28 September 2001
Transcript: White House Daily Briefing, September 28, 2001
(Bush's schedule/phone calls, Bush/King Abdullah of Jordan meeting,
worker relief/economic stimulus package, airline security, Reagan
National Airport/reopening, operational detail policy, Reverend
Jackson, Bill Maher's comments, UN sanctions/Sudan, week ahead) (6310)
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed.
Following is the White House transcript:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
September 28, 2001
PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER
INDEX
-- President's Schedule
- Phone Calls
- NSC Meeting
- Meeting With King Abdullah of Jordan
- Meeting With Domestic Consequence Committee
-- Worker Relief/Economic Stimulus Package
-- Airline Security Package
-- Reagan National Airport Reopening
-- Operational Detail Policy
-- Reverend Jackson
-- Bill Maher's Comments
-- UN Sanctions/Sudan
-- The Week Ahead
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
September 28, 2001
PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:08 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I want to report to you on the
President's day. The President, earlier this morning, called Prime
Minister Howard of Australia and thanked him for the strong
expressions of sympathy and support from the Australian people and
from the Australian government. The President thanked the Prime
Minister for Australia's actions to freeze the assets of terrorist
organizations, and the two said they were looking forward to working
together in other areas of bilateral cooperation in the
counterterrorist effort.
The President also called President Arroyo of the Philippines this
morning and thanked the Philippines for their immediate and strong
support in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. They discussed the
Philippine government's ongoing struggle against terrorism within the
Philippines, and President Arroyo noted the government's determination
to secure the release of American hostages who have been held in the
Philippines.
They discussed cooperation in the counterterrorist effort, and they
also said they were looking forward to seeing each other at the
upcoming meeting of the President with other APEC allies in Shanghai.
After his phone calls, the President convened a meeting earlier this
morning of the National Security Council. Following the meeting, he
met with the King of Jordan where the two discussed ways to cooperate
in the war against terrorism. They discussed the importance of moving
forward with the peace process in the Middle East, and they also
discussed the importance of the strong bilateral relations that exist
between the United States and Jordan. And, of course, earlier this
morning, the President signed into law the Jordanian Free Trade
Agreement.
The President will have a meeting midafternoon of his Domestic
Consequence Committee to discuss various proposals to help people who
have been hit by all of the layoffs in the economy, and to help with
the possibility of a worker relief package. And then he will depart
for Camp David late this afternoon, and he will be in Camp David
through the weekend, where he will participate again in a meeting of
the National Security Council via teleconference.
One final note for you and then I'll be pleased to take questions.
Secretary Powell and the Foreign Minister of Spain will be available
at 4:15 p.m. this afternoon at a stakeout following their meeting at
State. With that, I'm happy to take questions.
QUESTION: You mentioned the worker relief package. Is that the same
thing as what others call a stimulus package?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has had a series of meetings on a
stimulus package. A component that is also being explored is a worker
relief component to a stimulus package.
Q: Does that include such things as extending unemployment benefits?
Is that one of the options?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is very concerned about the rising
unemployment that's taking place in the country prior to September
11th, but also in the wake of the attacks, with all the layoffs that
have hit various communities across the country. The President wants
to address that by working with the Congress, in a bipartisan way, on
an economic stimulus package. He's going to discuss a variety of
ideas, that many people, including many leading Democrats have
offered, about how to help workers who have lost their jobs.
Q: Would that be ready as early as next week?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I'm just not going to get into guesses about
the timing of it. It will be ready when the President and the Congress
have reached sufficient agreement about it and the President thinks
that it's right.
Q: Is that something that you want to -- following up on Ron, and then
I have a separate question -- but would you want to attach that or --
as some people on the Hill have talked about -- to the airline
security package, or is that something you would want to do
separately? Would you rather do it with the stimulus package?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, yesterday in Chicago, the President made a series
of announcements designed to help protect the traveling public, so
when they travel, for example cockpit doors are reinforced, the
federal government takes a much more aggressive role in background
checks of airport workers and setting federal standards on the
screening operations that people go through when they board airplanes.
The President has viewed this as a way to send a signal that safety of
the traveling public has got to come first, that safety is terribly
important and that he's going to address that. There are a variety of
other ideas that the President wants to review, dealing with the
impact of the layoffs on workers. But the President announced
yesterday a separate safety package. And he wants to make certain that
the safety package is able to move through the Congress.
Q: So how it's affecting the airline industry isn't necessarily a part
-- you view that as something different?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are two real issues here. One is the safety
of travelers, an ongoing concern that the President wants to move
quickly to address. The other is restoring strength to the economy and
helping people who have -- who are suffering, who have lost their
jobs.
Q: Don't want to ask about a timetable here, though I understand it's
a matter of some urgency. But can you say that Reagan National Airport
will be reopened?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's going to be a determination that's ongoing to be
made by the appropriate security people, working with the Department
of Transportation and the National Security Council, the Secret
Service, in consultation with officials here. The President is keenly
aware of the impact of leaving Ronald Reagan Airport closed. He's very
concerned about the impact it has on the people who work there, their
families, the economy of Northern Virginia, on US Air and its ability
to maintain its obligations to its passengers.
There are, of course, unique security considerations that come into
play having an airport located so close to Washington and to the
Congress, to the White House, to the other institutions of government.
So it's a real question of balancing some crucial needs that affect
people's lives and livelihoods with security. Now, those issues are
all being reviewed as we speak. No final determinations have been
made. Q Is it his personal desire to see it reopened?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has authorized the appropriate people to
work on the issue and to bring him their recommendations. He's very
aware, as I said, about the implications of leaving it closed, and
he's very concerned about that. So the review is underway and there's
nothing further I can say until the review is complete and then
shared.
Q: Do you think they'll have a decision next week?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't want to guess on the timing, Helen. But the
President is aware the need to move with dispatch because it's
affecting people's lives.
Q: One of those appropriate people is Secretary Mineta, who said this
morning it will reopen. Was he wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Secretary, I think, did four interviews this
morning, on four different morning shows, and on three of them he
indicated exactly what I just indicated, and that's the answer.
Q: So he was off-message on ABC? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I would never comment about any one particular network.
(Laughter.)
Q: In that interview, he was not stating the administration's
position?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just say that I paid careful attention to all
his interviews, I refer you to the three that I reference.
Q: But he also said a decision could come as early as Tuesday or
Wednesday of next week. Is that --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's all possible.
Q: Ari, on the same issue, it's not only the economic impact that has
happened to the whole region, the livelihood of people, it's also a
symbol, National Airport is the main airport of Washington. The
President is speaking of people getting on the air again and flying,
and flying is safe again. So this is like going against the message as
long as it stays closed.
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, you're right, it is a symbol. And,
unfortunately, in the aftermath of the attack on September 11th, many
Americans are taking a look at things symbolic and things real and
saying, things are changing. And it's an unfortunate reality of what's
happened since September 11th.
So at the same time, the President is doing everything in his power to
help Americans to resume their lives across the country. There are
going to be issues that are also, for the first time in so many of our
lives that are touched by security considerations for the first time.
And the question of National Airport is directly one of them.
Q: Ari, there are press reports that say that special forces from the
United States and Great Britain are on the ground in Afghanistan. Has
the military war against terrorism begun?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ivan, let me lay out one rule now and for the future. I
will never comment on any military operations that may or may not be
underway.
Q: I wanted to follow up on the National Airport. Dulles Airport is
very close to Washington as well, about 20 miles or something like
that. The planes involved in the incidents here on September 11th, or
the incident here on September 11th, I believe were traveling
something like 400 miles an hour. That's also only a couple of minutes
away by air from downtown Washington if somebody suddenly decides to
divert from their flight path.
Why aren't there special measures in place at Dulles unique to deal
with the Washington area, and why is National of so much greater
concern?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, those are the all of the issues that the
security experts are taking a look at. Sometimes, the difference
between minutes and seconds is a big difference, and so they are
looking at exactly those types of issues.
Q: I have two questions. Did Secretary Mineta jump the gun on ABC this
morning? Is that what you're saying? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I have addressed it.
Q: And number two, what did the President mean by "hot pursuit"?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll leave that to others to guess at.
Q: I assume by your answer earlier, there's no longer any debate here
about whether there will be an economic stimulus package. The White
House agrees that there will definitely be one, and there's a need for
one?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think until the President says something, you can
rest assured that it's a matter that's under review. I wouldn't reach
any conclusions until the President, himself, says something. But the
President has indicated, of course, that he remains very concerned
about the economy and he's taking a look at a series of possible
actions that can be taken to help people, and he's going to do that in
concert with the Congress.
Q: And is there anything about if there is a stimulus package, how
large that should be?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no final determinations on that.
Q: Ari, just following up on your answer to those other questions, the
fact that you're not going to comment about any operational details
from the podium, so is it fair that the American people should -- have
to expect that some things could be happening right now on the
military front that they just won't be told about?
MR. FLEISCHER: As the President said, there are going to be elements
to this war that everybody will know about, that people will be able
to see and know about for themselves, that will be publicly discussed.
But it is also the nature of this first war against terrorism that
there may be areas that people do not know about. And I'm just not
going to go beyond that in discussing anything that is operational
like that.
Q: A general policy question on this. Do you have any assessments
whether it was proper to publish the article about alleged covert
actions, and would the White House like to see the press exercise
greater restraint, even if official wartime powers have not been
invoked?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, this is always a balance of democracy. But
the fact of the matter is, our democracy seems to typically get it
right, and it's one of the reasons we win wars, is because we have a
free people and a free press.
And in that interesting, historical and delicate balance, people do
their part; they understand the implications about what they do, they
say, they write, they publish. And history, I think, is a good guide.
I think there are some challenges today in the modern communications
era that didn't exist in World War II, for example, where things said
today are instantly heard and can be heard by enemies around the
world.
But it's an interesting question of delicacy and balance. I've made
some concerns known to the media, which I'll continue to make known on
a private level about things that are done or said, and I think we're
all going to work our way forward on this together.
Q: Was the article, was the paper wrong to publish that kind of
article? Did it put the American forces in danger if they, indeed, are
there?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not a judgment for me to make and answering that
question would be giving an indication whether it was accurate or not,
and I won't do that.
Q: My impression was that you had been saying that you wanted to wait
several more days, in keeping with Greenspan's advice, to see whether
or not some stimulus was actually needed. The sense I get from you now
is that judgment has been made and that you were deeply involved in
preparations, looking at all of the options and that you've actually
decided that, in fact, some stimulus will be necessary.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is looking at options. He's
reviewing with his staff and with Cabinet Secretaries a series of
possible steps to take. And he also has been discussing it with
leaders on the Hill, with Senator Lott, Speaker Hastert, Congressman
Gephardt, Senator Daschle, and he's going to continue to do that. So
it's a process. He hasn't reached any conclusions yet, but he is
reviewing a series of actions that may be taken.
And the reason is, is because there are a lot of people in this
country who are hurting, who are out of jobs and who need help. And
there is an economy that the President is always going to focus on in
times of war or peace, that he wants to make certain is strong.
Q: So, in a sense, you have rolled, then, all the concerns on Capitol
Hill about finding some sort of relief for laid off workers -- that
has now become part of your thinking on an economic stimulus?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you say we've rolled in all the concerns. The
President is taking a look at a lot of options.
Q: But, I mean, action on that front is now seen as part of any
stimulus package?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's all possible.
Q: Now, the Senate was talking about $21 billion in assistance for
laid off workers. Is that somewhere in the realm of anything the White
House could contemplate?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to speculate about any numbers. The
President is going to continue to explore these options and see where
-- see what determinations he makes.
Q: You had indicated, I think, earlier in the week that you thought in
the $100 billion that was identified by Greenspan and others as the
amount needed for any stimulus, that you thought about $50 billion,
$55 billion had already been spent, in terms of emergency spending in
the airline bill.
Is that your thinking, that there's another $40 billion or so that
would come and no package should really exceed that amount?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that was actually what the Federal Reserve said
in a statement they issued. There was some confusion about what some
people interpreted Chairman Greenspan to have said when he went up to
the Hill. And some people were suggesting this $100 billion figure.
The Federal Reserve subsequently put out a clarification to correct
any of the misinterpretations others made.
Q: Do you share that view?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you'll get the number when the President is
ready to report a number.
Q: Is there any ongoing discussion with Reverend Jackson on going to
Afghanistan and getting the Americans out? I don't think he feels
designated to negotiate, but you people keep saying no negotiations. I
don't think that's the problem. Would you be very unhappy if he went?
MR. FLEISCHER: Reverend Jackson has talked to Secretary Powell and to
Condoleezza Rice. And the administration's position is clear. The
United States government is not going to negotiate or to have any
discussions with the Taliban.
Q: We know that. We heard that in Iran-Contra, too, about ten times --
thousand times, before --
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, you can come to conclusions about what you're
hearing today, and I'm sure you will. But I repeat, the government is
not going to negotiate with the Taliban or enter into negotiations
with him.
Q: But that isn't the point of the --
MR. FLEISCHER: And Reverend Jackson can be very helpful in reminding
the world about the importance of fighting terrorism.
Q: Can I just follow on that? When you say that the U.S. government is
not going to negotiate, does that mean that there's no diplomat -- no
room for diplomacy here?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q: No room for diplomacy?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q: Okay, so no additional delegations from Pakistan to go to talk to
the Taliban? You wouldn't support that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President could not have said it any plainer in his
speech to the nation. It's time for actions, not words. And the
Taliban is harboring terrorists. And the President has said that he
will protect this country after it's been attacked by those who engage
in terrorism and those who harbor terrorists. And he meant it.
Q: Would you object if Jackson went and got the young people who've
been -- and the people who've been jailed, got them out?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I've addressed the question.
Q: That isn't the question.
Q: Do you think the worker relief package should include a --
MR. FLEISCHER: Should include a what?
Q: I wasn't sure if Helen was speaking. Do you feel that the worker
relief program should include a component that involves job training
as well as health benefits?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, there are a series of things the President's
looking at that's under review. And until the President makes those
determinations, I'm not going to speculate. Q And also, on the
stimulus package, there's a school of thought that if you're going to
do anything, it should provide relief for corporate as well as for
individuals. Specifically on individuals, payroll cuts, because many
people were not eligible for the first round of rebates. Is that
something the President is open-minded about?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's another idea that has been floated around on the
Hill, and the President's aware of that. But again, these are all good
attempts to get me to speculate about the specifics of what the
President's reviewing, and I just won't.
Q: Ari, you won't talk about the specifics. What prism of principles
is the President applying to all these good ideas that are coming into
the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is taking a look at it in the context of
what will be real and meaningful to help the economy and to help
workers get jobs. That's the first principle that the President is
applying. And of course, in war and peace, it's always important, the
President believes, to keep an eye on wise use of taxpayer dollars.
Q: Ari, a follow-up to Helen's question. When President Clinton was
President, Jesse Jackson went to Kosovo, got the three soldiers out.
The administration was very upset with him. What are the thoughts of a
civilian dealing with a government to government, a higher level
government to government situation now than just leaving it alone?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I really -- I think we've exhausted the topic.
I've said what the administration has to say about the possible visit.
Q: Reverend Jackson now is putting out a statement -- a written
statement to try to prove that the Taliban did get a hold of him. And
he's still thinking it could be his moral obligation to go there.
Could he be a fly in the ointment in this situation?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've addressed the question, and I think he'll figure
out what he does.
Q: Ari, on that, following that, actually the Taliban's ambassador to
Pakistan has denied his country is making any such offer. And the
Reverend, Mr. Jackson now says, it doesn't matter who initiated this.
Does the President want the Secretary of State to take any more time
to meet with such a storyteller when it should be the Attorney General
meeting with Jesse for questioning about the mistress money? And I
have a follow-up.
Q: I did not put him up to that, okay? I have nothing --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I'll leave this to the two of you to figure
out. (Laughter.) Campbell.
Q: Ari, I have a follow-up. My other one, my second one, Ari --
MR. FLEISCHER: How can you follow up when I didn't answer your first
question? (Laughter.)
Q: With another. I'm trying again. The Washington Post reports this
morning that Washington's Channel 7, an ABC affiliate, has reversed
its decision to bring back Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect," and,
quote, "the decision follows criticism by a White House spokesmen of
Maher's comments that our Armed Forces missile people are cowards and
the terrorists aren't."
My question is, has anyone blamed you for your effective comment, or
have all reactions been positive, as they should be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, Les, I get blamed every day for things I did or did
not do or say.
Q: But you weren't blamed for this.
MR. FLEISCHER: Not in this building, I wasn't. (Laughter.) At least
not by people on the federal payroll with whom I work. (Laughter.)
Q: But you had a resolute refusal on Wednesday to dignify this Jackson
statement.
MR. FLEISCHER: You only get two. (Laughter.)
Q: What's the White House reaction to the UN lifting of sanctions on
the Sudan and -- the United States deciding not to block sanctions in
Sudan?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United Nations Security Council voted this morning
to lift the UN sanctions on Sudan, which was an action taken in
discussions the UN had in support of Egypt. The sanctions that were
imposed by the United Nations on the Sudan were taken as a result of
Sudanese efforts in an assassination attempt on President Mubarak.
The lifting of the sanctions was done in agreement with Egypt. The
United States continues to maintain its bilateral sanctions against
Sudan. The two are not related. So I note that it's been supported, it
was a unanimous vote in the Security Council --
Q: But, in the past, we've blocked U.N. attempts to lift the
sanctions. So why this time, given how critical the President has been
in the past?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think that the Egyptian support for
lifting the sanctions played a role in the actions the United States
took. And given the fact that the United States' bilateral sanctions
against Sudan remain in place allowed us to be at the position we are.
I also note, of course, that the President named Senator Danforth as a
special envoy to the Sudan because of his concern about the human
rights violations that are taking place in the Sudan, and those
concerns remain.
Q: Ari, can I just follow on that, though? Isn't it also sending a
message to those countries that might help in this campaign against
terrorism about certain actions that could be taken, such as the U.S.
not blocking these sanctions?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I don't know that, Kelly. I know that these
set of sanctions were set to expire, which is also why the vote took
place at the time it took place.
Q: Yesterday, after the President's announcement on security at
airline checkpoints, we saw the first cracks in what had been the
extraordinary unity on Capitol Hill; a lot of lawmakers want the
President to go the extra mile, federalize the whole work force. Is he
willing to go that extra mile, to preserve that extraordinary unity at
this difficult time?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President made the announcement yesterday he
made because he believes it's the right policy. The President believes
that there can be a substantial strengthening, a very significant
strengthening of the safety for the traveling public by federalizing
the background checks, the standards that the security workers operate
under, and that it can be done in a way that really is very different
from the way airports operated in the past -- particularly ending
low-bid contracts with screeners and setting a new set of standards.
So that's why the President did it. He'll always have an eye to
working with Congress, but I'm not prepared to guess where this is
going to end up.
Q: Ari, following Les, which I hoped never to do -- (laughter) --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, he just walked out the door.
Q: On the Bill Maher issue, we talked about this morning. But now,
today, this afternoon, in relation to the USA Today story on the
special ops, this is the second time from this podium that you have
essentially cautioned the media and people to watch what they say, as
you put it with Bill Maher. That has triggered a lot of comment and
concern. Do you believe it is appropriate, as the President's
spokesmen, exercising that authority, to issue that kind of warning?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, on two points. One, on special ops, what I
indicated is there has always been an historical and delicate balance
and our nation has been well served by the country and everybody,
including the press, finding its way through that. So my
characterization is not quite as you described it.
But on the other question about answering questions posed to me by
reporters, when individual Americans say things that may not meet with
the approval of people in government. You know, I've been asked from
this podium, I've been asked about discrimination against Muslims;
I've been asked about discrimination against Sikhs and whether the
White House would speak out; I've been asked about statements made by
Republican congressmen that were intolerant toward Muslims and
minorities in this country. And I've never hesitated to comment or
speak my mind about those issues. I was asked about what Bill Maher
said and I didn't hesitate to talk about that.
It is always the right, and forever will be, of an American to speak
out. It is always the right of an American to be wrong. But that won't
stop me from saying, when asked by the press, if something is not met
with approval from the White House as far as statements of intolerance
or some of the statements you reference.
Very often, when you ask the question and the White House does not
answer it, the press interprets that as a wink and a nod, saying that
the White House tacitly approves it. So when you ask the question, I
think you're entitled to an answer.
Q: So you stand by what you said?
MR. FLEISCHER: I stand by what I said about what he said, was
unfortunate and should not have been said. But I understand, of
course, in all times, it's everybody's right to say things, no matter
how wrong they can be.
Q: So you then don't believe what you said, that Americans ought to at
this time watch what they say? Do you stand by that specific part of
your statement?
MR. FLEISCHER: Keith, I think that everybody always has to be
thoughtful. I think everybody has to think through the repercussions,
the implications of what they say. And I shared this morning, as well,
but I had a message on my answering machine from somebody, a citizen
who called up and said that the United States needs to round up all
the Muslims, the good ones and the bad ones, because you can't tell
the difference. And that's the type of thing -- people have to think
carefully about the things that they do and they say.
And our nation, as it goes into an increased wartime footing, is going
to be confronting issues that typically, thankfully, have not come up
in the past, that make people think more carefully about what they're
doing. And so that's the answer to the question.
Q: Ari, can I ask you then about some statements that have been made
by guests that the President has had here in the last couple days? He
invited folks from the Muslim Public Affairs Council in -- at the time
of the missile strikes on Afghanistan in '98, that group described
those strikes as "illegal and immoral." And in particular, Mr. al
Marayati, who was one of the gentlemen in the Roosevelt Room, I think
it was, with the President, said that on the day of these most recent
attacks, "if we're going to look at suspects we should put the state
of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention
from what is happening in the Palestinian territories so they can go
on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."
What would the President's view on those comments be? Would he agree
with them?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think it would surprise anybody that the
President often has meetings to discuss a whole host of issues with
people who he doesn't agree with everything they may have said in the
course of their lives or careers.
Q: What about on this particular text? Does the President believe the
state of Israel is a reasonable suspect for what took place in New
York or at the Pentagon?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, he does not.
Q: Ari, to follow up on Jim's question about the statements that you
made earlier this week about the Federal Reserve, I wanted to ask you
why you felt compelled to comment on the Fed's statement, which you
normally don't make any comments on the Fed. And if they gave you any
clarification that it was $40 billion to $50 billion, because their
statement actually was characteristically more vague than that. It
just said that it was recent spending measures, and didn't actually
put a number to it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right. The question was, people attributed $100 billion
to his statement. And that's what I was asked about by the press, the
$100 billion figure. And I wanted to make certain that nobody thought
the $100 billion was accurate.
Q: -- talking about the remaining figures would be $40 billion to $50
billion.
MR. FLEISCHER: I was walking everybody through the existing stimulus
that has been put into place, which is the $40 billion in spending,
plus the $15 billion in the airline package.
Q: But Senator Daschle says it's at $95 billion.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's $95 billion?
Q: It's $95 billion.
MR. FLEISCHER: That what's $95 billion.
Q: It's $40 billion plus $15 billion plus the $40 billion spent for
the tax cut earlier this year.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I -- when I was asked earlier about what the
size of the stimulus the President thinks is appropriate, I said,
you'll hear it from the President when he decides what it should be.
Q: Ari, on the airline security package, you mentioned ending the low
bid system. I'm not quite clear how the President's proposals would
end the low bid system.
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the standards that the President will put into
place, as far as the hiring of contractors, will make clear that
contracts should not be accepted on the basis of low bid. They will be
accepted on the basis of a variety of factors. They'll put safety
first.
Q: Everybody will have the same standards, but you still have low bid.
MR. FLEISCHER: But the focus is going to be on the standards, as
opposed to the price.
Q: Ari, do you know where this security -- the aviation security
agency is going to be? There was a lot of questions yesterday, and it
was kind of unclear. One administration official was calling it an
authority, he was calling it an agency. It sounds like it might be
under the Homeland Security Office. But do you know any more now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, that still is under review about precisely where
it will be. I don't think it's going to be under the Homeland Office,
I can tell you that much. But it's being looked at.
Q: FAA?
Q: Will it be a new agency?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a possibility, Kelly, but they're taking a look
for where the most appropriate place is, so its actions can be the
most effective.
Q: Could it stay under FAA?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll know soon enough. I mean, those are kind of the
details about where it's going to be.
Q: That's a yes, though?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm not indicating yes or no. I'm saying we'll know
soon enough.
Q: But it hasn't been ruled out?
MR. FLEISCHER: On FAA, I'll have to check and see if it's been ruled
in or out.
Q: It will not be under the Homeland Office?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q: It will not be under the Homeland Office?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q: Al Gore tomorrow is going to offer a keynoter to the JJ Day dinner
in Iowa. We're told that it's going to be sort of basically a message
of bipartisanship. My question is, has he been in touch with the
President? Has the President talked to former Vice President Gore
since September 11th?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to ask. I don't have that off the top of my
head. I'll have to ask. Appropriations question?
Q: Besides having a deal on the overall number, the -- billion, is
there an agreement that the President will officially, formally
request the extra education money by letter or another vehicle?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated this morning, I don't have an answer for
you about any additional funding, and the talks continue. We are very,
very close on it. And while they're getting very close on the level of
funding, as I indicated, there are going to be additional talks going
on that are still underway. So we're very close to an agreement.
I was a tad forward-leaning this morning when I said that there is an
agreement. But there has been a lot of progress made and we're really
making good progress in getting there.
Q: Ari, Robert Rubin was, I think most people agreed, did a very good
as Secretary of Treasury and he faced, too, a very large international
crisis -- the Mexican peso devaluation, the Haitian financial crisis
-- and he's testified in Congress two or three times already. Has
President Bush had any conversation with Mr. Rubin?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to go back and take a look, couldn't tell
you.
Q: Do you have a week ahead, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: We have the week ahead, let me get that for you.
Next week, the President will continue to meet with his National
Security Council on a regular basis, and also with his Domestic
Consequences group.
On Monday, the President will visit the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA, headquarters, to thank the employees there for the work
they have been doing, and he will tour their command center.
On Tuesday, the President will have a bipartisan breakfast with the
joint congressional leadership. And on Thursday, the President will
meet with the Emir of Qatar. And on Friday, he will meet with the
President of Georgia, as he continues to discuss the international
coalition against terrorism.
Q: Any travel next week?
MR. FLEISCHER: No word on travel at this point.
Q: When is the Emir of Qatar?
MR. FLEISCHER: Emir of Qatar is on Thursday.
Q: Any pool events this weekend?
MR. FLEISCHER: No pool events this weekend. Okay. Thank you.
END 1:37 P.M. EDT
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
