For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
12:35 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have one
brief statement, then I'll be happy to take questions. The
President will meet President Tarja Halonen, of Finland, at the White
House on April 16th. The President looks forward to
welcoming a good friend and partner of the United States to the White
House for this upcoming meeting.
That's all I have. I'm happy to take questions.
Q Is the
President -- age before
beauty. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Age before beauty? Age before
beauty -- Ron. (Laughter.) Steve.
Q Is the President going to be bringing a
Mexico aid package on the trip?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will have some
announcements to make when he arrives in Mexico that represent the
great strength of our bilateral relationship with Mexico. So
the President looks forward to addressing that himself upon arrival.
Q Can you confirm a report that he's
bringing $30 million?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to confirm anything that
was put out prior to the President's arrival. This is
something that the President himself looks forward to
announcing. As you know, as governor of Texas, he developed
a very close relationship with the people of Mexico, and with President
Fox, and the President has information to share and he is looking
forward to doing it.
Q Is the U.S. able to certify that North
Korea is abiding by the 1994 agreement?
MR. FLEISCHER: Steve, the State Department has been
conducting briefings up on Capitol Hill today, and I can confirm to you
that the President will accept a recommendation from the Secretary of
State to waive certification requirements for North
Korea. What this means is this is a way to encourage the
North to begin full cooperation with international monitors, as
required under the agreed framework. Waivers will be granted
that will allow continuation for all the provisions under the agreed
framework. But there's no question the President has
concerns. We have not been provided with sufficient
information by the North Koreans, and concerns remain about their
compliance with the agreed framework. The United States will
continue to comply with the terms of the agreed framework, and I will
confirm that.
Q So when you're waiving certification that
means you cannot certify that they are abiding by the agreement?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will accept a
recommendation, has accepted a recommendation from the Secretary of
State not to certify -- in other words, that North Korea,
because of the concerns raised because of the insufficient information
provided to international monitors, as well as to the United States
from the North Koreans, we will not certify their compliance with
the three provisions required under law for the program to
continue. However, in the national security interest, and
because we will continue to adhere to the agreed framework, waivers
will be granted, while for the first time all three items under law
will not be certified.
Q What specifically have they not complied
with?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it deals with the three areas as
set out by the statute. They deal with demonstrated progress
on North-South denuclearization, a joint declaration; the agreed
framework compliance; and also reducing the threats and exports of
ballistic missiles. Those are the three areas that have to
be certified under law. They will not be certified, but
waivers will be granted.
Q And they failed to comply with all three
of those?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct, all
three. Which is the first time.
Q What's the bottom line
impact? I take it there's no -- no
impact on North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a strong message to North Korea that
they need to comply with their international obligations and
agreements. The United States is complying, and this is a
message to North Korea that it's important for them to do so as well.
Q Is there anything they won't get that they
would have gotten if they had --
MR. FLEISCHER: As a result of the waiver, which I
mentioned, it does not change the United States' compliance with the
agreed framework, which basically deals with the delivery of 500,000
metric tons of heavy oil fuel.
Q However, it does raise questions, though,
about proceeding with the new light-water reactor, does it not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the issue with the light-water
reactor is under the agreed framework, there's additional deliveries
that are scheduled to be made in 2005. But under the
compliance regime that North Korea has agreed to, it takes some three
to four years for the international inspectors to certify that North
Korea is in compliance. And time is running out, because if
it takes such a long time for the inspectors to come to their
conclusions, they need access, they need to be able to spend a
sufficient amount of time -- three to four
years -- conducting the agreed-upon inspections
that North Korea has said they would agree to; that in order for the
deadlines of 2005 to be met, North Korea has got to begin to comply.
Q So if they do not begin to comply, then it
would jeopardize the next stage in this effort to wean them away from
nuclear power that could produce fissionable material?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I said, this was designed to
send a signal to North Korea that they have obligations, and these
obligations are important. These obligations help preserve
the basic and fundamental notion that this power is provided to produce
electricity, and not for proliferation.
Q Is this a case where there's new
information, or that we're just re-examining what we've got and taking
a different view of it?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's a combination of taking a look
at all the information that is available. And given the lack
of information provided by the North Koreans, and the recognition of
the clock and the calendar -- as I indicated, by 2005, there
are agreed components that would be sent to North Korea. In
order for those components to be sent to North Korea, under what the
North Koreans themselves agreed to, North Korea has got to comply with
the inspections. The inspections take from three to four
years. So in order for that three- to four-year period to be
met by 2005, North Korea has got to honor its obligations.
Q What I'm getting at is that there's no
specific new information that says -- that leads
us to find them in violation, or noncompliance of some of the things
that in the past we haven't --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, every year Congress sets, as part
of the appropriations process, this process in place, involving
certification and potential waiver. So this is set by
statute. And then what the administration does at the State Department
is it examines all the information about compliance, about whether or
not information's being provided from the North Koreans, with an eye
toward that important 2005 date, and the time line by which North Korea
has got to provide access and information in order for the 2005 date to
be met.
Q So it's the calendar more than anything
else?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's calendar and also a combination of
North Korean actions to date, and failure to provide information to
date. They have not -- we have concerns, and we
don't have sufficient information.
Q Ari, the regulations for the military
tribunals are leaking out all over town. Presumably, you're
not going to tell us what they are. How deeply involved was
the President in this whole process?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the President made the
fundamental decisions months ago to allow for the creation of military
tribunals in an effort to provide justice and to protect what needs to
be protected as we fight the war on terrorism. He asked the
Department of Defense to write the military tribunal rules and
regulations, and the Department of Defense has done so. And
this will be something that they will announce when the Department of
Defense is ready to announce. The President is very satisfied with the
work that DOD has done on this.
Q Did he make any changes, or did he just
basically sign off on what Rumsfeld sent over?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll let that all get briefed out when
DOD makes this announcement.
John Roberts, did you have a question earlier?
Q Did I have a question on --
MR. FLEISCHER: Anything.
Q Did I look like I had a
question? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Are you stumped?
Q No. Some of us need to ask
questions, and others already have the information. Today, I
already have the information. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: That's very, very impressive.
Major Garrett?
Q Ari, that's what we say when we know we're
not getting on the air. (Laughter.)
Q Ooooh!
Q No, that's what we say when we had the
story five weeks ago.
Q Whatever story it is.
MR. FLEISCHER: Please, carry on. (Laughter.)
Q Ari, the Fed yesterday said the economy
appears to be expanding significantly. The President
yesterday was not nearly so optimistic. I'm wondering first,
is he looking at a different set of economic data? Or are
his concerns that though the economy may recover, there will not be
sufficient job production to go along with it?
And along that, Arthur Andersen may lose 85,000 jobs as a result of
not only the indictment, but the general problems it's had in the Enron
thing. Is the President specifically concerned about Arthur
Andersen's legal problems and the job fallout that may result from
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, on the first question, which is a
very, very fundamental and crucial issue that gets to the core of what
our economy is about and the actions the President has taken through
the bipartisan tax cut to help bring the economy back to life, you're
going to see a continuing wave of statistics over the next many months
that are good indications about the health of the
economy. And increasingly, there are good signs about the
strength of the recovery and the good timing of the tax cut last fall
that has aided, in most economists' judgment, in creating this economic
recovery.
From the President's point of view, he continues to be
worried. We have unemployment at approximately 5.5 percent;
in the Pacific Northwest unemployment is even
higher -- Oregon, Washington State has some of
the highest unemployment in the nation. And the President
continues to be worried about the plight of people who either lost
their jobs or still work in industries where they may lose their
jobs. And so the President is heartened to see some of the
statistics coming back, but that won't change his focus from policies
like he announced yesterday with small business
owners -- women small business
owners -- that would help them to grow, prosper,
create even more jobs.
So the President wants to make sure that we have a job full
recovery, not a jobless recovery. And I think that's what
you'll continue to hear from the President. And he'll leave
it to the experts to analyze statistics and make judgments about GDP
and things of that nature. But the President's focus will be
a very human one.
On the question of Arthur Andersen, I'm not going to speculate
about the future of any company. Obviously, jobs are created
in reaction to the amount of work that is needed to be done, and so we
have a dynamic, flowing economy, and there's a lot of demand for work.
Q Ari, I understand this morning you said
categorically the President will not make an
announcement -- between Customs, Border Patrol,
and Immigration. But is that still a measure under
consideration within the various --
MR. FLEISCHER: Only yesterday the President received the
recommendation from Governor Ridge about potential consolidation of the
agencies to protect the borders. So it's just been
received. Yesterday I indicated I would not make any
conclusions or rush to any judgments that it may come as soon as
tomorrow. Today I can affirmatively say to you it will not
come tomorrow.
Q Is it one of the options being
considered? One of the proposals the President --
MR. FLEISCHER: What the Governor recommended to him?
Q Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, it's being considered by
the President. It was a recommendation; the President
received it, and the President has not indicated what his decision is.
Q Can I ask you something on another
subject? Vice President Cheney has gotten an agreement I
think with Turkey that Turkey will be leading a multinational force for
peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan. Is that
right? Is that something the White House has been pursuing?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think this has been
long-known. There was a -- Great Britain was the
original lead nation in the peacekeeping force, followed by Turkey.
John Roberts, you had a question?
Q Yes, can I move to
revise -- (laughter.) On the subject
of the consolidation, does the President want to complete the
bifurcation, if you will, of the INS before he completes the
consolidation -- he wants to separate enforcement
from paperwork before he wraps it all in with Border Patrol and
Customs?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I just think it's a question the
President received it yesterday and -- I
understand everybody thought, trip tomorrow, announcement
tomorrow. But nobody in the White House ever indicated that
was going to be the case --
Q No, I'm not saying tomorrow, I'm just
saying, in general, does he want to complete the split of the INS into
paperwork-enforcement before he takes the enforcement side and puts it
in?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not necessarily tied together.
Q So -- I'm
sorry -- will he split that up later, after the
consolidation had already been accomplished?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to be able to take
the second part of your question because the President has not made a
decision on that recommendation. But the President is
committed to following through on what he proposed and on what the
Attorney General announced, which is to create a more efficient
Immigration and Naturalization Service by splitting it in
two. That is something the President believes in and
proposed because he believes it will help, properly, split up INS's
responsibilities so one part of the INS focuses on immigration, helping
people come here legally, the paperwork part of it; the second part
focuses on enforcement.
Q On the foreign aid increase, to pick up
from this morning, if it was a miscommunication by the White House and
Treasury, why did it take you five days to tell us that? I
mean, after the President made his speech on Thursday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yesterday afternoon the information came
to light, and we very quickly let people know that there was confusion
about the way the original announcement was interpreted. And
I think it's one of these classic cases
where -- welcome to the world of
budgets and budget baselines, and $5 billion over three years can get
interpreted in different ways.
Q The stories were reported very clearly the
next day, to say it was a 15-percent increase each year over three
years. I mean, it was all out there in print --
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, I haven't seen stories that
said 15-percent increase each year over three years.
Q I believe there was one The New York
Times, actually. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I think that story said 15 percent
in the first year.
Q No, I know what I
wrote. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I know what I
read. (Laughter.)
Q -- was very clearly on page
one.
MR. FLEISCHER: They had the $5-billion figure, which was
an accurate portrayal of what the President said.
Q This had nothing to do with criticism in
Monterrey about what many development experts perceive as
inadequate --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I've heard this line of thought
before, that the administration announced a proposal, and this line of
thought which just doesn't hold water is that a criticized
administration proposed more. Keep in mind how much
criticism the administration has had on other issues
internationally. And this administration, when it announces
something, sticks to it. When the President says, this is
the right policy, that is the policy that is pursued.
Global warming, for example. There has been criticism
internationally of the President's position on global
warming. Did that lead to a change? No. The
President stands on the merits behind what he proposes. Same
thing here. This was a proposal that was clear from the
beginning, but was, I think, not portrayed as accurately as it should
have been when it was announced last week. I've acknowledged
that publicly; I've acknowledged that privately. Thank you
for bringing it up publicly. I don't think it was handled as
well as it should be in terms of its initial portrayal from the White
House that led to a confusing set of statistics and dollar
amounts. That is the very nature of budgets and budget
baselines, and it can be a confusing topic. Any time
somebody has something that's confusing we do our best to explain it,
which is what happened yesterday afternoon.
Q Is the administration now looking for some
middle ground on Ridge's briefings to members of
Congress? Specifically, has the White House offered to have
him -- if you don't want to use the word,
testify, tell me what word you would use -- talk
to members of the Senate behind closed doors?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration will continue to make
all its Cabinet members and others available to answer questions from
the Congress on a regular basis. In fact, this is how much
consultation this administration has done: The President,
himself, has met with members of Congress on 124 separate occasions in
separate meetings. Especially given the fact that Congress
has been in session only 166 days since the President took
office -- the President has met with Congress
almost every day that Congress has been in session.
Governor Ridge, himself, has met with members of Congress 33 times
in 33 separate types of meetings since he became a member of the
President's staff on October the 8th, just a few months
ago. And that doesn't even include all the meetings that
Governor Ridge has attended with members of Congress down here at the
White House alongside the President.
So Congress has had a lot of meetings with both the President, with
Governor Ridge, and with other officials. And the
administration will continue to provide that type of
access. We have offered the Congress an opportunity for all
100 Senators to meet with Governor Ridge.
What the President feels very strongly about, that will not change,
is Congress's attempt to compel testimony, in a dramatic break from a
longstanding tradition that Congress has previously upheld vis-a-vis
the Executive Branch. I think what you really have here is a
classic executive/legislative struggle over
information. While the information is flowing, and flowing
freely, from the executive to the legislature, sometimes it's never
enough for a legislature. I don't know how the President
could have any more meetings with Congress.
Q Well, their question in this particular
instance isn't about the President. And they only started
talking about compelling testimony when the White House refused to send
him up. The question that members of both --
MR. FLEISCHER: He's been up many times.
Q In briefings. Their question,
both Republicans and Democrats, seems to be that he comes up and talks
to them or talks to the caucuses, but that they don't have an
opportunity to ask him questions in the detail that they want
to. So this -- is this offer you're
now making an effort to meet their --
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, anybody who's attended those private
caucuses, and the meetings in members' offices, knows that members of
Congress don't sit there very long to hear speeches. They
ask a lot of questions. And that's their prerogative, and
that's what they should do.
And that's my point. Governor Ridge has answered all the
questions that have been put to him, in multiple sessions, in multiple
forums, and 33 different times in different meetings. The
President has done the same thing. What Congress is asking
for is to go beyond what they've historically and traditionally
received, and that's the surprising development that Congress would
push for something that they have never pushed for
before -- particularly when they've
been given so much access by the President and Governor Ridge.
Q Well, what is it you're offering to do
now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Governor Ridge was prepared to go up and
meet with all 100 senators. The Senate leadership declined.
Q Because he wanted to do it in private, and
in secret? Is that why?
MR. FLEISCHER: He was offering to meet in a session
outside of a committee's sworn testimony.
Q So in other
words -- explain to us what the difference is
between testifying and going up and meeting with all 100 senators in
closed session, I guess.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, testimony is reserved for Cabinet
secretaries, for operational officers of the United States government
to go up before the multitude of committees that Congress has, to
explain their budgets, to explain their operational
programs. That's what Cabinet secretaries' responsibility
is, under the Constitution and under good government, to do for the
Congress.
Presidential aides, presidential advisors, are in a different
capacity and a different context. They talk to members of
Congress all the time, often on the phone with members with
Congress. But it is not their job to go up in sworn
testimony, as it is the job of Cabinet officials. So the
information is flowing, the information is flowing
freely. It's just that Congress, as congresses do, always
wants more.
Q So he can go talk to them, but he just
wouldn't be a sworn witness in the same way that a Cabinet secretary
would?
MR. FLEISCHER: Testimony before a congressional
committee is not the purview of the Homeland Security Advisor, the
National Security Advisor, the Counsel to the President, the Chief of
Staff to the President. They're White House
staff. They traditionally have not been asked to go up and
testify. This is a dramatic break with the way Congress
usually does its business.
Q So not sworn and not before a committee,
is that it?
Q Ari, campaign finance is getting ready to
pass the Senate. Will the President sign this specific
bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: When and if it passes the Senate, and I
anticipate that it will, you'll have a written statement by the
President answering that question.
Q Does the White House have an assessment on
the ties between al Qaeda and Iraq? And also, how much
support will the White House give for the Iraqi opposition congress
meeting here in Washington?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think Director Tenet answered that
question yesterday in his testimony up on Capitol Hill, regarding ties
between al Qaeda and Iraq. I don't have anything to add
beyond what he said.
Q How about the opposition leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have the financial figure in
front of me, but that is law of the land, to provide assistance for the
Iraqi opposition. And the United States will continue to comply with
that law.
Q Will there by White House meetings with
them, or White House officials actually participating?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd have to check with the NSC or the
other appropriate parties. There's nothing on the
President's calendar, but I'd to check with the appropriate parties.
Q Ari, to follow up on some of Jim's
questions, where is the oversight over the expenditures of the Homeland
Security Director?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, the Homeland Security
Director does not have expenditures other than his immediate office
here in the White House, just like any other aide to the President has
funds to oversee his immediate staff. The people who have
operational oversight and who have actual money in the billions to
spend are the Attorney General, is FEMA, the government agencies that
have the operational responsibility for homeland
security. The Attorney General's office, the various border
agencies, all those are the entities that are tied into homeland
security. It's kind of like asking if Dr. Rice controls the defense
budget. She doesn't, Defense does, and that's why Defense
testifies on the Hill. Same thing with Governor Ridge.
Q But Governor Ridge is building up quite a
team, if you will, more than 100 people.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. I
indicated -- the budget that he controls is his
staff, and that's in excess, I think -- somewhat
over 100 people, many of whom have been detailed to Homeland
Security. Same structure set up as the National Security
Advisor, who also has some more than 100 people, I
believe -- or approximately 100 people on the
staff of the NSA. There's really no structural difference.
Q So you've seen no role for congressional
oversight of what he does, all the many things he does?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there is congressional oversight, and
that oversight extends to the areas of homeland
security. And that's why the Attorney General is up
testifying; that's why all the heads of the agencies are up
testifying.
Q I didn't ask about the Attorney General, I
asked about Tom Ridge. No congressional oversight over him directly.
MR. FLEISCHER: The oversight over any presidential
advisor who is not confirmed by the Senate is by the President of the
United States. Now, it is Congress' right to ask questions
and to get information, and that is provided. But it comes
in a different form, and this will be ongoing.
But there is a major difference between an operational Cabinet
officer who is confirmed by the Senate and has an obligation to go
testify to the Senate or the House, and a presidential aide, an advisor
who does not have operational control over any budgets except for their
own staff budget. And in that case, Congress clearly has oversight
over the budget of the White House itself. And that's
exercised through the operations of the White House Executive Office of
the President, who speaks for all the financial matters of the White
House that are funded by the Congress.
Q You refer to sworn testimony quite often.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I said testimony, I didn't say sworn,
because not all committees require you to be sworn. The
point is the same, though, testifying before Congress. I
didn't say sworn. Some committees swear you in, some
committees don't. That's not the issue, it's testimony.
Q But, Ari, you've all but indicated that he
does have operational control for these budgets, because the White
House is repeatedly said that it would follow
Ridge's -- the President would basically follow
Ridge's suggestions on spending for homeland security. So
doesn't that give Ridge a unique obligation to go to the Hill and
explain spending decisions, since the White House, itself, has
emphasized that he has some de facto control over them?
MR. FLEISCHER: It gives him no different authority or no
different advisory capacity than Dr. Rice does, who also talks about
what the appropriate level of funding should be for the agencies that
she advises the President on, State, DOD, CIA. Governor
Ridge does play that advisory role for the President in helping these
agencies to set the budgets. But he is not the operational
person in charge of those budgets. As I indicated, there are
many others who do, and those are the people who properly do testify up
on Capitol Hill.
But make no mistake again, Governor Ridge is up on the Hill
answering these questions often. This is only a matter of
what exact setting, what exact room does Congress want Governor Ridge
to answer the questions he's answering. He's answering the
questions plenty; Congress just wants to put him in a different room to
answer the same questions all over again.
Q Well, the room that you want to put him
in, with the 100 senators, would it be closed to the public or open?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't -- I think
that's something we could figure out with the Congress.
Q You wouldn't mind him talking to Congress
in front of the press --
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The Governor's taking
questions all the time from the press, and has events in different
settings. So I don't know that that's a specific issue.
Q What was the offer? Having him
come before Congress, or 100 members of the Senate, in public or in
private?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't -- it was
to meet with all 100 senators, Ron. I don't have all the
details about it. And it was declined, so -- I
don't even have the details beyond that.
Q -- the White House wouldn't
have a problem with him talking to Congress or the 100 senators, in
public?
MR. FLEISCHER: We are always willing to work out with
the Congress various means of having Governor Ridge talk to
them. But the President has drawn a strong line about
testimony; that's not appropriate for somebody who is an advisor to the
President.
Q Ari, published reports show a clear link
between the al Qaeda and Iraqi Kurds, not yet to Saddam
Hussein. Since the President has declared a worldwide war on
terror, will the U.S. now invade Iraq and go after Saddam Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President has answered that
question in multiple ways multiple times, and that he has not made any
decisions about that phase in the war on terror.
Keith, you had an intriguing next question.
Q This -- I know
you --
MR. FLEISCHER: I heard something.
Q I feel like John Roberts now,
actually. Do you -- you had criticized
Conrad's budget this morning as effectively a tax
increase. As I understand it, it assumes that the
current -- last year's tax cut expires in 2011,
which is when the President assumed it would expire. So how
is Conrad's proposal a tax increase?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President's budget that he
submitted to the Hill did not assume that it expired, it called for it
to be extended. The budget that the Senate leadership, under Senator
Daschle and Senator Conrad, are considering at the moment, would
terminate the President's tax cuts, the bipartisan tax
cuts. In other words, if you're a married couple, it would
reimpose a marriage penalty on you. If you have children, it
would diminish your child credit that you've already been
promised. It would reimpose the death tax on
people. If you're in the 10 percent bracket, it would
increase your bracket to 15 percent beginning in those late
years. And the Daschle budget also freezes defense spending
beginning in 2005, and it uses Social Security and Medicare trust fund
money until at least 2008. Despite the criticism those
Senate leaders made against the President on the very same charge, they
do it themselves.
Q Ari, two questions. The cover
of Fortune Magazine has an article this week called, "It's time to stop
coddling the white-collar crooks; send them to jail." In a
nutshell, the argument is that corporate white-collar criminals inflict
more damage on society than all street crime combined. Do
you -- does the President agree with that
analysis?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know that the President has seen
the story, and so I'm not going to comment on that.
Q Second question: The Treasury
Department enforces Trading With the Enemy Act law
against -- they've settled hundreds of cases over
the last couple years against companies big and small. Yet
they don't publicize it, unlike the Bureau of Export Administration,
which puts it up -- those settlements up on their web
site. Why does the President allow this to happen, for the
Treasury Department to make these secret settlements with big companies
that are trading with Iraq and Iran and so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, I think you need to ask Treasury
that question. It's the first I've heard of the program, or
even the question, so you may want to check with
Treasury. They don't get all their marching orders from the
White House.
Q Ari, I have two questions. One
of them on immigration, and the other on the visit to
Mexico. The President, as a former governor, thinks that
he's very well aware of the problems in the border area. My
question is, has the President taken any issue on the dispute with
borders with Mexico -- he's going to sit with
President Fox about the water dispute on the border?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are some obligations dealing
with the question of water that go back a very long length of time,
that as governor of Texas he was very familiar with. And we
expect Mexico, which has made some steps in the right direction
recently in terms of water shipments under their obligations, to
continue making those steps. It is an issue that is
important, that I think will likely come up. It has come up
before; I think it will likely come up again.
Q Ari, this afternoon, it turns out Governor
Ridge does have some private meetings. Will he take the
opportunity at that point to provide specific plans for providing
coverage in lieu of taking the fighters down over New York City?
MR. FLEISCHER: You say he has some meetings?
Q Yes, yes, he does. He has
meetings today, I believe.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I
think -- first of all, DOD is the agency that is
in charge of any of these programs. So I think that is true,
it has been addressed at length yesterday by DOD and
myself. There's really nothing to be added on that topic.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:03
P.M. EST
#148-03/20
|