For Immediate Release Office of the
Press Secretary July 26, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer The James
S. Brady Briefing Room
12:19 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you a
report on the President's day, and then there are two
statements I'd like to make.
One, the President began his day with a CIA briefing, followed by
an FBI briefing. And then the President welcomed to the White House
a group of first responders and members of the federal protective
forces that protect our country currently, the various departments
from terrorism, and shared with these groups his thoughts about the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Later this afternoon, the President, in the East Room, will make
remarks and sign a proclamation to commemorate the 12th anniversary
of the Americans With Disabilities Act. And later the President will
travel up to the Hill, where he will have a meeting with House
Republicans at the House Republican conference.
While he is there, the President will note what a week of
accomplishment this has been in the United States Congress. The
President is particularly pleased that after almost 10 years of
stalemate, an agreement looks like it is in reach to give the
President trade promotion authority. The President hails this as a
milestone and a landmark achievement.
In addition, this week, the House of Representatives today is
passing homeland security legislation to create a Cabinet-level
Department of Homeland Security to protect the country from
terrorism. This will also be a landmark moment in the Congress. This
is the largest reorganization of the federal government since the
immediate years following World War II that restructured the
Department of Defense. And the President is very pleased that the
Congress on both these matters has worked together in a bipartisan
fashion to put the needs of our nation first.
And, finally, the Congress this week also passed and
is sending to the President legislation to crack down on corporate
corruption. This has been a week of accomplishment, a week
of milestones and a week of bipartisanship.
And, finally, I do want to announce to you that on August 13th,
in Waco, Texas, the President will host an economic
forum that will bring together government policymakers,
small investors, small business owners, industry experts, workers,
business ethicists, union members, corporate executives, economists,
business students and others to discuss the fundamentals in the
American economy and to talk about the President's agenda to
increase growth for the future.
The President will be joined at this forum by more than half a
dozen members of his Cabinet, and they anticipate having several
specific topics of discussion. There still are many items left
pending in the Congress that can help give the economy an even
stronger boost than it's currently receiving. Among these items are
pension protections, legislation of retirement security, how to
apply -- if it is done and final this week, which it looks like it
will -- the new ability to enter into trade agreements around the
world; terrorism insurance remains an important issue, education,
technology innovation, as well as how to control spending.
Currently under the Senate appropriations process, the bills that
look like they're passing so far in committee exceed the President's
requested spending levels by $14 billion, at a time when our nation
has a deficit. Over a 10 year period, if that is built into the
budgeting, that would result in an increase in the deficit above and
beyond what the President has requested, an increase above the
President's request of $209 billion over 10 years, as a result of
the excess spending in the Senate bills. So the President looks
forward to this economic forum in Waco, Texas.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions. Campbell.
Q Is this economic forum in a sense an answer to
the economic summit that House Minority Leader Gephardt has
been calling for?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, as I indicated, I think -- the President meets
often with the leaders of the Congress to talk about ideas at that
level. This is a meeting with the executive branch, with these
Americans from across the country.
I think you can look at this, Campbell, very much the same way
you see the President when he has roundtable discussions as he
travels the country. As you know, yesterday when the President was
in North Carolina, he had a roundtable of people to talk about
medical malpractice, where he's joined by people in the real world
who talk to the President about the human side of the policies that
the government talks about.
Often at these roundtables, the President's joined by Cabinet
Secretaries. This is a way of bringing many people together in Waco.
Q Are you including Democrats, or any lawmakers at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, this is executive branch.
Tom.
Q There's been a flurry of activity in the last couple days to
produce what you call this week of accomplishment. This was caused
by a lot of Republicans on the Hill giving up and making concessions
to break some of these logjams. How much did the President turn up
the heat on the Republicans in the House and the Senate to produce
some of these breakthroughs? And is some of this a result of the
polls that suggest that, you know, consumers and voters are
concerned about the stock market and the economy and so forth?
MR. FLEISCHER: Tom. You sound like a cynic. (Laughter.)
If you take a look at the three major items that were passed this
week -- trade promotion authority, legislation on corporate
corruption, and homeland security -- what you really see are
Democrats and Republicans coming together and acting bipartisan for
the good of the country, exactly as the President asked them to do.
And that's what the American people sent people to Washington to do,
and the President is very pleased that it's happening.
I think you've seen in both parties some healthy give-and-take
this week. On some issues, Democrats moved toward Republican
positions; on other issues, Republicans moved toward Democrat
positions. And in the process, the country has been well served,
because for a change, Washington looks like it's going to be passing
legislation that gets signed into law, instead of passing
legislation so they can posture and position.
Q Well, given that that's the way Washington ought to work, as
you point out, why not have Democrats at this economic summit? Don't
they have a role in getting the economy moving as well as it should?
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course they do. And the Democrats, and the
President will call on -- I think that it will be very appropriate
for Congress and both parties to hold similar forums in their
districts as they see fit right around that same time to discuss the
economy. But this President is going to continue to meet with
members of Congress on a regular basis, as you know. But the
executive branch, the President, has the right to have meetings as
well, as he travels across the nation, and he will.
Q Doesn't it make this economic summit less meaningful, though,
if you don't have the government actually getting together to work
on those programs, to work on those proposals, where some healthy
give-and-take might happen to get something done?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think what makes it helpful is to have citizens
come forward from all the variety of communities that I described to
talk with Cabinet Secretaries, to talk with the President, about how
they see the human side of policies in Washington. And that's
exactly why this forum is being set up.
But, again, this is very much like what you have seen as the
President travels the country, as the President did as he campaigned
to be President, to create these roundtable, these forum
environments where real people can be heard.
Q One more on a slightly different subject, although dealing with
Congress. Does the President believe that he has the authority, the
full authority, under the congressional resolution authorizing the
use of force passed after September 11th, to pursue the
war on terrorism into its next phase in whatever form or
fashion, including any kind of action against Iraq? Or does he think
that there needs to be more congressional action?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, that's a hypothetical that verges on the
legal, and it's some things that I could not possibly speculate
about.
Q Does he believe that he can take the war in whatever direction
he sees fit as Commander-in-Chief? Or does he think that there needs
to be more congressional input?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will always act in accordance with
his constitutional powers and constitutional obligations to protect
our country. And in doing so, he will always consult with Congress
properly to the full degree possible.
Q Ari, what do you hope to get out of this economic summit? A
series of recommendations, some advice from real people? What
exactly --
MR. FLEISCHER: Economic forum, the White House is calling this an
economic forum. What the President hopes to get out of it is to be
able to hear from the American people from a variety of walks of
life, from a variety of backgrounds -- whether they are union
workers or whether they are business executives, whether they are
business school students or whether they're people who have spent a
lifetime as ethicists studying the complexity of issues and how they
affect our economy and our culture.
To talk about what ideas people have to keep the economy moving,
to keep the economy strong; to hear their various ideas on, for
example, education, there can be a variety of people there who are
going to discuss the importance to the economy of job training, job
flexibility, educational training and other worker proposals that
affect the future prosperity of our country.
Technology and innovation is another area of great importance to
the economy and to growth and to creating a climate of greater
growth. Trade, for example. Think about this, for almost a decade no
President has had trade promotion authority. If trade promotion
authority can now be agreed to and signed into law by the President
before he leaves, this becomes a real, tangible way to improve the
lives of the American people, in a multilateral way that has not
been practical or doable for almost a decade. And the President
wants to focus on how can we now apply these new trade promotion
authority powers to benefit America's workers and to benefit other
countries around the world?
There will be a series of workshops, of forums at this event in
Waco, where all these issues will get discussed.
Goyal, and then we'll go to John.
Q Ari, two questions please. Two questions. One, it
seems to me that this is a season of corruption and fraud.
If you have seen yesterday's Washington Post --
Q Yes or no? (Laughter.)
Q Pick one. (Laughter.)
Q Yesterday's Washington Post, front page story, one of the
largest and maybe, perhaps, the largest immigration fraud in the
U.S. history. A lawyer, Mr. Kooritzky of Capital Law firm in
Virginia, over 3,000 victims, mostly from South Asia. And here at
India Globe, we have been getting so many phone calls, and they are
asking for White House action because he might get away, but these
victims are left with nowhere. So, how President can stop all kind
of this corruption in the future, especially in immigration?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that this is one of the reasons that
government is so important, in the President's opinion. It is a
vital part of government to enforce the laws so that anybody in any
walk of life, for whatever reason, of any background, who thinks
about engaging in crimes, in fraud, in stealing money -- whether
it's from their company, from their shareholders, or their employees
-- is punished; whether people who would use their positions of
power to do things for illegal or for reasons of bribe are punished.
And this is a government that the American people have seen
vigorously enforces the laws and will continue to do so.
Q These people have paid from $10,000 to $28,000 to stay in this
country to this person, and they have left nothing now. And they are
working maybe $5 a job. And now they have been told that their
applications are being now nowhere, because they haven't -- so what
is their future, something like this? Victims of frauds, something
like this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Full enforcement of the law, to vigorously
investigate and prosecute and arrest, arrest and prosecute anybody
who engages in such practices.
John.
Q -- yesterday --
MR. FLEISCHER: John. You had two questions; that's your third.
Q I'm going to steal two if I can, one on trade in a second. But
first, to follow up on Terry's point. You call this an
economic forum. Congressman Gephardt and other Democrats
have asked for some kind of a summit. They say at such a meeting you
should look back, if you will -- they want to revisit some decisions
made on economic policy, including the President's tax cut. Is it
fair to say that in having an economic forum, where he brings
together business people and his own Cabinet, that the President
just dismisses that notion, that he wants to look forward, not look
back and revisit decisions made in the past, including his tax cut?
MR. FLEISCHER: John, surely I would not imagine anybody would
seek to deprive the President of the ability to meet with people as
he sees fit and say it's inappropriate for the President to have a
meeting unless they, themselves, are there.
But, two, as I indicated earlier, the President on a regular
basis welcomes to the White House the leaders of the Congress to
have such discussions. Somebody asked me the other day about that
and I said, if that's what the leaders are seeking, they have a
mini-summit, if you will, on a regular basis here at the White
House. And if any of the leaders of the Democrat Party want to
propose to the President raising taxes or stopping the tax cut from
going into effect for the future -- that has helped revive the
economy from the recession that it was in, in March of 2001 --
that's their prerogative, they're always free to bring that up.
So the President will continue to have regular meetings with
members of Congress, but he looks forward very much to having
executive branch meetings with all these people from across the
country.
Q On trade promotion authority, obviously it cleared
the House by just one vote last time. And the Republican
leadership asked the President to come up and speak to the
conference today.
What are they saying in the lay of the land? Is there in the
compromise agreement some things that the Republicans don't like and
therefore they need the President's help to guarantee that those
votes are there again today?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's fair to say that on trade promotion
authority, the history of the vote on trade promotion authority
indicates, regardless of who the President is, it's a very close
vote. Since President Bush came into office, there has been an
increase in the number of votes for it. President Clinton tried
valiantly in a bipartisan fashion to get trade promotion authority
repeatedly throughout his term, and he was not able to. This year,
there was a one-vote margin supplied by the House of
Representatives.
The breakdown is very straightforward. Republicans are
overwhelmingly in favor of trade promotion authority. Democrats are
largely opposed. There is a very small, but influential and
important, group of Democrats who are helping to make this happen.
Indeed, it is a small block.
The President is going to go up to the Congress today to ask for
widespread Republican support. It will be necessary to have the
support of a large number of Republicans to make up for the absence
of Democrat votes in the House of Representatives.
Q We're closer to the election now. Has he been told by the
leadership that maybe not all of the votes that were there the last
time will be there this time, and that's why he's going up?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think anybody will know for sure until the
voting starts. But the President thinks that the agreement that has
been reached by the conferees is a strong agreement, a good
agreement. The President thinks it will help protect jobs for the
American people, will create more jobs for America's workers. And
it's also good for our allies and our trade partners around the
world.
There are many provisions in here, especially for Andean nations,
for Latin America and for Central America, that are vital to their
economies, that are good for our country. And the President is
hopeful that at the end of the day -- and he will put his shoulder
to the wheel -- that the Congress will be able to pass this into
law. It's been too long that the United States has not had it, and
it's hurting America because other nations are negotiating trade
agreements with nations that do not include the United States, going
around America in a way that denies American people to have jobs.
Q Ari, on the same subject as John's question, last night a very
late an agreement between Senator Max Baucus, president of the
Finance Committee in the Senate, and Bill Thomas, head of the House
and Ways Committee on this free trade agreement.
MR. FLEISCHER: Ways and Means Committee.
Q Ways and Means Committee, right. My question has to do, what
broke the logjam, because in an election year -- what caused this
agreement --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think what really most likely broke the logjam,
in addition to the diligence and the hard work of Senator Baucus and
Congressman Thomas, is the fact that there was a deadline
approaching. Very often in the Congress what spurs action is a
deadline, a recess, a time when Congress realizes if they don't get
it done, it's going to be too late, and it will never get done. And
President Bush, as you know, made very clear to members of Congress
that he had three priorities for Congress to focus on this week:
trade promotion authority was one of them, corporate governance was
a second, and homeland security was a third.
And the President is very pleased that the Congress is listening
to his call for bipartisan action. And I think the American people
are going to be the ones who are better for this, because Congress
is legislating, Congress is working bipartisan. And the President is
going to sign these bills into law if Congress can finish them and
get them sent to him.
Q On the same subject, the President has been
asking, and certainly the Andean countries -- I'm speaking
of Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador -- have been asking for
something that they've had, and ended and hasn't been renewed, which
is the trade preference --
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.
Q And those countries are having terrible economic problems and
political problems.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's exactly right. That's why the President
regrets that it's taking Congress this long to get this job done. If
you remember, the President earlier in the year traveled to Peru and
traveled to El Salvador and talked with the leaders of those nations
about the importance of passing the Andean trade preference act. And
that important act got complicated and caught up in the negotiations
in the Congress over trade promotion authority.
The President did not think it needed to get complicated by this
issue, but the Senate would not pass it, if you recall. There were
many requests on the Senate to take action earlier this year. And
the President can call for the Senate to act, but he cannot force
them to act. That's why the President is very pleased that Senator
Baucus and Congressman Thomas have reached this agreement. As I said
yesterday, the nation is in a hurry to get this done, and the
President hopes that it will be done.
Keith.
Q Ari, I hope you don't think I'm also a cynic -- (laughter) --
but who's doing the, who is inviting the -- who is
deciding who will be at the economic forum? And will there
be liberal points of view represented, as well, particularly among
the economists? Or is this just going to be sort of a cheerleading
session?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you'll see the full list as it gets closer
to the event, and I think you'll be fair to draw whatever
interpretation you want of who was invited. But as I walk through,
it's a good cross section of the United States, including, as I
indicated, union members and there will be a lot of people there who
are small business owners, industry experts, ethicists. So there
will be a large cross sample of America.
Q Okay. And also, given that this is a week of accomplishment,
the White House has criticized Daschle, Senator Daschle pretty
firmly in the past. I'm wondering if the President thinks, at least
of now, that Daschle's doing a pretty good job?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, my remarks by praising the Congress and
that includes all the leaders of the Congress, including Senator
Daschle if all these are finally agreed to. Now, this is a
conference agreement between Senator Baucus and Congressman Thomas,
and the President will go up there to talk to House Republicans
about it today.
The President hopes that there won't be any last minute blockage
for something that is very important for the country.
Ken.
Q Ari, two questions. One, on the economic forum,
the timing is one day before the deadline for corporate
executives to personally certify or recertify the validity of their
earning statements. There's a lot of speculation that this will
trigger a whole new round of earning restatements, and that that may
have an impact on the economy and securities markets. Are you trying
to get out in front of some bad news which you see coming? Is that
--
MR. FLEISCHER: No, this is actually good news for America, that
the Securities and Exchange Commission has ordered these largest
thousand corporations in the country to go back and personally
certify that their books are accurate and are reliable. And that's
-- one of the things the American people are looking for from
corporate America is honesty, accountability, and certainty. And
that deadline set by the Securities and Exchange Commission will
help deliver that.
Q Second question, on the question of flexibility in
homeland security. Most of the White House's fire has been
directed at the Senate version of the bill. What's the White House's
view of some of the amendments working their way through the House
on that subject, like the Morella amendment and the Shays amendment?
MR. FLEISCHER: The House is continuing to vote on this measure.
The House is now proceeding on this on a rather open rule, and so
this is a moving target as we speak. So once the House finalizes
action and we're able to take a look at it in its entirety, you'll
see a statement from the President about it. But until then, I'd
hesitate to comment.
Now, on the Morella amendment specifically, the point the
President makes is the same regardless of whether it's in the House
bill or the Senate bill. For example, if the House were to create an
Office of Homeland Security Director, Homeland Director, in the
White House, subject to Senate confirmation, the President's message
to the House would be identical to the President's message to the
Senate. He would oppose that provision.
So it doesn't really matter who is the individual behind an idea;
it's the ideas. That's what the President is focused on.
Q The Morella amendment doesn't deal with that issue, it deals
with the question of civil service protection. Are you opposed to
the Morella amendment?
MR. FLEISCHER: That deals with collective bargaining. The Morella
amendment deals with collective bargaining, and the President's made
clear that he opposes that.
Deb.
Q Ari, two things, like everybody else. Can you give us -- this
is a public forum? It'll be televised?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, public forum.
Q There will be -- reporters will have access to the
participants?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, you will.
Q Is it an all-day event?
MR. FLEISCHER: It will be a lengthy event. We will, closer to it,
give out the exact timing and scheduling and full details about it.
But it will be an open forum for people to listen to and to watch,
and you will be invited to cover it.
Q On an entirely different subject, when the
President was in Arizona, he talked about problems in fighting
forest fires because of environmental policies. Senator
Daschle got an amendment -- a provision exempting South Dakota from
some of these rules in the bill. Now several western states are
saying, we want the same thing. Does the President feel they ought
to have the same thing Daschle got his state?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Secretary Norton and Secretary Veneman have
focused on the importance of having sustainable policies that allow
for proper amounts of foresting. And they are focused on doing this
in a way that is uniform and applies to all. And there has been
resistance in the Congress up until now to Secretary Veneman and
Secretary Norton's ideas. And so it's very curious to see if there's
any individual changes sought to something. But anything that moves
in the direction of what the Secretaries have been talking about
would be welcome.
Q Does the summit have implications for new policy? I mean, is
the ultimate goal here for the President to hear all of these ideas
because he's looking to come up with a new package of ideas for the
economy? Or is there a greater goal here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly, if there were ideas circulated that
could create new policies, that's something the administration
always listens to carefully. That's one of the benefits of having a
session with people from outside of Washington, to hear new ideas,
to hear new thoughts. And so that's always a possibility.
Q Second question. Why isn't the President going to Camp David
this weekend? Are we looking at a corporate accounting
bill-signing over the weekend, or -- why isn't he going to
Camp David?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, we'll -- you'll have the radio address
tomorrow here, and that will be released in the usual format. He's
just spending the weekend here. If there's any activities over the
weekend, we'll of course let you know over the weekend.
Q Since it's an empty house, I'll try two, also. Have you gauged
any public reaction to the President's calls about the
medical lawsuit situation? And how aggressively will this
now be pursued?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you listened to the stories of a lot of
these pregnant mothers who were there yesterday, who have to travel
great distances to find doctors, and if you listened to the doctors
who are leaving their communities because of their rising cost of
malpractice insurance, for them it's an immediate crisis that needs
to be solved yesterday.
The President has made his proposals to the Congress. He hopes
that Congress will take action. And the President said he hopes that
Congress will take action before they leave this year.
Q There was a report about a military buildup in the countries
around Iraq, a tent city being formed. Do you have anything on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not familiar with the report. Wendell.
Q Ari, given that the President's homeland security
department aims to give new leadership -- uniform
leadership, if you will -- to federal workers who will basically
continue doing the same jobs, why do they need to lose the civil
service protections? Give me an example of what Title V, existing
law, prevents the President from doing -- or prevents the Director
of the Department of Homeland Security, who is the Secretary -- that
the President -- that he needs to do.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, people do not lose civil service
protections. They maintain their civil service protections under the
President's proposal.
Q The unions argue they do lose civil service protections,
because they lose the enforcement mechanisms that guarantee the
protections.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm aware that there's one side that states the
case in that matter. But that doesn't make it correct. People do not
lose their civil service protections under the President's proposal,
people maintain them. And let me be specific. Under the President's
proposal, workers will continue to enjoy civil rights protections,
equal opportunity employment protections. The Fair Labor Standards
Act will continue to apply, the Social Security Act. Veterans'
preferences will apply, government ethics will apply, the Hatch Act
protections will apply. All of these will apply.
What the President --
Q But the enforcement mechanisms are gone. So tell me what the
President can't do that he needs to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, all those enforcement mechanisms apply there.
What the President is looking for is common sense flexibility for
managers to be able to move quickly in hiring and firing, and giving
pay raises to employees, so that if there is an outstanding
employee, a front-line worker, for example, at the Border Patrol, if
there is a management decision to give an employee a pay raise, they
want to be able to give that person a pay raise without having to
give pay raises to everybody at the same level. Because right now,
there's such a one-size-fits-all standard, without regard to merit,
that people cannot be rewarded for their individual hard work and
initiative.
Another example is that in one case it took nearly two years of
negotiations, including a mediator and a Federal Service Impasses
Panel, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to negotiate a
policy for
the use, care, and feeding of canine patrol animals. At a time
when the nation is shifting footing to a wartime footing, where
terrorism is a real threat, we don't necessarily have two years to
do what we need on the borders to make certain that our personnel
have every tool they need, including canines, to protect our country
from explosives or other objects that might cross the border.
And that type of flexibility that the President is seeking will
better protect the country. And I think that's why you're going to
see that in end, Congress is increasingly listening to what the
President is proposing. I think there have been some scare tactics
used by people who want to make suggestions that are not in the
President's proposal. The President's proposal is focused on many of
these common sense things that frustrate taxpayers and frustrate
citizens when they realize how cumbersome and bureaucratic rules can
be.
Q These things have existed, for the most part, for 50 years,
through wars. Given we face, if you will, a different kind of enemy,
the people that you are moving are going to be doing the same things
that they were doing -- they've been doing for 50 years. How does --
MR. FLEISCHER: Which is exactly why change is necessary in this
regard. And that's exactly why a new department is being created.
It's very important to recognize the risk of terror and the need
to have an agile agency that can move quickly to counter terrorism
risks, not encumbered by old bureaucratic formulas. For example, if
somebody needs to quickly deploy 100 agents at one spot on the
border, managers need to have the immediate discretion to move those
employees without having to enter into negotiations for the request
to move employees. And that's as a result of the new threats our
nation faces. And that's why the President believes managers need
that flexibility to have a department.
Mark.
Q Ari, just quickly on the summit, I'm trying to imagine what it
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Forum.
Q I'm sorry, forum.
MR. FLEISCHER: I recognize again one side would like to call it
that. I know the press will not take a role in choosing words used
by that one side.
Q This forum, what is it going to look like? I mean, you
mentioned Waco. Is it actually going to be in Waco? Is he renting a
hall? Is he going to have folks out to the ranch and on folding
chairs? What is it going to look like?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, no, this will be in Waco, not at the ranch.
This will be in Waco. We'll have the exact location made available
closer to it. I think it's going to be at Baylor University at one
of their rooms, one of their facilities.
Q Is the Vice President going to be there?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't believe so.
Q Ari, the President this morning at that homeland security event
spoke of the capture of 2,000 terrorists. Has the
government now confirmed that all these people in custody are
terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has repeatedly used the number 2,000
or 2,400 to describe the number of people who have been detained.
And, yes.
Q So it's confirmed? I mean, certified that all these people who
are being held are, indeed, terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's how the President described it before.
Q How does he reach that conclusion?
MR. FLEISCHER: These are people who don't belong to any organized
nation who were fighting with al Qaeda or with the Taliban against
the United States. And the reason they were captured is because they
were taken in battle.
Q Is any progress being made at Guantanamo on eliciting
information from these people, advancing the case?
MR. FLEISCHER: Without being able to get into any specific
details about intelligence information that's being gleaned, the
answer is, yes. It's been a productive part of the war on terror to
be able to protect the country as a result of information that's
being gleaned. I think you were aware of several things that have
been in the press as a result of some of that.
Sir.
Q Mr. Fleischer, do you have to offer any congratulation message
on behalf of President Bush to the Greek Prime Minister,
Konstandinos Simits for his success against the members of a Greek terrorist organization?
MR. FLEISCHER: That was a success by the Greek government. And
this is again an example where in the war against terror,
accomplishments are going to be made in multiple areas around the
world, through diplomacy, through arrest, through seizure of
financial assets. And Greece is a partner in that effort.
Q One more question, one more question. How do you explain the
fact that your government arrested the other day three Greek
Americans of Adelphia Corporation, in New York, for fraud, but none
so far from the other companies, Enron, and WorldCom/MCI, for
stealing billions of dollars from the American people? And when
President Bush is going to sign the Senate Sarbanes bill on
corporate America?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, on the question of arrests, it's not the
place of the White House to discuss any specific arrest that may or
may not be forthcoming. You need to talk to the Department of
Justice to see where their investigations take them. And I don't
think that's the type of information that you're going to determine.
That will be determined by the prosecutors, as they see fit, based
on the law.
And on the Sarbanes legislation, we don't have a date yet. We
haven't received the bill yet. We'll of course let you know when it
will happen.
Q Still not today?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct. We haven't received the bill yet.
Paula.
Q Given the economic forum most likely will be held
in a climate of jittery-ness, as far as people's concern over their
401(k) plans, as well as the stock market in general, do you
anticipate that there might be any proposals coming out of this that
would encourage incentives for buying stock? There had been talk
about -- within the White House -- of possibly some sort of tax
policy to encourage the purchase of stock.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is seeking a change in policy
now. And the House of Representatives has already passed legislation dealing with pension protections for
workers. And the President hopes the Senate will follow, and
do the same. The President wants people to be able to diversify
their pensions and their retirement funds, so they'll have greater
freedom to have management over their 401(k)s.
He wants to make certain that blackout periods that would apply
to top executives at a company, as well as apply to rank-and-file
workers. He does not think it's fair, and wants to change the law,
so that executives can continue to trade and to sell when employees
cannot. He wants to make sure that there's fairness in these
blackout periods. He wants to make sure that workers have better
access to information, more quarterly reports, so they can have
information about their pensions.
This is pending in the Congress. This, too, the President hopes
will become part of the Congress's legacy of accomplishment.
Paula, follow-up.
Q With respect to the flexibility provisions in the
homeland security department, your statement of
administration policy says that the administration wants to be able
to retain the President's authority to exempt certain operations
under the Federal Labor Relations Management Act. Does that mean
that if any bill comes here and it does not give the President the
authority to remove employees from federal collective bargaining
units after that one-year transition period, the President would
veto that bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: What the President is seeking is the same
authority under collective bargaining that his predecessors have
always had. In fact, under the amendment that we discussed earlier,
this President, in a time of war, would be given less authority than
his predecessors over collective bargaining for national security
purposes, when these predecessors were not in times of war or
terror.
And so that amendment is actually a step backwards, taking
something away from President Bush that his predecessors have had,
when the whole purpose of creating the department is to be able to
respond more aggressively to terror.
Q Ari, the President of course has made the case for the need for
creating this homeland security department. But in the meantime,
does he believe the nation's security is at all jeopardized until
that restructuring is done?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is always worried about the security
of our nation, given the potential terrorist threats that are out
there. That's why the President called on Congress to create a
Department of Homeland Security.
You've heard the President talk on many occasions about the
threat matrix that he receives. There continue to be people who are
plotting, who are trying to bring attacks to our country. And so
with whatever forum of government we have, this President will use
it to its fullest to protect the people.
Q And is there any sense from a practical standpoint how soon it
would be before a department could be up and running once the
President finds legislation that he can sign?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it depends on all the decisions that are
made in the final bill by the Congress. The more flexibility they
give the administration, the faster the department will be able to
be up and running and effective.
President Deans.
Q Ari, President Clinton had an economic
forum in Little Rock, and I'm just wondering whether you see
this as a similar kind of a format, sort of a Little Rock II? Or
will it be somehow different? (Laughter.) What can you tell us about
President Bush's role? And, thirdly, why Waco?
MR. FLEISCHER: The notion of American Presidents meeting with the
American people is hardly new, either to President Bush or President
Clinton. This is what Presidents do. And, if you recall, this is
what President Bush did regularly. Go back to the transition, for
example. Think about the forums that the President held in Austin,
Texas, where he talked about education, where he talked about other
issues down there.
Remember, President Bush during the transition said that the
economy was on the verge of a recession. President Bush, from the
first days of his administration, announced policies to help get the
economy out of recession, and the Congress passed those policies.
The recession actually turned out to be much shorter and shallower
than anybody thought, a substantial result because of the tax cuts
that the President got Congress to agree to and were passed into law
last year.
In the President's State of the Union, he talked about economic
security as one of the three pillars that he would focus on in 2002.
So this is a continuation of things that the President has always
identified as major priorities for the country and for his
administration. And Presidents meeting with individuals throughout
the country is exactly what you would expect Presidents to do, I
think.
Q Why Waco?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sorry?
Q Is it Waco simply because --
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, the President -- the House of
Representatives is scheduled to leave for its recess today. The
Senate is going to leave, I believe, next week. Following that,
President Bush is going to leave. I think he's going to spend some
25 days based -- moving the White House to Texas. And he'll be at
his home in Crawford.
During those 25 days, he's going to travel to 12
American cities and he'll also have not only this economic forum in
Waco for you to look forward to, but there's going to be
other events in Waco and in Crawford for you to look forward to
during this time, too.
Q Ari, do you have any reaction to the report that
Saddam Hussein has been trying to import specialized steel
that can only be used in gas centrifuges, which can only be used to
enrich uranium, which can only be used in nuclear bombs?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, one, I do not talk about any
intelligence information. But, two, there is a reason that President
Bush, in his State of the Union, identified Iraq as an "axis of
evil" nation. And one of the reasons is Iraq is trying to develop
weapons of mass destruction, and it is a worry that this President
has. And it's one of the reasons why it's so important to protect
the American people from people like Saddam Hussein.
Q Do you have any fears --
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester.
Q Paul Sperry of WorldNet Daily has interviewed a number of
recently retired FBI agents, including Ivian Smith, former head of
the Analysis, Budget, and Training Section of the Bureau's National
Security Division, who noted that on 9/11, domestic terrorism was
the number one priority. And my question, is the President aware
that the Clinton administration de-emphasized fighting Arab
international terrorism in order to focus on right-wing militia
groups, and the FBI never analyzed boxes of evidence gathered in the
1993 World Trade Center bombing until after 9/11?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, the President is looking forward, not
backwards, and is focused on bringing bipartisan support to his
fight against terror.
Q Okay. Ari, I do not know of any evidence that the U.S. Navy's
youngest fighter pilot in World War II, Lieutenant George H.W. Bush,
after the war, ever condemned our bombing of Japanese cities, and
therefore killing millions of civilians, because we were at war,
just as we are at war today. And so is Israel, and so, as Secretary
Rumsfeld said, it is an unfortunate fact of war that, inevitably,
innocent civilians are killed. And my question is why does the
President criticize the Israeli killing of 13 civilians in the
course of killing a terrorist responsible for killing at least ten
times that number, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: For the reasons I outlined when I gave you the
President's thoughts two days ago.
Tom.
Q Ari, Judicial Watch has been having a hard time serving papers
on the Vice President in this Halliburton
lawsuit. In fact, they said that they were threatened with
arrest when their process server came to the gate. Apparently, the
past practice, when serving papers on the President or the Vice
President, is that the people at the gate accept service. But the
Judicial Watch process server says he was threatened with arrest,
and they're now accusing the White House of frustrating the law that
says you can't tamper with a process server.
Is the White House making any effort to keep these papers from
not being served?
MR. FLEISCHER: Tom, I don't have any information about this. It's
the first I heard about it. You may want to talk to the Vice
President's office, I don't know anything about that.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
Q How about the week ahead, Ari?
Q Yes, the week ahead.
MR. FLEISCHER: I did that this morning. We'll put it out.
END 12:58 P.M. EDT
|