains the same.
Q You can raise a level in various sectors, you're not implying
--
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the overall national level is the same, but
then specific conversations take place with various sectors to say
that, you just need to make sure you're doubly careful, be sure that
you've taken all the steps that you need to take. It's a way of giving
people all the resources, the reminders and the help that the federal
government can provide.
Q Are any sectors on orange alert?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's one national level, and that level is
unchanged. Within that level, sectors receive reminders.
Q Which sectors?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, for example -- I don't think I'm at liberty
to get into what specific sectors. Let me see if I can. If I can, I
will post that. I want to just make clear that that doesn't -- but,
for example, the way this is typically done -- and you're well aware
of this and I'm not saying that this is a sector that has or has not
been -- but such things as circulars are made available from the
relevant government agencies that deal with transportation. And
circulars are a common way of the federal government putting people in
the transportation industry on alert -- to take a look at this, be
sure you're covering that -- and so that any information the federal
government has, is passed along and people can take all the steps
necessary. That's one example of how a sector receives communications
from the federal government so that they're made more keenly aware of
anything that we think they need to be aware of.
Ken.
Q On generic drugs, you said the Senate bill contained poison
pills that they knew the administration would not accept. Could you
specify exactly what those unacceptable --
MR. FLEISCHER: They had a series of liability provisions in there
-- which, as you know, this administration does not believe that the
answer to all our problems is to have people sue each other more. I
think it's fair to say that that is a course of action that we think
creates more problems, more costs and doesn't solve the problems. And
the Senate legislation on generic drugs had a series of liability
provisions in there that would have been very helpful to the nation's
trial lawyers and less helpful to people who needed prescription
drugs.
Q And the White House position is there should be no liability
provision and no --
MR. FLEISCHER: The provisions that were in the Senate legislation
we viewed as a poison bill, that's correct.
Q Were you in favor of some liability --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ken, I'd have to take a look at the exact, detailed
language of the legislation and -- to see whether it was all the
liability provisions or whether it was some of the liability
provisions. But, in any case, the bottom line remained the same: what
the Senate passed was not able to move in the Congress.
Q But is there a SAP?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I think there was.
Q And that's still the administration's position.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. Yes, the information more
specifically could be found in the SAP, good point.
Q Ari, considering that North Korea is in violation of a
multilateral treaty about developing nuclear weapons, is there anything
specific -- does the President believe that now weapons inspectors
are a necessary step? Has that been part of the consultation process,
ensure that the program has ended? We need weapons inspectors --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, keep in mind that under the 1994 agreed
framework, the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Administration,
does have a role to play vis a vis their nuclear fuel rods. And so
there has been presence of the IAEA in North Korea already. And
whether or not there are any changes that are going to be contemplated
to that, it is all going to be part of the consultation.
Jim.
Q After all these years, the Iraqis not only released all their
political prisoners but also shipped back several truckloads of
documents that had been stolen from Kuwait. After all this time, to do
two of those things in the course of two or three days, what do you
make of this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as Secretary Powell said, the release of the
prisoners appears to be a political ploy. But it's hard to know what
to make of all of this. Saddam Hussein does not often act in a way
that is clear or that is rational or even that is open and conclusive.
That's why I indicated earlier that nobody knows how many prisoners
have really been released. Nobody knows how many he had.
And, so, it's very hard to make any real meaningful interpretations
of what he has done. He remains a threat and a menace.
Q Does anyone here view it as an attempt to curry favor both
with the Kuwaitis, and perhaps with Iran, since there were many Shiite
Iraqis who were political prisoners?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it remains as I described it, and as
Secretary Powell described it yesterday.
Q On other thing on the U.N. resolution, if I may. the position
is clear on tough rules for new inspections, single resolution and so
forth. What is the current U.S. position on whether or not there
should be armed escorts for inspectors, and whether or not members of
the P-5 should be able to have the right to insist on their own
representatives?
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay, let me do this. Much of that will be found
in the exact language of the resolution that's being discussed at the
United Nations. And so as soon as that is ready to be released
publicly, I think you'll find your answers to that. And I will try to
keep you advised at what the timing of that may be.
Paula.
Q Ari, with respect to homeland security and the transportation
sector, over the weekend the New York Times put out a lengthy piece on
how vulnerable the trucking industry is and how at the moment trucks
are left idling, unattended in lots that carry hazardous materials.
And the way that tankers are set up, they practically invite terrorist
attacks by listing what they're containing.
Why hasn't the administration taken any regulatory action to step
up safety measurements for this sector?
MR. FLEISCHER: Paula, I think you may want to -- let me refer
you to the Office of Homeland Security, the Department of
Transportation if you want anything specific on that sector and any
action that's being taken. They may be able to advise you.
Q But as a follow-up, if there were to be an attack of this
nature, and if there were some sort of biochemical threat to American
people -- as you know, there has been no instruction given to
individual households, to commercial properties, as to how to prepare
for any type of biochemical attack. And I'd like to know why this
hasn't been done?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why our nation, for all law enforcement and
for all protections, relies on our first responders who, indeed, are
trained. Our nation's ambulance corps, fire departments, policemen,
EMTs and those, since September 11th, the amount of funding that has
been made available has increased, the amount of training programs have
increased. These things are often done in concert with the Federal
Emergency Management Administration. And for all types of attacks, for
all types of contingencies, the American people know that they are to
rely on the first responders and that's how our system works.
Q But individual households do not know how to respond to this.
If there is a threat, they do not know they're supposed to stay inside,
they do not -- they've never been -- they've never received
instructions from -- with the exception of a few --
MR. FLEISCHER: And that's why there's an emergency -- there's an
emergency broadcast system, so that people can get any information.
And there's no one cookie-cutter approach to any of this. This is all
done on the basis of any possible contingency, what the realities of
the contingency are, the nature of the contingency, the location of the
contingency. And that's why the first responders would be the ones to
get that word to people.
Think of it as you would if there is a hurricane or an evacuation.
The local law enforcement agencies rely on communications efforts that
are both the emergency broadcast systems as well as public media, to
disseminate all relevant information to individuals so they know what
course law enforcement recommends they take.
Dick.
Q As part of the 1991 agreed framework, which is now nullified
according to the North Koreans, there was also a ban in that agreement
on testing medium- and long-range missiles which pose an obvious threat
to North Korea's neighbors in the region. Does the U.S. understand
that that part of the agreement is nullified as well, and how big a
concern is that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we've always had a concern about North
Korea's efforts to develop long-range missiles. It remains a concern.
We also have concerns about North Korea's proliferation of missile
technology. So these -- both issues remain concerns.
Q The upcoming election, is the President optimistic about the
Republican chance for keeping the House and retaking the Senate?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President is hopeful, but he
understands that this is an issue that's in the hands of the voters,
and they'll be the ones who make that judgment. The election is just
over two weeks away and the voters will soon speak their minds and
we'll all find out.
Q Ari, what can you tell us about the President's objectives in
the meeting with Lord Robertson today?
MR. FLEISCHER: The meeting with Lord Robertson is going to focus
on NATO expansion in anticipation of the November meeting in Prague
which will make the determination about what nations are now going to
join an expanded NATO. I think the meeting might also cover the topic
of Iraq, the meeting could also cover the topic of Russia's role in a
newly expanded NATO, as you know.
Russia now, for the first time, does have a role in NATO. I think
those will be the principal issues that get discussed.
Q Ari, on North Korea, the North Koreans informed us on October
4th that they were pursuing a nuclear weapons program. And we
apparently proceeded with a fuel delivery to them 15 days later on
October 17th. Why shouldn't that be regarded as rewarding them for bad
behavior?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the United States will consult with
our allies about where to go and what course to take and that remains
our position. That's what we're going to do.
But I think North Korea is not under any illusions that they will
get rewarded for bad behavior by the United States.
Q Is it then fair to assume that until your consultations are
done, you'll keep giving them fuel as agreed to under 1994?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is all being consulted about now. But I want
to remind you that in the production of the agreed framework, the
production issues involving that the agreed framework set in motion,
there are many things that have to happen in order for North Korea to
be able to actually develop their -- what was supposed to be an
energy plant. And it was delivery of the reactors, which would have
been the more important triggering event. And we are far from that
date.
Q After the President's meeting with Jiang Zemin and the South
Korean and Japanese leaders in Mexico, would you expect at that point
that we will have a policy to announce toward North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to guess what date it will or will
not be. As you know, the APEC meeting is principally a trade meeting.
That is the history of APEC. And there -- nothing says that other
topics don't come up, often they do. But the focus --
Q He does have a bilateral with South Korea and Japan, doesn't
he?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, he does. But the focus of APEC is trade. And
we'll see what exact events unfold. And in addition, as you know,
there's the ongoing diplomacy of Secretary Kelley, who is in the
region. And the President will have a summit, of course, with
President Jiang Zemin on Friday, prior to APEC.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 12:54 P.M. EDT
|