Zimsec O Level Past Exam Papers With Answers Pdf _HOT

Compliance with eSignature laws is only a portion of what signNow can offer to make form execution legitimate and secure. It also gives a lot of opportunities for smooth completion security smart. Let's rapidly go through them so that you can stay certain that your zimsec o level economics past exam papers remains protected as you fill it out.

Do you need universal solution to eSign zimsec a level economics past exam papers with answers pdf? signNow combines ease of use, affordable price and security in one online service, all without forcing extra applications on you. You just need reliable connection to the internet plus a gadget to work on.

Zimsec O Level Past Exam Papers With Answers Pdf Download

Download File 🔥 https://urlin.us/2y3CLR 🔥

Now, your zimsec economics past exam papers is completed. All you need to do is save it or send the document by means of email. signNow makes eSigning much easier and a lot more hassle-free since it gives users a range of extra features like Add Fields, Invite to Sign, Merge Documents, and many others. And because of its cross-platform nature, signNow can be used on any gadget, desktop computer or smartphone, regardless of the OS.

As soon as you have done away with putting your signature on your zimsec economics past exam papers, decide what you want to do next - download it or share the doc with other parties involved. The signNow extension offers you a range of features (merging PDFs, adding several signers, and many others) to guarantee a much better signing experience.

Portable devices like mobile phones and tablet PCs actually are a ready business replacement for laptop and desktop computers. It is possible to take them everywhere and even use them while on the run provided that you have got a smooth connection to the internet. For that reason, the signNow web app is necessary for filling out and putting your signature on zimsec a level economics past exam papers with answers pdf on the run. Within just minutes, get an digital paper with a fully legal signature.

The entire procedure can take less than a minute. As a result, you can download the signed zimsec economics past exam papers to your device or share it with other parties involved with a link or by email. Due to its universal nature, signNow is compatible with any gadget and any operating system. Choose our eSignature solution and leave behind the old days with affordability, efficiency and security.

In case you use an iOS gadget such as an iPhone or iPad, effortlessly create e- signatures for signing a zimsec a level economics past exam papers with answers pdf in PDF file format. signNow has taken care of iOS device users and developed an application just for them. To get it, go to the AppStore and enter signNow in the search field.

Right after it is eSigned it is your decision concerning how to export your zimsec economics past exam papers: save it to your mobile device, add it to the cloud storage or send it to another party by means of electronic mail. The signNow mobile app is just as productive and powerful as the web app is. Connect to a strong connection to the internet and start executing forms with a legally-binding eSignature in minutes.

Despite iPhones being very popular with mobile users, the market share of Android smartphones and tablets is significantly bigger. Consequently, signNow provides a separate app for mobile devices working on Android. Easily find the application in the Play Market and install it for putting your electronic signature on your zimsec a level economics past exam papers with answers pdf.

If you want to share the zimsec economics past exam papers with other parties, you can send the file by e-mail. With signNow, you can eSign as many documents daily as you require at a reasonable cost. Start automating your signature workflows right now.

Once you find an ideal Zambuko zimsec papers, all you have to do is adjust the template to your needs or legal requirements. In addition to completing the fillable form with accurate data, you might need to remove some provisions in the document that are irrelevant to your circumstance. On the other hand, you might want to add some missing conditions in the original template. Our advanced document editing features are the best way to fix and adjust the document.

Sample papers are a very important tool to understand the division of marks, type of questions asked and develop a familiarity with the examination patterns. "But most of all, the papers are important as they help students develop tools to divide their time between questions.

The Grade 10 past exam papers can be downloaded from the Department of Basic Education website. Grade 10 past exam papers are available on the Department of Basic Education website. Grade 10 past exam papers are available for the public on the Department of Basic Education website.

Compliance with eSignature laws is only a fraction of what signNow can offer to make document execution legitimate and secure. Furthermore, it gives a lot of opportunities for smooth completion security smart. Let's quickly run through them so that you can be certain that your zimsec a level physics notes pdf remains protected as you fill it out.

Download free latest zimsec o level past exam papers, grade 7 past exam papers and A level zimsec exam papers below. Some of the papers available are 2022 past exam papers, 2021 and 2020 past papers. Also available are 2015 to 2019 papers. By subject you can get pdf shona past exam papers, english past exam papers, combined science past exam papers, geography past exam papers and other subjects that will be added here in due course.

ZIMSAKE Notes is a free ZIMSEC and Cambridge O level and A level revision notes platform. This platform provides free revision materials, notes, study packs, past papers, and question and answers for O Level and A level.

Press Briefing Index by Ari Fleischer

The James S. Brady Briefing RoomPresident's daily schedule245(i)Reference BReference CAbu Anas LibySenate action before recessReference BDebt limitReference BBorder securityReference BHomeland securityReference BReference CReference DReference EReference FReference GZacharias MoussaouiIndia-PakistanColombiaMiddle EastReference BZimbabweMassachusetts governor electionLeadership meetingsSecretary O'NeillMr. Zigler 12:53 P.M. EST MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me giveyou a report on the President's day, and then I have a briefannouncement to make and I'll be happy to take your questions. The President this morning had his usual round of intelligencebriefings from the CIA and the FBI, to cover the latest developments inthe war against terrorism and on homelandsecurity. The President then convened a meetingof the Homeland Security Council. Earlier this morning, the President made an announcement on aseries of new policies to help small businesses grow and protect jobs,a reflection of the President's concern that as there are increasingsigns of strength in the economy, he remains very worried aboutcreating jobs for working Americans. The President's remarks came at the Women's EntrepreneurshipConference 21st Century Summit. It's a real sign that someof the most powerful creators of jobs in the American economy arewomen-owned businesses, and the President was pleased to announce thepolicies at this group. The President will hold a Cabinet meeting later this afternoon,where he will discuss with members of the Cabinet the latestdevelopments in the war against terrorism, homeland security and alsoon the topic of the budget. One announcement on an important item that is pending in the UnitedStates Senate. The Senate will be leaving for recess at theend of this week, and prior to their departure the President hopes theSenate will be able to take action on legislation that strengthensAmerica's borders and enhances border security; that while at the sametime extending a welcome by recognizing that families should not haveto be split up when they are in this country already, nor to go back totheir country for immigration status. And this is what'scalled 245(i). This measure includes some very stringent provisions dealing withborder security, and they include requiring personal identificationdocuments to be more tamper-resistant and secure, enhancing the alienapplication screening process to eliminate entry of unwantedindividuals. And this legislation also requires monitoring of foreignstudents and exchange visitors to ensure they maintain their status. So as the Senate leaves town, the President thinks it's veryimportant for them to take this action to, one, protect the border and,two, welcome immigrants into our country in the finest traditions thathave made us a great and free nation. And with that, I'm more than happy to take yourquestions. Ron. Q Do you know if Abu Anas Liby, one of thepeople on the Most Wanted List, is in custody in Sudan? MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, I have nothing to discuss on thattopic. Q Why not? Q Why not? Why can't you at leastclarify, because there have been so many conflicting reports. MR. FLEISCHER: Because anything on this wouldnecessarily involve intelligence and that would involve either aconfirmation or a denial of something, which I'm just not going to beable to do. Q But at the same time, theadministration -- when you released this list of22 Most Wanted, you were asking the public and all of us to try to helpfind these people. And now that there have been reports,television, newspaper, saying that he is in custody, you can't confirmor deny? MR. FLEISCHER: There's just no information I have that Ican share with you on that topic, I'm afraid to say. Q Is he still somebody who we want to get incustody? Is he still on our Most Wanted list? MR. FLEISCHER: I would answer the question, if I were toanswer that question. That's very creative. Q Can you acknowledge if there is confusionif the person in custody, whether he happens to be the person on theMost Wanted list or is someone else who just happens to be the samename? MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, I'm afraid this is just a roadthat I'm not going to travel down. This is a matter thatinvolves intelligence information, which I am just not going to discussin any way, shape or form. And don't take that to confirmthat it is or is not the person in question. Q Can you tell us whether you're pleasedwith the Sudanese cooperation of late? (Laughter.) MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not -- Ithink you're defining "of late" as in the last day orso? (Laughter.) No, I appreciatethis. I understand the questions. There are sometimes and matters that I'm just not going to be able to provide you anyinformation on. This is one. Q There are reports out there, the newspaperand television reports out there to the Americanpeople. Your response to those reports are? MR. FLEISCHER: There is no information on that topicthat I can share. And that shouldn't be taken as anindication that is true or it is not true. Q Well, let's talk about Congressthen. (Laughter.) MR. FLEISCHER: Jim Angle. Q You mentioned 245(i) and also what was theother issue you mentioned, that you wanted -- thestrengthening borders -- MR. FLEISCHER: 245(i) includes two provisions inthere. There's one that makes the nation more welcoming toimmigrants while, at the same time, appropriately toughening up theborders. Q You did not mention Andean trade, whichwas another issue which was sort of on the burner thisweek. Obviously, the Senate only has a couple of days left,is still dealing with campaign finance reform. What is yourpriority? Have you chosen border security over Andeantrade? MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the Senatecan take action on a host of these issues. And debt limit isanother one. The nation is approaching the date at which itwill hit its debt limit and the Senate has serious work todo. You know, on these issues, for example, on the questionon making the borders tougher and welcoming in immigrants, that passedin the House of Representatives by a vote of 275-137; widespreadbipartisan support. Another example of the House takingaction while the Senate has not. The President hopes that the Senate will be able to take action,not only on this legislation, on border security and immigration,245(i), as well as debt limit, as well as Andean tradepreferences. The Senate is of course taking up an importantpiece of legislation, campaign finance reform. The Presidentwelcomes this, although the timing is interesting, because of coursedebt limit is immediate. We're about to hit it; 245(i),toughening up the borders, we need to do that quickly. Campaign finance reform, despite the President's request, won'teven be effective until after the election. The Presidentthinks it should be effective now; Congressdisagreed. Nevertheless, they want to pass it now. There'sa lot on the Senate's plate that's important. The Presidenthopes the Senate will be able to turn to it. Q On the debt limit question, the WhiteHouse believes that this must be acted upon right now, in spite of thefact that you're about to get a lot of the revenues from the annualcollection of income taxes? MR. FLEISCHER: The Treasury Department informed CapitolHill again yesterday that the date upon which the nation will hit itsdebt limit -- a statutorily, congressionally imposedlimit -- will be either at the end of next weekor the week after. Congress is running out of time. And if they recess atthe end of this week, which they say they will, Congress will have runout of time, forcing the administration to take extraordinary measures,which the administration should not be in a position to take, becauseCongress has a responsibility to fulfil. And the Presidenthas called on Congress to pass this, and has made that case for morethan a month. Congress has had fair warning this is comingup. Q Have you passed the message on to HouseRepublican leaders that you want a clean debt limit bill, becausethere's some resistance there? MR. FLEISCHER: The President has stated his casepublicly and privately. He wants to be able to signsomething. He has called for something clean, that includessomething that he'll be able to sign, of course. Q So are you saying anybody who blocked sucha thing would be irresponsible, is what he's saying? MR. FLEISCHER: The President understands that this isnot a time, in a time of war -- it's never a timeto mess with the nation's credit limit, especially in a time of war. Q Would he support tapping federal employeepension funds in order to keep the government running, if the Congressdoes not address the debt limit? MR. FLEISCHER: Keith, it's not a topic that thePresident wants to get into, because Congress still should do itsjob. Congress is in a position to prevent pensions frombeing tapped into. Congress will create conditions where thegovernment has to go to extraordinary steps if Congress doesn't fulfillits mission to pass a debt limit prior to the debt limitexpiration. And this is an issue that's important for bothparties, in the President's opinion. Q On border security, has the Presidentsigned off on a plan to merge three agencies that deal with bordersecurity? And if he hasn't signed off, has he been presentedwith that option? MR. FLEISCHER: This morning at a meeting of the HomelandSecurity Council the President was presented with a recommendation onhow to enhance security at the nation's borders. ThePresident has not made any decision yet. The matter is underreview. The President is very satisfied that his administration is movingforward to present good ideas about how to protect theborder. Some of those ideas, of course, involveconsolidation. Q Do you expect a quick decision? MR. FLEISCHER: The President did not indicate what thetiming would be. Q Ari, can I just confirm a couplethings? Is the recommendation merging INS and U.S. Customs? MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not going to get into specificsof a recommendation that was shared with the President at a privatemeeting. Q And one other thing. Wasn'tGovernor Ridge push with something broader, merging, not just INS,Customs, other parts of the inspection service at Agriculture, so whynot go even more expanded? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as part of the Governor's missionto protect homeland security and to work in a coordinating fashion withall the agencies that have operational responsibility, the Governor hasbeen looking at a series of ideas for how to enhance security along theborder. And that's the charge the President gave him. And, as I indicated, there was a meeting thismorning. The President has received arecommendation. Because of the nature of a meeting where thePresident receives these recommendations, until the President hassomething to say, I'm not going to discuss the specifics of it. Q Ari, on that topic, why does the WhiteHouse continue to resist the idea of making the Office of HomelandSecurity a Cabinet-level department with its own budgetary authorityand its own responsibility to Congress? MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the Office ofHomeland Security, under Governor Ridge, is working extraordinarilywell. It is fulfilling the exact mission that the Presidentset out for homeland security when the President announced it in thewake of the attack on our nation. If you remember, the President's speech to Congress on September20th announced that for the first time the White House will have anOffice of Homeland Security, that really is parallel to thelong-standing bipartisan tradition of the Office of NationalSecurity. It is a coordinating entity that works with theoperational agencies. The President believes that Governor Ridge is doing a superb job atit. He believes that Governor Ridge is an excellent advisorto him, and that the Governor does a very important function for thePresident and the White House by coordinating the various agencies,just as the National Security Advisor does in her capacity. Q But if we're talking about consolidatingall of these agencies, why not create a Department of HomelandSecurity, as many lawmakers have suggested? And rather thantake Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bringit all under the auspices, under one umbrella of Homeland Security? MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you takea look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad ofagencies, there are more than a dozen agencies, many of which havecomponents that deal with homeland security in one form oranother. I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hillthat would take every single one of those agencies out from theircurrent missions and put them under Homeland Security. So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinetlevel Office of Homeland Security, the White House would still need, inthe President's estimation, an advisor on how to coordinate all thatmyriad of activities the federal government is involvedin. So creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve theproblem. You still will have agencies within the federalgovernment that have to be coordinated. So the answer is,creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The WhiteHouse needs a coordinator to work with the agencies, wherever theyare. Q So why then is the Lieberman bill a badidea, in your estimation? MR. FLEISCHER: The Lieberman bill? Idon't -- your specifics. Do you wantto define the Lieberman bill? Q Well, it would take a lot of thoseagencies that you just talked about and put them under the auspices ofa Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, for the exact reasons I mentioned,that even if you had a Cabinet level office, the White House wouldstill need somebody to help coordinate the entities that, whetherthey're in a Cabinet agency or wherever they are, they still requirecoordination. Just like the National Security Advisor hasproved to be, over decades, a very informative and helpful way for theCongress and for the President and for the people to have nationalsecurity coordinated. Homeland security, whether it's under a Cabinet agency or whetherit's elsewhere, still needs coordination, and that's what the Presidentis getting out of the Homeland Security Advisor. Q So you're saying, even if you had aDepartment of Homeland Security, you'd still need a Homeland SecurityAdvisor to advise the President? MR. FLEISCHER: That creating a Cabinet-level postdoesn't solve the issue of how do you coordinate all the agencies thatare involved. Q Ari, the President and the First Lady willdo a stop over in El Paso on the way to Monterrey. He saidhe'll be talking about the importance of bordersecurity. Will he make any definite proposals that day aboutsome of the measures he's considering, or will he just speak on broaderterms? MR. FLEISCHER: We'll see exactly what Thursday eventswill be. I think it's -- today's onlyTuesday, so I think we'll see exactly what the President has on hismind to talk about on Thursday. Q I want to ask one anotherquestion. This has to do with Zacharias Moussaoui who isgoing to be -- I don't know if he's going to beasked for the death sentence or not, by the Justice Department, thereare some versions that that might be the case. He seems tobe the only surviving member of the terrorist group that took over theplane, at least that is the accusation. Would the Presidentback a death penalty request by the Justice Department for ZachariasMoussaoui if he's found guilty of the charges? MR. FLEISCHER: That's not a determination the Presidentmakes. The matters of justice, matters of the charges thatshould be brought in courts of law are matters that the Presidentdelegates to the professionals and the Department of Justice todecide. I can share with you that when the President made the determinationthat Mr. Moussaoui would not be tried in a military tribunal, that hewould indeed be tried in a civilian court, he was aware of thepossibility that one of the charges could be brought included a deathpenalty. But this was a decision made by the professionalsat the Attorney General's office. The President is notinvolved in that process. Q But I would assume with a case of thissignificance and well-known case, there would be a discussion betweenthe President and the Secretary of Justice before the -- MR. FLEISCHER: No, I just indicated otherwise. Q Before the session is -- MR. FLEISCHER: I just indicated otherwise. Ithink that's an important part of protecting justice inAmerica. Those decisions, and this is the way the Presidentleads, get delegated to the professionals who have responsibility forreviewing the facts as they see them that are gathered by theDepartment of Justice. And decisions about at what levelpeople should be prosecuted should be made by professionals, and notthe White House. Q Two quick questions. One on the(i)245. Some senators are hard on this 245 because of theblunders at the INS, or they had already made their minds that they donot want to go through with this President. And number two, I have just returned from India, and President Bushis very popular in India, including on the borders inKashmir. But what they're saying is really that this is thefirst President ever publicly and officially came out againstterrorism. But he should go beyond Afghanistan to fightterrorism against India, or in India. And also the it isthought that President -- General Musharraf saidthat war in Afghanistan is over. Does President Bush share his views? MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, welcomeback. (Laughter.) Let me remember all thequestions. On (i)245 -- on 245(i), anybody who properlypoints out that there are problems with the Immigration andNaturalization Service should vote for this bill, because this billinvolves and includes enhanced border projections to protectAmericans. And I went through the list of more tamperresistant and secure identification requirements, enhanced screeningprocesses. So the lesson to be learned from what happenedwith the INS is, vote for this bill, it's a way of enhancing bordersecurity. As far as the war on terrorism is concerned, the President, as youknow, has been working very hard with India and Pakistan to relieve anyof the tensions that have occurred there as a result of the terroristattacks that have taken place, and with some success. Ithink the tension has eased in the region in great part because of thePresident's role that he played, and Secretary Powell's role that heplayed in working directly with India and Pakistani officials. It's an important area that continues to be a priority of thisadministration. And, so, too, as you know, the war againstterrorism, the Vice President's trip to the region is a part ofthat. And I think anybody who pays just a little bit ofattention to what the President has been saying as he travelsunderstands how clearly the President feels that it's important for usto carry on this war against terrorism, to protect ourcountry. And the next phase has already begun, and that isdenying sanctuaries to would-be terrorists. Q If I could return for a moment to thehomeland security meeting this morning. During the steeldecision you managed to give us a pretty good texture of the debate andthe trade-offs that were involved, without prejudging the President'sdecision. Can you do that in this case? Can yougive us some sense of what the pluses and minuses would be ofdoing -- MR. FLEISCHER: David, if I recall, I did that after thedecision was made. I want to share that information withyou, but until -- Q You did some before, as well. MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't think so. I thinkI waited until after the decision was made, and that's what I would dohere again. I'll be more than happy to try to provide youinsight, but right now the President has received a recommendation, asI indicated, and I think it's only fair to let him consider it. Q On Colombia, does the President seehelping Colombia fight the FARC as part of his global anti-terrorismcampaign? MR. FLEISCHER: It's a little bitdifferent. The situation with the FARC involved a group thatis listed by the State Department as a terrorist group. Idon't think it's fair to say that FARC has global reach. Butit is clearly a significant problem for the government of Colombia andfor the region. But, nonetheless, terrorist attacks are a serious threat toColombia's democratic institutions, and that is why the administrationhas gone up to the Hill and has asked for additional authorities to beable to help the government of Colombia to counter theFARC. It's not quite the same as -- Q Ari, under what conditions would thePresident ask Vice President Cheney to meet with Arafat, even it meansreturning to the region? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the Vice President said thismorning in Israel, General Zinni is on the ground and has madesubstantial progress. And we are very hopeful that as a result of thetalks that General Zinni has had with the Israelis and the PalestinianAuthority that a cease-fire will be able to take hold. The Vice President has indicated directly that he will be willingto return to the region -- he even indicated itcould possibly be next week -- if Chairman Arafat and thePalestinian Authority put in place General Zinni's plan to create acease-fire. So the ingredients are there and it's very important now to seewhat the events are on the ground. As you know, thePresident measures these matters in results. The Presidentis very realistic. He's less interested in talk and moreinterested in results. And that's the next step that thePresident is looking to and he'll be listening carefully to GeneralZinni's thoughts. Q Regarding the Vice President's trip to theMiddle East, if it weren't for the prohibitive word "if," I would askthat in his talks with the Arab leaders, particularly Crown PrinceAbdullah and those in Kuwait, if the United States went back into Iraqto dump Saddam Hussein, would the U.S. be denied bases and ports in theMiddle East? But since I can't askthat -- (laughter) -- Iwill ask under what conditions in the talks -- MR. FLEISCHER: If there were a jury here, I'm sure you'dinstruct them not to pay attention. (Laughter.) Q Disregard that. But underwhat -- based on the Vice President's talksagain, under what circumstances would the U.S. be denied bases in theMiddle East? MR. FLEISCHER: That's not a question that I cananswer. And I think there are too many hypotheticals builtinto your premise, even based on "ifs." Q Just, generally, why would you need toreorganize any agencies if you have somebody who iscoordinating -- effectively coordinating theactivities of agencies? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one of the things the Presidentasked Governor Ridge to do when he came on as Homeland Security Advisoris take a fresh look at how the government is doing itsbusiness. Obviously, the government, in anyissue -- whether it's homeland security oranything domestic -- has been doing it a certainway and doing it for a long time. And you just reach a point ingovernment where people stop asking the question "is it effective" andthey continue to say, "well, that's the way it's always been." So Governor Ridge's challenge and charge was to come in and take anew look and a fresh look at the government agencies with an eye towardwhat can and should be improved, learning the lessons of September11th. And that's his mission and that's what he is workingon. Q And my other question is, doyou feel though, that -- I mean, nothing's moredifficult than trying to reorganize the bureaucracy -- MR. FLEISCHER: That's true. Q -- that any proposal that youmight forward is going to be jeopardized or made less likely becauseyou continue to refuse to let Mr. Ridge go to the Hill totestify? I mean, I know you say it's tradition, buttraditions are often broken. I mean, why not? MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't think there's any sense thatthere should be a connection between what is the right, best policy forthe country based on substance, and a totally unrelated issue that is amuch more process-related issue that involves changing a long-standing,successful, bipartisan tradition that Congresses have honored goingback decades. Q But you know it's notunrelated. I mean, it is very related -- MR. FLEISCHER: I think that if somebody were to say thatthis is a good -- if the President were to act onthis recommendation and say on the Hill, this is a good idea, but we'regoing to oppose a good idea because we don't like theprocess. I think the American people want the focus to be onsubstance and on the quality of ideas. And that's where thePresident is going to focus his thoughts and his attention. The other issue is something that you've heard the President talkabout directly. Now, the President feels very strongly aboutit and I don't see that changing. Q Ari, last week the President said that hewas going to work with his friends in relation to the situation inZimbabwe, with Mugabe. And today, Nigeria and officials fromSouth Africa are dealing with the issue of the elections in Zimbabwe. What are the thoughts of the administration and what are theoptions that are on the table for dealing with these elections? MR. FLEISCHER: The United States is continuing itsconversations with allied nations about what the proper response shouldbe to the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe. The President'sconcern remains about the violence that took place leading up to theelection and including in the election, and his concern about theimportance of democracy as the best way to help people who sufferaround the world. And that includes in Zimbabwe. So those conversations will continue because the President wants tomake certain that no decision be rushed, that whatever decisions aretaken will be constructive in improving the conditions for people onthe ground. Having said all that, I think it's also fair to point out that thePresident is disappointed that some African nations that profess theirsupport and practice for democratic values nonetheless have beenwilling to turn a blind eye to what happened in Zimbabwe and the abuseof those values, which the President thinks are importanteverywhere. So that is disappointing. Q And also back home, in New York, we'rehearing reports about the Pentagon looking to change the air patrols,Combat Air Patrols. This morning you said that there willalways be a robust presence. But how can you say there willbe a robust presence when it will take 15 minutes to deploy aircraft tofight whatever terrorist attack may come? MR. FLEISCHER: On that question, this is an issue thatwill always be reviewed to provide the greatest protection for theAmerican people, wherever they are. And that's based onintelligence information, it's based on threat analysis, it's based ona whole series of items, including the fact that since September 11th,domestic security -- as any traveler can tellyou -- has been changed. And thatinvolves a strengthening of cockpit doors, for example; it involves thepresence of federal air marshals on an increased basis; it involveschanges that have been made on the ground, in terms of the procedureswhen people board airplanes. So a series of enhancements to security have taken place sinceSeptember 11th across the nation. And any decision aboutoperational matters involving CAPs will be based on intelligence andother items, as I indicated. And there will continue to besecurity measures that include CAPS on a changing basis, depending onwhat those threats and analyses show. Q But it's ad hoc,temporary. And, I mean, is it too costly? Why isthere a major change and why can't we know when this change happens? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, not all the decisions arefinal on this; issues are continuing to be talkedthrough. But it's not ad-hoc; it's based exactly as Iindicated, which is based on intelligence information, threat analysisand a recognition that security has been enhanced broadly sinceSeptember 11th in all the ways I mentioned. Q Ari, among the Israelis and thePalestinians, have the extremists taken over? Is it aperception among the administration that the extremists on both sidesare in charge? And, if so, how does the U.S. rectify thatand negotiate with the moderates? MR. FLEISCHER: You know, General Zinni is in the regionfor a purpose, and that is to meet with the responsible officials whospeak for the parties, and to meet directly with theparties. And the President is very hopeful that as a resultof the Zinni mission the chances for a cease-fire have been enhanced;the chances to begin security talks have been enhanced. Andthat was the purpose of sending General Zinni over. And as Iindicated, the President is hopeful that as a result of his visit,those conditions will now be created. Q Is he meeting with opposition groups fromeither side? MR. FLEISCHER: General Zinni has met with thePalestinian Authority, as well as Israeli officials, of course. Q Ari, to go back to Ridge just briefly, Imean, if he's in charge of reviewing the situation and coming up withfresh ideas, I mean, wouldn't he be the most logical person to explain these ideas to Congress? MR. FLEISCHER: Again, this goes back to a case thatcould be made about any number of people. That would be areal change in the way Congress does its business, in terms of who theyseek to come up from the executive branch to testify. Andthe reason I say that is, Governor Ridge has gone up to the Hill onnumerous, numerous occasions. He has met with members ofboth parties in private and the caucuses, answered their questions,they have received answers to all the questions they have in multiple,different forums. The question is, Congress is indicating they want to change thatlong-standing bipartisan tradition and have him come up now andactually testify. That would be a significant change fromthe way Congress has treated people who are in an advisory context tothe President. And that is what Governor Ridge does; he is acoordinator, he is an advisor to the President, just as the NationalSecurity Advisor is, just as many other people who are assistants tothe President fulfill that role. The people who are charged by statute and by a concern for goodgovernment who are going up to testify before the Hill are theoperational officials -- the Attorney General,the Secretary of Defense. Congress receives its informationon a regular, ongoing basis through the testimony of thoseofficials. I think it's unusual for Congress to turn itaround and change the way it's worked and worked well for many a decadeand now, for the first time, say we seek to have an advisor to thePresident who does not have operational responsibility come up andtestify, even though they've gotten their questions answered inmultiple other forums by Governor Ridge. Q To get back to your opening statement,would you prefer -- would you go so far as tosuggest -- the President would suggest that theSenate put away the cots, and put aside the campaign finance reformbill? Because that seems to be where so much attention is focused thisweek. MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not determine theSenate schedule; the Senate leadership determines the Senateschedule. So this is a matter in the discretion and judgmentof Senate leaders. The President merely points out that it is very important toprotect our borders and to do so quickly; and to let people who arehere not be forced to leave this country, to be separated from theirfamilies, when there is widespread bipartisan support, as the House ofRepresentatives has already done, for the legislation on bordersecurity and 245(i). Debt limit isapproaching. Those are decisions that can only be made bySenate leaders. Q Has he tried to talk to Senator Daschleabout this at all? MR. FLEISCHER: I think through regular contacts, themessage has been received about the importance of passing the bordersecurity and 245(i) measure. Q Ari, has the administration reached anagreement with the Congress on the supplemental? And willthe failure to get -- if there is a failure toraise the debt ceiling, what impact would that have on the ability ofgetting the supplemental through? MR. FLEISCHER: There's really no connection between thetwo, because the nation will hit its debt limit in the next week ortwo. And under no circumstance have I heard that theCongress will pass any type of supplemental that quickly, so it's notconnected. The administration will be proposing a supplemental appropriationbill, and that will get sent up to the Hill. Q How much? MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to discuss the details init yet. That will be something you will hear fromthe -- Q Is it more than $25 -- MR. FLEISCHER: I don't dobreadboxes. (Laughter.) Q And when, Ari? When will it goup? MR. FLEISCHER: We'll let you know the exact date. Q As you know, Jane Swift announced todayshe's not going to run for a full term. And Mitt Romney isgoing to announce his candidacy later today. Did anybody inthe administration talk to either party to make this switch occur soneatly? MR. FLEISCHER: No, I asked about that after I saw theannouncement, and the answer is, no. Senior White Housestaff heard about that this morning. That was the firstinkling that anybody here at the White House had that the announcementwas coming. There were no conversations with the Governor orher staff, as far as anybody shared with me. Q And what is the President's reaction tothis? MR. FLEISCHER: Governor Swift has done an excellent jobfor the people of Massachusetts. The President wishes herwell. And the White House will work with whoever the nomineeis. It appears that it will be Mitt Romney, who has done anoutstanding job as the head of the Olympics. And the White House willsupport the Republican nominee, of course. Q What will the vehicle be for the taxprovisions that the President is announcing? Will it beminimum wage or some other vehicle? MR. FLEISCHER: There's no determination about what theappropriate vehicle would be. The regular process would bethe measures get sent up to the Hill. The Ways and MeansCommittee will consider them. And then it becomes a matterof legislative decision-making about what the appropriate vehicle is. Q First Mrs. Gore and then yesterday theWashington Post called for the ending of any armed forces restrictionand recruitment including don't-ask-don't-tell, so that our armedforces should be open to any sexual orientation. And myquestion is, does the President, as Commander-in-Chief, believe thatthat would be wise or unwise? MR. FLEISCHER: The President is seeking no changes tothe current don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Q Now, the secondquestion. Independent Counsel Robert Rey's report concluded,"sufficient evidence existed to prosecute such evidence, would probablybe sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." But Mr.Rey declined to seek an indictment and prosecute a perjurer andobstructor of justice whose fines were paid by his defense fund, andwho's currently getting $300,000 for a speech and $10 million for abook. And my question is, since Article III of the Constitution commandsthe President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, whatis his feeling about Rey's failing to prosecute? And will heendorse Rey for the U.S. Senate? MR. FLEISCHER: In terms of the legal question you asked,the President is looking forward, not backwards. It is not adiscussion the President is -- Q Doesn't he think that he should beprosecuted? MR. FLEISCHER: It's not an issue the President has dwelton. Q Back to -- youmentioned regular consultations with the leadership. I don'tthink you've had a leadership meeting up here in -- thismight be the third week. Are you out of the every-other-weekhabit, and when will the next one be? MR. FLEISCHER: I think the otherone -- the last meeting was a couple weeksago. I don't remember the precise date. Congressleaves for recess next week. The President, of course,leaves out of the country on Thursday. I haven't seentomorrow's schedule yet, so if there's anything, I'll let youknown. But they'll continue to have regularmeetings. I can't speak to the exact frequency of them, butthey're going to continue. Q Same old topic, Ari. If you saythat Governor Ridge has gone up and given a lot of briefings tocommittee, caucuses, whatever, what do you make of all of this talkcoming out of the Senate about possible subpoenas to get him up to theHill, letters from Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, the Republicanside, requesting a meeting with the President to explain why GovernorRidge needs to come up? What are they doing up there? MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a surprisingdevelopment. I think it's a surprising departure from theusual bipartisan way Capitol Hill for decades has treated advisors tothe President who are not in operational roles. The peoplewho will be subjected to these types of subpoenas, if this is the case,are not Cabinet-level officials who have a statutory obligation and animportance to good government of going up and testifying on theHill. This would open up a whole new development where thelegislative branch would then bring down to the Congress advisors tothe President whose jobs are to give the President advice. Now, this has been treated with honor and respect fordecades. What I think is surprising and is unusual is thatthe Congress for the first time seeks to change and break thatlong-standing tradition. It's worked, and worked very wellfor the Congress, for Presidents of both parties, and for thecountry. And under that, the Chief of Staff to the Presidentcould be called to testify, that hasn't happened; the legal counsel tothe President could be called to testify, that hasn't happened; theNational Security Advisor, that hasn't happened. So why the departure, why the break? The Presidentthinks the system has worked, and worked well. And he asksCongress to honor that long-standing bipartisan tradition. Q Do you see this as another little step inthe erosion of Presidential powers? MR. FLEISCHER: I think that there is no question thatwhen you open these doors, Congress keeps swinging them open wider,particularly given the fact that Governor Ridge has met with numerousmembers of both parties to answer all the questions that theyhave. The contact is regular, the contact isfrequent. The contact is not in the form in sworn testimonyor testimony before a committee. That's as it's always been,and that has served the Congress well, the President well and thenation well for decades. Q But aren't you sort of falling back onprecedent? And can't you see from their perspective thatGovernor Ridge is in what is a new job, created post-September 11th, ajob that is about how to protect the country in the wake of theattacks, and that Congress might feel equally responsible in the waythe executive branch does for ensuring that this doesn't happen again,and that they want to be a part of it. And it's not quitethe -- MR. FLEISCHER: They are a part of it. Q And it's not quite the same as it has beenin the past. I mean, you can't just say, oh my God, they're abandoningtradition that's held for years, when, in fact, everything changed onSeptember 11th, and that's why Ridge is in this job. MR. FLEISCHER: But that same argument would suggest thatevery advisor to the President should and can be called before theCongress to testify. That same argument can be made aboutnational security. It's not being made because the Congressis honoring a long-standing bipartisan tradition of the NationalSecurity Advisor being seen as an advisor to the President,coordinating the Departments of Defense and CIA and other entitiesinvolving the war against terrorism. That same argumentcould equally be made to somebody else whose role has changeddramatically and importantly since September 11th. The point I'm making is we have a system of checks and balancesthat is based on bipartisanship and on sharing ofinformation. And it's a surprising development for Congressto be seeking to change that at a time when everybody needs to beworking together. Q Ari, can I just followup? Because that being said, Democrats -- it'snot just coming from Democrats. Even some Republicans aresaying that there should be an exception made -- MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. Q -- and Ridge should comebefore the Congress. So can you confirm if there are anydiscussions between the administration and the Congress about acompromise? Maybe coming before a group of members, atelevised briefing -- some kind of middle ground,not the sworn testimony? MR. FLEISCHER: I can only tell you the President feelsvery strongly about it. Q You can't say if there is compromise, anydiscussion about a compromise? MR. FLEISCHER: The President feels very strongly abouthonoring that tradition that has worked, and worked so well, foreverybody concerned. The President thinks it would be a mistake thatwould not serve the Congress well, the executive branch well or,frankly, the country well. Information continues to flow, and flowfreely. Questions should be asked, they are asked by membersof Congress. Governor Ridge answers them; they have theanswers. So the only issue is the forum by which members ofCongress hear those answers. And that's the issue thatinvolves a break of precedent. Q Could you explain why there have been noconsequences for Secretary Rubin for publicly criticizing thesteel -- Q O'Neill. Q O'Neill. Q Oh, Secretary O'Neill, thankyou. (Laughter.) MR. FLEISCHER: Did you have to correct him? Iwas going to work with him. (Laughter.) Q And I was thinking I was doing so wellthis time. Sorry. It's President Bush,right? (Laughter.) MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. Q Why there have been no consequences forhim for publicly criticizing administration policy on steel, whenMichael Parker, who criticized the budget, lost his job over theissue? MR. FLEISCHER: The President just doesn't see them asthe same, that's why. And I'm just not going to get intoanything involving personnel for an issue that is over and dealt with. Q Well, one other on that. Doeshe take exception to O'Neill's contention that the steel decisionactually lost -- will lose more jobs than itsaves? MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think the issue wassatisfactorily dealt with, as far as the President is concerned. Q How about Mr. Zigler? Does Mr.Zigler enjoy the President's 100,000 -- 1,000percent endorsement? Or is he shaky? MR. FLEISCHER: He does. Q He does? MR. FLEISCHER: And keep in mind what the President said,that this is a wake-up call to the Immigration and NaturalizationService. They've been charged with reviewing whathappened. They have 30 days to complete thatcharge. And the President will eagerly await that report. Q And he wants Mr. Zigler to continueindefinitely in that role? MR. FLEISCHER: As I said, the President has confidencein Mr. Zigler. So the answer is yes. Q What about Cardinal Eagan and CardinalLaw? Do they still enjoy the President's full support? MR. FLEISCHER: Campbell, you asked that question to thePresident just about a week ago -- Q Well, there have been a number of newdevelopments since that time. MR. FLEISCHER: There's been no change in what thePresident told you when you asked it directly to him. Q Ari, back to this issue of Governor Ridgetestifying, not 15 minutes ago you just told us one of Governor Ridge'smissions was to take a look at the way things have traditionally beendone and change them. Why not just take that rationale andapply it to Congress? MR. FLEISCHER: Because that's a rationale to changeanything and everything for no reason. That is not somethingthat's a blanket policy, to just change things for noreason. In this case, I've walked you through why that wouldbe a bad procedure to undertake -- that wouldchange precedent, it would change the long-standing bipartisan wayCongress has done its business. I think the question really should be focused on, is why, when theinformation has been as flowing as it has been, and members are gettingthe questions answered in different forums than hearings and testimony,is Congress seeking to change a long-standing bipartisan traditionthat's worked very well? Q Ari, can I get back to April's questionearlier? Has the White House begun to reach out to membersof the New York congressional delegation that have concerns aboutbringing the fighter cover down over the city? MR. FLEISCHER: That's something that CongressionalAffairs would handle, and I presume -- I haven'ttalked to Nick specifically, to say who have you talked to today, but Ipresume that in the ongoing operations of Congressional Affairs,something like that gets done. THE PRESS: Thank you. MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you. END 1:33 P.M Printer-Friendly Version Email this page to a friend IssuesBudget ManagementEducationEnergyHealth CareHomeland SecurityHurricane RecoveryImmigrationJobs & EconomyMedicareNational SecurityPandemic FluPatriot ActRenewal in IraqSocial SecurityMore Issues 2351a5e196