12:12 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. I have a lengthy list of personnel announcements
to go through today, and I also would like to give you today the week
ahead for next week and a little bit over the weekend. So at
the end of the briefing, if the senior wire correspondent would be kind
enough to remind me, we'll get to the week ahead.
Q It's never going to
end, Ari. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you, senior
wire correspondent. The President intends to nominate Alex
Azar III to be General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human
Services. The President intends to nominate Theresa
Avillar-Speake to be Director of the Office of Minority Economic Impact
in the Department of Energy. The President intends to
nominate Sharee Freeman to be Director of Community Relations Service
in the Department of Justice for a term of four years.
The President intends to nominate Bruce Cole
to be Chairperson of the National Endowment of Humanities for a term of
four years. The President intends to nominate Roger
Francisco Noriega to be Permanent Representative of the United States
of America to the Organization of American States with the rank of
Ambassador.
The President intends to nominate Ross J.
Connelly to be Executive Vice President of the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation. We're about halfway
there. The President intends to nominate Patricia destacy
Harrison to be Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and
Cultural Affairs.
The President intends to nominate Kirk Van
Tine to be General Counsel of the Department of
Transportation. The President intends to nominate Ellen
Englemen to be Administrator of the Research and Special Programs
Administration at the Department of Transportation.
The President intends to nominate Shelia C.
Blair to be Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Financial
Institutions. And that is all I have on
personnel. With that, I'm happy to take questions.
Q Has the President
decided whether he'll make a public statement regarding his daughters
who are on police blotter?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, there was
never a question --
Q His daughter?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- there was never a
question about that.
Q No? Did
you ask him?
MR. FLEISCHER: There was never a
question that the President might seek to do so.
Q Why not?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President views
this as a family matter, a private matter, and he will treat it as
such.
Q Well, it is a public
matter. It happens to be in every newspaper in the country.
MR. FLEISCHER: I've answered the
question.
Q Ari, what are the
President's instructions to the Secret Service with regard to the
daughters? Are they asked to give them a lot of leeway, to
give them a lot of room, or --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the Secret
Service's mission is to protect the lives of their
protectees. And whether they are family members of whether
they are former presidents, whoever they are, the Secret Service has
one mission, and that is to protect their lives.
Q But are they given
more direction in terms of -- given their age and their desire to have
some freedom, are they instructed to take a step back and to not be
right on top of them?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you want
to ask the Secret Service any questions about their methods and
operations, that's a question you need to address to them.
Q But they have no
specific instructions beyond protecting them from the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Secret Service's
mission is to protect the lives of the people, regardless of who they
are. That's their charge, that's their mission.
Q Ari, with all due
respect, they are also a law enforcement agency, and they're charged
with upholding the law. Does it put the Service in an
awkward position at all when protectees engage in arguably illegal
activity?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, their mission
is to protect lives, and that's what they do.
Q So they don't have a
law enforcement mission as far as you know? The Secret Service?
MR. FLEISCHER: Their mission, as
far as protecting their detailee, is the people assigned to be covered,
is for the purposes I indicated. That's why they are there.
Q Were they involved in
getting Jenna's boyfriend out of jail?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you
need to address any questions about what the Secret Service does to the
Secret Service.
Q The trial in New
York, the bombing trial of the U.S. embassies, now Osama bin Laden has
been warning to the U.S., he is condemning the bombing
trials. And also, what we are doing really, this
administration or President Bush, to bring now the main, Osama bin
Laden, maybe this opens the way for him -- for the U.S. to bring him to
justice in America?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a question I
think you want to talk to the Department of Justice
about. In regard to the verdict in New York, the State
Department has already addressed that question.
Q Ari, another
non-family question. Congressman Gephardt sent a letter to
the President yesterday in which he says that on one day last week, the
Vice President said OPEC is not to blame for high gas prices. Well, an
administration person from the Energy Department was up on the Hill
testifying that OPEC is responsible. Where does the
President come down on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that,
frankly, I think if you take a careful look at what both have said,
they're both accurate. In terms of, the question of the
price of energy is a matter of supply and demand, and the supply of
energy is determined principally by two factors. One is the
availability of the raw supply and, in the case of gasoline, much of it
does come from OPEC nations. And it's also -- the price is
also driven by the availability of infrastructure to deliver that
supply, at a time when our capacity for utilization in this country
under refineries is running at approximately 96 percent.
Even if more supply were to come on the market
from OPEC, until refinery capacity goes up, it's going to be harder to
get that supply to markets, particularly in the tight summer months,
particularly in regard to some of the local different -- difficulties
that are created as a result of the 15 or so different recipes for
reformulated gasoline across the country. So it's a
combination of the two, which is I think what every economist would
indicate.
Q Gephardt wanted the
President to talk -- speak out to OPEC and say, increase supply.
MR. FLEISCHER: And there are
conversations that are going back and forth with OPEC, and those
conversations continue, and they will be treated as quiet, diplomatic
conversations. The President believes that's the most
effective way to conduct those conversations.
Q They are asking for
generally -- you can just say generally, not specifically, that they're
asking for larger supply?
MR. FLEISCHER: Those
discussions? It's a reminder to the oil-producing nations
that we are interrelated economy, and that to the degree that energy
prices go to unacceptably high levels in the United States, that it
hurts all nations as a result of our interconnections economically.
Q Why can't we know
what the President's asking OPEC to do? Why is it a secret?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I just gave
an indication of what the President is asking OPEC to
do. There are quiet, diplomatic conversations going --
Q For
what? And what his he saying?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- on with our OPEC
allies, to remind them that we are an interdependent economy and that
we all have an interest to make certain that the prices don't spike up
--
Q But does he want them
to bring the price down?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does
think that the prices should come down. That's why he has
announced the energy policy that he has, and that's why there are quiet
diplomatic conversations underway with OPEC. It's not a secret, Helen,
I just indicated it.
Q Ari, earlier this
morning, you suggested that the press corps should, in your words, very
carefully think through follow-up questions on the matter relating to
Jenna and Barbara.
Since the White House is not going to issue a
statement, can you tell us if you believe that coverage of the episode
yesterday is a legitimate occupation for the press? And what
do you mean by follow-up questions that we should be careful about?
MR. FLEISCHER: Major, I am not
going to deem to tell the press at this juncture what the press should
or shouldn't do. I think that's why you're
here. You're here to make those judgments and you're the
White House press corps, and I think you're set apart from most press
corps in America in terms of exercising that
judgment. You're not the Internet.
But I was asked this morning specifically
about, will you tell us what the President discussed with his
19-year-old daughter. And I don't think that's an
appropriate question.
Q I didn't ask you for
that. I asked for his attitude of what had happened --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think it's
appropriate for people to be told what was a part of a private
conversation that the President had with a 19-year-old
child. And in that, I think most Americans agree that, yes,
he is the President of the United States, but he too is a father and,
as a father, he is entitled to have private conversations with his
children. And he will continue to keep those conversations private and
so, too, shall I.
Q I think we should
know what his attitude is toward his children who are constantly in
trouble with the police.
MR. FLEISCHER: Gone into it.
Q Is it fair to assume
that she got chewed out over this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think that
you really want to ask yourself these questions about, do you want the
American people to know that you're asking about private conversations
that took place between the President of the United States and his
child. And I will just have to leave that to
you. But you know what my answer will be. This is
and shall remain a private family matter.
Jim, did you have a follow-up?
Q We understand that
it's just -- it seems fair to assume that the President might be upset
that his daughter is arrested and charged with a crime, even though
it's a misdemeanor. Especially since --
MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, you
need to examine the premise of what you just said. Your
facts are totally incorrect.
Q Not the most recent
one; the previous one.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's also
incorrect. Be careful about your facts.
Q -- received a
violation of the law.
MR. FLEISCHER: You've indicated
that there was an arrest.
Q Sorry; she received a
ticket. Obviously, the President -- the President gave up
drinking. This is something that is obviously something that
is very personal to him, not in a private way, because he has talked
about it during the campaign. And that's one reason that
this obviously raises more questions.
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, let me stop you
there. I've addressed this. And the President has
addressed this. And nothing is going to
change. And in that, I think the American people agree with
the President that it is his purview, even as President of the United
States, to have private moments with his family, and that includes his
two 19-year-old daughters.
And like any parent raising a child, they
expect the right to talk privately with their children, no matter what
position they hold in life, whether they're the President of the United
States, whether they are the head of an organization, whether they're
an ordinary citizen who gets to enjoy their privacy. I think
it should always be the right of any President of the United States to
have private conversations with their children. And that
will continue to be the President's approach.
And I think, frankly, that's an approach that
the American people receive, and receive well. The press
corps may not receive it well, but that won't change a thing.
Q Ari, can you clarify
on another conversation the President had? I thought you told us in
the gaggle that -- in answer to a question about Arafat, that subject
did not come up. The Israeli President told the Israeli
press that in fact he did ask Bush to set a deadline for Arafat to end
the violence, and that the President, President Bush, replied it's an
interesting idea, but he didn't make any commitment to any such a
deadline. Can you --
MR. FLEISCHER: Sondra, the question
I answered this morning I thought was in the context of an Arafat visit
to Washington.
Q Okay. So
is this a fair representation of the conversation that took place?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to check
on that one specific point.
Q Is there a date set
for him to visit?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q Ari, earlier this
morning, you've said that in regard to the tax cut that the Congress
has approved that though it sunsets, it would be your expectation that
the Congress, when it deals with that sunsetting tax cut will probably
be extended, because to do otherwise would be to raise taxes on the
American people. Does that not suggest that the President's
tax cut is in fact much more expensive than the $1.35 trillion that is
established by current Senate rules, and that all those who deal with
budget matters should expect much greater costs in the out- years, in
fact plan it in all budgets?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's stating the
arithmetically accurate, that the tax cut has a cost over 10 years, and
of course that's a 10-year cost. Over the following 10 years, it has a
cost. Over the following 10 years -- that's just
arithmetic. You can use whatever window you want to use to
judge a tax cut. The House, in fact, uses a five-year
window. The Senate uses a 10-year window. You can
use a one-year window if you choose. They're all accurate, arithmetic
descriptions of the tax cut, or of any spending
proposals. Spending proposals have a one-year cost, a
10-year cost, a 20-year cost. All of that is just -- it
should be obvious.
Q But the arithmetic
also factors into political decisions, and policy
decisions. For example, is there room for a prescription
drug benefit under Medicare? If you have a tax cut that
policy makers assume will be extended, doesn't that have to fit within
the larger mathematics, and arithmetic, to use your word, of how to fit
prescription drug benefits?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure, all budget
decisions have to fit within the arithmetic, absolutely.
Q Ari, are you planning
any kind of an overture to the new Senate leadership next
week? And will the change in power change the way you do
business in any way? You, the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, we'll advise
you about any meetings that may get set up. But as far as
what the change in the Senate is going to do to the President's agenda,
the President did not run for office because he made a measurement of
the number of Senators of one party of the other. He ran for
office because of the ideas on which he believes.
And so, regardless of whatever the makeup of
the Senate is, the President will continue to work with Democrats and
Republicans alike to get them to pass his agenda, which includes now
that tax relief is final and will shortly be signed into law, it
includes education reform, which is a very bipartisan matter pending
before the Congress as we speak. It includes moving forward
on faith-based initiatives to help solve some of the worst social
problems in our nation. It involves a patient bill of
rights, so that patients have the ability to go see their doctors and
not be burdened by HMOs that are hindering their ability to get the
health care they need. It involves a missile defense
system.
So all the issues on which the President ran,
he continues to believe in very strongly. He will continue
to work with the Congress to get them enacted into law. I
think you will see the President has always reached out and will
continue to reach out to people from all areas in the Congress,
Democrats, Republicans, conservatives and liberals.
Q Will he have to make
any more accommodation to their views?
MR. FLEISCHER: Will he have to do
what?
Q Will he have to make
any more accommodation to their views as a result of this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the
interesting thing is about the Senate, of course, the votes on the
Floor really haven't changed. The process, indeed, has
changed and the control of the calendar, indeed, has changed and
Senator Daschle will now be in charge of scheduling the
Senate. And with that ability to schedule comes a fair
amount of influence. And it's important to always listen to
Senator Daschle.
But what becomes interesting is, where are the
votes? Have the votes changed? In the end, when
people make amendments, will the support be there for the amendments?
And in all cases, outside of the
reconciliation process, action in the Senate requires 60
votes. It required 60 votes when it was
Republican-controlled, it requires 60 votes now that it is
Democratic-controlled. So that has always been a part of the
White House approach, is the need to get bipartisan support for all
issues, because it often will require 60 votes. So the
switch doesn't change that.
Q Ari, on the issue of
scheduling and patient bill of rights, Senator Daschle has said he
wants to make that the second order of business after education
reform. He wants to take up the McCain-Kennedy bill, which
the President has indicated is unacceptable. Is that an area
where the President would be willing to compromise, particularly on the
area of caps?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President
has made very clear that he wants to have a patient bill of rights and
he supports quick action by the Senate to get a patient bill of
rights.
If the focus on the bill of rights is on the
issues that involve people's health care, such as a woman's right to go
see her OB/GYN without going to first a gatekeeper or a primary
physician, if it involves somebody's right to go to an emergency room
without having to first dial an 800 number, then our nation will have a
patient bill of rights that this President will sign.
If the issue involves allowing lawyers to sue
for up to $5 million in damages for noneconomic concerns, then the
Senate will not be engaged in any productive activities; it will be
engaged in an exercise that is akin to spinning wheels.
So the President is hopeful that the Senate
will heed his message and be able to send him a patient bill of rights
that addresses the concerns of patients with their HMOs, while allowing
for lawsuits to proceed after independent peer review, but clearly not
at the level specified in the Kennedy-McCain legislation.
Q So no bill with the
$5 million --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has
made it abundantly clear that he will not support any legislation that
has a cap on legal liability set at such an artificially high
level. And that is why the President is hopeful that people
will be willing to work together on this because it should be the year
that a patient bill of rights gets enacted into law, and I would
imagine the Senate will be looking to do that.
Q Is there room for a
compromise in the President's mind between the $5 million figure in
McCain-Kennedy and the, I believe it's $500,000 in --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to
preview what any ultimate outcomes may be. That's akin to,
as you know, as the President puts it, negotiating with
yourself. But the President does think that this is, indeed,
the year that a patients' bill of rights can be signed into law, and he
calls for quick action on a patients' bill of rights. He
would very much like to make this year the year it's done.
Q Is he willing to
negotiate not with himself, but with Congress on the amount --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will
always work with the Congress.
Q Ari, you just
mentioned that the President's still dealing with the same 100 people
in the Senate, although there are process changes, like calendars and
scheduling and so on. But as you know from your own
background, process is half the game on the Hill. So could
you please comment on how you feel the new calendar and schedule and
priorities and all of that will affect the White House agenda?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it is terribly
important. And the President has a lot of respect for
Senator Daschle. He believes Senator Daschle is a patriot
who also wants to get things done for this country. And so
he looks forward to working with the Senator; he looks forward to
working with Senator Lott as well. And he'll continue to
work with Democrats, Republicans alike, to move forward on his agenda.
I think time remains to be seen what happens
in the new Senate and how it all works. The Senate is a
difficult institution to govern with 55 votes. It's
difficult to govern with 59 votes. It's difficult to govern
with 50.
Q They're going to push
some other things, like minimum wage or gun control; other issues are
going to try and come to the fore. How will you deal with
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it all
depends on what the substance of the legislation is. The
President does believe there is room for accommodation on many
issues. He will adhere to his principles as President,
however, as he moves forward and works with the Senate. He
will continue to push for his agenda. He will hope that the
Senate doesn't engage in obstruction, for example, on nominations.
It is the Senate's purview and right to advice
and consent, but it's also the President's responsibility to fill the
government so the seats in the agencies can be filled with people
responsible for the assistant secretary level, the under secretary
level. So it will be a lot of work the President looks
forward to doing with the Senate and with the House.
Q Ari, some Republican
strategists have said that in his effort to forge bipartisanship, the
President neglected some members in his own party; Senator Jeffords may
be one among them. What would this White House do as the
mantle of power changes in the Senate to reach out to members of your
own party, from the moderate wing, to keep them on board?
MR. FLEISCHER: He will continue to
work with members of the moderate wing of the party as he always
has. But let me give you a for instance. If you recall last
week, some 20 conservative members of the House came down to the White
House to talk about the education bill. And they thought the
education bill was too tilted toward the moderates or too tilted toward
the centrists. And the President made very clear in that
meeting to fellow conservative Republicans that he said he wanted a
bipartisan education bill, and that he would continue to work with
Congress Miller and Congressman Boehner to secure a bipartisan
education bill.
So, sometimes the President will work directly
in private meetings that he holds with the moderates and talk to them
about his concerns, and other times, he will meet with others,
conservatives, to say that he's taking a different point of view on
this issue.
At other times, he's going to take -- it all
depends, issue to issue, what position the President will hold, and as
the President proceeds on his agenda. I think one of the
things you've seen early in this administration is the President has
already demonstrated a real ability to bring bipartisan governing
coalitions around, to support his agenda. And that's the
approach he'll continue to take.
Q Where is he on
entertaining this idea of regular meetings with moderate Republicans
and a greater outreach toward them, not just by saying to
conservatives, look, there are some moderate folks here that I have to
take care of, but actually talking to the moderates?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is
always open to good meetings.
Q Back on the education
bill, Senator Kennedy will be the new Chairman, Senator Harkin will be
the Appropriations Sub-committee Chairman over
Education. Both have made it clear they would like to see
more money in the '02 budget for education. Some Kennedy
aides have suggested as much as $10 billion more. Not so
long ago, there was a disagreement between this White House and Senator
Kennedy between $4.8 billion and $4 billion. Now the bidding could go
up to $10 billion. Is there a point at which this White
House cannot go as far as adding money to the education budget in '02,
and is that a complication --
MR. FLEISCHER: In the President's
point of view, if throwing money at education were the answer, our
educational system would have been improved years and years
ago. The key to improving education is to enact reforms that
are focused on accountability and on consequences and on strong
standards. That should be coupled with an increase in
funding, just as the President has proposed. He's proposed a
record increase in funding for the Department of
Education. It's the largest area in his budget that receives
an increase.
But clearly, money alone is not the
answer. And the President hopes that people will not take
the approach, let's just see how much money we can throw at
education. That's not the most productive approach.
Q Ari, lawmakers on
both sides of the aisle up on the Hill expect a supplemental budget
request to be around $30 billion. Is that figure on the
mark, and what can you tell us about the relative priorities, defense,
agriculture, when the bill finally goes --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first, I would
urge you to talk to many other members on the Congress, because I think
that's a figure that is rather high for many, if not most, members of
the Congress.
The supplemental process is an example of
what's gone wrong with federal budgeting, where people rely on
supplementals to shoehorn in all kinds of extra money that should have
been anticipated or should have been thought about in the original
budget submission. And the President does not believe that
Congress should rely on supplementals as a way to just increase funding
willy-nilly. The original budget proposal should accommodate
that, if it's properly thought out.
So, for example, the defense supplemental,
defense appropriations has traditionally, in the last several years,
been short-changed. The defense spending that was put in
original budgets was not sufficient to get the Department of Defense
through its needs for a year. So the President is looking at
sending up to the Hill a supplemental to address the needs of the
Department of Defense. That way, they do not have any
shortfalls in the fourth quarter of this year. And what the
President is looking at is things in terms of the maintenance of DOD
and also in terms of vital human areas, personnel areas, such as pay,
such as housing, and such as health care.
Q Ari, Senator Daschle
has expressed a lot of strong differences with the policies of
President Bush. As of Tuesday, he will be the Majority
leader. Is the President already reaching out to
him? Is there a meeting planned as soon as possible?
MR. FLEISCHER: I took that question
earlier and I indicated that if there is any meeting, we will advise
you.
Q On the supplemental
process, and especially the defense supplemental, you're saying this is
just for the short change that's happened year after
year. This has nothing to do with the top-to-bottom review,
nothing to do with any missile defense?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's
correct. That's correct. The supplemental that
the President will soon send up to the Hill dealing with the Department
of Defense is focused on addressing the shortfalls in the budget for
the Department of Defense so they can finish Fiscal Year 2001 in good
shape. If they do not have enough money in their budget to
make it through Fiscal 2001 in good shape, then the supplemental the
President is focused on is addressed at completion of the Department of
Defense mission for this year.
There will be further changes made to the
future of the Department of Defense budgeting. Those will
take place in the form of an amendment to the Fiscal '02 budget that
will start to get into some longer-range issues, and then finally after
all the reviews are completed at the Department of Defense this summer,
dealing with funding for '03 and beyond.
Q So are you saying
that any money that's needed for missile defense or for decisions made
in the top-to-bottom review would not be pursued in a supplemental, but
rather in amendments to the budget you've already submitted for next
year?
MR. FLEISCHER: Precisely right.
Q So no more
supplementals for defense this year?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just indicated.
Q Ari, are you also
saying that the supplemental will be limited to defense, there's not
going to be any spending for any supplementals coming out of the White
House for other departments are not planned at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, and in fact, at
the time the President sends this supplemental up to the Hill, we will
provide for you complete information. There will be several other
areas in there of a small nature. But as the President
indicated in California this week, for instance, $150 million in
low-income heating oil and energy assistance programs to help people so
they can pay their high electric bills this summer as a result of the
increase in energy supplies, energy costs. That will be one
item -- that
will be in the supplemental.
Q And that's all under
that $6.5-billion umbrella, so the defense piece is at $6.5 billion --
MR. FLEISCHER: The defense piece is
$6.1 billion. And there will be a briefing over at DOD today
at 1:00 p.m. to get into some more of the defense supplemental --
Q Ari, has the
administration made any provisions working out an alternative to the
Kyoto Protocol? Will it be ready before the President's trip
to Europe next month?
MR. FLEISCHER: When I get into the
week ahead, I'll start getting into some of the things leading up to
the Europe trip. But if there is anything to be said, stay
tuned on that.
Q Ari, Kenneth Lay is a
close friend of the President's. He's also head of Enron
Corporation in Houston. The New York Times reported last
week that Mr. Lay made a call to Curtis Hebert, who is the Chairman of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and that he offered him a
deal, according to The Times. If Mr. Hebert changed his
views on electricity deregulation, Enron would continue to support him
in his new job.
The Times reported that Mr. Hebert refused the
offer, was offended, and thought that he knew of Mr. Lay's affiliation
with the President and thought the refusal could put his job in
jeopardy.
Two questions. One, is this
dignified to have the President's friends mau-mau with regulators who
regulate their companies? And, second, is Mr. Hebert's job
in jeopardy?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President makes
all his decisions on personnel based on the merits of the people that
he would seek to name. And in terms of -- I think your word
was mau-mau, mau-mauing regulators, for example, Governor Wilson has
had some interesting things to say about members of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. In fact, one of them will be meeting
with Governor Wilson at the governor's request. So it's not
unusual at all people on commissions to meet with --
Q Governor Wilson?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, Governor
Davis -- to meet with people who have expressed concerns about
matters. But the President makes his decisions on personnel
based on the merits of the people.
Q Is his job in
danger?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q General Shelton is
supposed to be in India today. He was supposed to leave
today for India. But at the last minute, last night, he cut
his part of the visit. But he's still going to visit -- on
Saturday. Is that in any way consultation with the White House that he
has cancelled with visit, or in connection with any threat from Osama
bin Laden or his empire?
MR. FLEISCHER: Mary Ellen, do you
have anything?
MS. COUNTRYMAN: You should address
that question to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And my
understanding is that General Shelton is staying there because he has
to participate in several very important meetings concerning the
Defense Review and quadrennial defense review plans.
Q On supplementals, in
general, you didn't mean to suggest that there won't be any other
supplementals at all, just none other for defense this year?
MR. FLEISCHER: As always, if there
is further legislation to report, I will advise you. This is
the only one I'm going to indicate now. And don't take that
to mean there will or won't be down the road, but this is it.
As a matter of routine, the President believes
that something is severely wrong with the budget process, if everybody
quickly, after they pass one budget says, the budget we've just passed
is flawed, therefore we need in the next couple months to send you an
additional one to get more money, it's part of the tendency of
Washington to spend money, because it's easy to spend
money. And in bringing fiscal discipline to Washington, he
is going to try to change the culture of supplementals so that people
don't immediately pass a budget and then say, whoops, we underfunded
it, now let's spend more money, here's a supplemental.
Q Who do you mean in
Washington? Who are you talking about?
Q Apparently there have
been death threats against Senator Jeffords for changing
parties. Does the White House have any reaction to
that? Is there concern here about what that says about the
level of political disconnect?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, obviously, the
White House would be concerned about any type of threat of hostility
toward any member of Congress, and that includes Senator Jeffords, of
course.
Q You made the point
about the supplementals and how this is what's wrong with spending in
Washington. If it's what's wrong with spending, it's not
just that Congress passes it, but the President signed them into law --
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q -- are you suggesting
that there is a veto out there for any supplemental that goes beyond
what the President asked for?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President
is determined to bring fiscal restraint to Washington. And
the President wants to make certain that people do not -- again, as
they've done in the last several years -- engage in excessive
spending. Excessive spending risks reaching into the Social
Security trust funds and that's not something the President would
support.
So the President will send a signal that
Congress should be careful not to engage in excessive spending.
Q Does the President
think he can get his faith-based initiatives and also school vouchers
through this new Senate?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is
hopeful that he will. On faith-based initiatives, clearly
that is an administration priority. And the President will
push for it very strongly.
On vouchers, as you know, a vote took place
both in the House and in the Senate on vouchers. That
measure has already been put to the test. The position that was
adopted by the House and Senate is not the position that the President
would have preferred, but that measure has been voted on.
It is notable that in the tax bill that the
President will sign into law, there is a provision in there for the
first time allowing for educational savings account withdrawals to go
to private schools K through 12, parochial schools K through
12. So that clearly is an important, helpful step forward in
making sure that parents have educational options beyond narrow
choices, that they have more options available to them.
Q So he is not likely
to raise the voucher issue again under this Senate then?
MR. FLEISCHER: If he were convinced
that the votes were there, then I think the President would be very
pleased to proceed.
Q Can you just explain
why he is going to Moakley's funeral tomorrow? Their
relationship? And I think President Clinton is going to be
there. Does he have any plans to meet with President
Clinton?
Q Can you repeat the
question?
MR. FLEISCHER: The question was
about Congressman Moakley's funeral and the President's travel to
Boston. Why is he traveling and the fact that President
Clinton will be there.
One, on the trip, as you know, the first bill
that the President signed in a public ceremony at the White House was a
bill honoring Congressman Moakley. The President thinks that
Congressman Moakley brought the right touch, the right way of doing
business to this town, that the Congressman believed very deeply in the
principles that he held and he and the President didn't always
agree. But Congressman Moakley always brought a human touch,
an affable nature, to the business of the Congress and to his relations
with the White House. And I think the President was touched
by that.
And so he will travel to Boston for the
funeral tomorrow of Congressman Moakley. He is very pleased
that he was able to honor the Congressman in the public signing of the
legislation in a courthouse after the Congressman in his first signing
in the White House.
He looks forward to seeing President Clinton
at the event. The last time he saw President Clinton was
when the two of them walked off the front steps of the Capitol on
January 20, 2001. So the President will look forward to
having a chance to discuss whatever is on either one's mind when he
sees President Clinton.
Q To follow up on
Connie's question, an expression I heard up on the Hill last week
regarding drilling in ANWR, DOA. White House reaction?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we'll
see. The President continues to believe that it is important
to develop energy supplies, so that the United States can secure its
long-term energy future. We'll see exactly where the votes
are, but it's something the President does think is important.
Q Ari, one of the
criticisms of the tax cut bill is that it's too backloaded, and that in
order to get everything in the $1.35 trillion framework, expensive
provisions like the estate tax bill that kick in 2010. The President
repeatedly said that he felt $1.6 trillion was the right size over 10
years, ending in 2011. If you now feel that it would be okay
to extend these tax cuts after 2010, what is the administration's
position about going beyond $1.6 trillion?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one -- you
have to remember, again, this is a question I took
earlier. The description of the dollar amounts of the tax
cuts applies to whatever number of years that you want to look
at. You can make it a one-year tax cut, a five- year tax
cut, a 10-year tax cut. During the campaign, the President talked
about a $1.3 trillion tax cut, which was over actually nine
years. Upon coming into office, when the budget window
changed, it was a $1.6 trillion tax cut for the same proposals, over a
10 year window.
So again, that's just a function of the dollar
amount will change, depending on the number of years that you choose to
look at. But the President believes that tax relief should
be permanent, that once enacted, it should remain on the
books. To do anything other than that is to raise taxes on
the American people, and he does not support that.
Q -- endorsing, or he's
endorsed $1.6 trillion over 10 years, and if $1.35 trillion over nine,
it would -- you'll only have $250 billion left, to extend that an
additional year, how realistic is that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm not sure
your logic follows on that. If you extend it, you extend the
price of what is current law, which is $1.35 trillion, which was the
compromise arrived at as a result of the budget resolution.
Q Which would be
significantly higher than $1.6 trillion.
MR. FLEISCHER: But you're looking
at a different time period. You're looking at extending it
beyond 2010. Of course it's going to be more.
Q Before you do the
week ahead, when you answered Campbell's question, it sounded like by
saying that the two presidents -- he looked forward to talking with
Clinton about whatever's on his mind. You mean to suggest
they're going to carve out time --
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q -- to meet or just
salutations in passing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Any time people see
each other, former presidents see each other -- it's a rare occasion
when former presidents get together. And despite any differences in
politics, former presidents meet, and a current president and former
president meet, there is no --
Q There is going to be
a meeting between them?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would not be
surprised if they exchange words while they're there. But
there's no formal meeting set up, no.
Q While they're in
church, you mean?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. There's no formal meeting set up,
no, and I did not indicate that.
Q Ari, did the
President know Congressman Moakley prior to this ceremony that took
place here? Did they have a pre-existing relationship,
dating back to some earlier events, or --
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me check on that
for you.
Q Ari, to follow up on
the tax deal in the Senate?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, Russell?
Q Princeton economist
Paul Krugman put it this way. He said, they simply waived
their hands and made all the revenue that will actually be lost in the
last year of the 10-year period, hundreds of billions of dollars,
disappear from the account. He called it white collar crime,
pure and simple, and said Democrat senators and Republican senators
alike who were involved with it should be sentenced to a minimum
security installation somewhere unpleasant. (Laughter.)
So I'm wondering --
MR. FLEISCHER: Would they be
provided with lifelong subscriptions to Mr. Krugman's columns while
they are there? (Laughter.)
Q That's the ultimate
punishment, you think?
MR. FLEISCHER: I did say
something. I'll leave it there.
Q Yesterday, the
President would not answer a question posed to him about his thoughts
on Governor Gray Davis's threats to sue FERC over price
caps. What is the White House's position on those threats?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President
makes the case that the last thing that anybody should do at a time of
energy shortage is to make the shortage worse. And that
price caps will result in increased demand and in lower supply and
therefore have the exact worse effect you could want to have, if your
goal is to help people, and if your goal is to protect the economy.
Q I know that
boilerplate argument. But this idea of suing FERC, is there
legal ground to sue FERC for price caps, given their finding that
electricity prices in California were not just and reasonable?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a
question you need to address to attorneys or address to the state of
California. Obviously, there was a case brought by some
legislators in California that a circuit court just threw out last
week.
Q Does the President
think that Governor Davis is posturing politically? Does he
have a legal leg to stand on here?
MR. FLEISCHER: You just asked that
question about legal legs and I have referred you to the place where
you can get an answer.
Q What about an answer
to the political aspect of that? Do you believe it's
political posturing?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is not
interested in looking at the situation in California with an eye toward
posturing or an eye toward blame or an eye toward finger-pointing.
Q Or the 2002
election?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's
position is to solve the problem, and that's why he has taken the
position he has on price caps, as well as on a long-term fundamental
energy approach to help the country.
Q If price caps are
bad, why then it is one of the remedies listed within FERC's own
guidelines? The Governor of California maintains that FERC
simply isn't following its own guidelines. He'd like to use
a lawsuit, if necessary, to force them to do so. Is there
any thought here about trying to change FERC's own guidelines and --
MR. FLEISCHER: FERC is an
independent agency, and makes its determinations based on what it views
as right or wrong. But let me remind everybody here, that
this issue is not new to this administration. In early
January, Californians came calling to Washington, in the last days of
the Clinton administration -- and as you know, the Clinton
administration was rather busy in its final days -- and they, too,
sought price caps. And price caps were not granted by the
Clinton administration at that time.
So it is notable that the same argument that
was received by -- we presume, much more receptive ears, but they made
a decision also based on facts and on merits, and had taken the same
position that President Bush has taken. So this is nothing
new coming from California. But the President's position
will remain the same, that he wants to be helpful to
California. And one of the worst things you can do is make
the situation worse in that state.
Q Can I ask a question
about --
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead,
Jim. There's also a reporter here from the Middlebury
College campus. Where is this reporter? A budding
reporter. Welcome to the White House press room. This is
your future. (Laughter.)
Q Leave while you can.
Q On McVeigh, how close
-- did the President sit down and discuss with the Attorney General
whether or not they should grant or be open to the idea of extending
the period during which he would not be executed, pending further
review of the FBI documents?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's a matter
that's decided by the Department of Justice.
Q And the President did
not discuss that with General Ashcroft?
MR. FLEISCHER: If he had any
discussions, Jim, I'd have to take a look and see if there were
any. I don't know the answer to that. But those
are the decisions that are made at Justice.
Whether there was information sharing or
conveying back and forth, I don't know the answer to that.
Q And the President
agrees with that decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: About no further
extensions? He supports the Department of Justice reviewing
this matter and not acting in a way that is based on the
merits. And he believes that's what the Department of
Justice has done here.
Q Has the President
supported a penalty for people who smuggle aliens on the border with
Mexico. The one arrest in Arizona -- 14 Mexicans
died. Does the President support the death penalty for those
people involved in the smuggling of aliens on the border?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, after
that tragedy took place, the President called Vicente Fox of Mexico to
express our nation's condolences to those families who lost their lives
trying to come to this country.
The President is very concerned about the
people who exploit these immigrants who come to America for opportunity
and for freedom. And there are people who exploit them by
bringing them across the border in very dangerous
fashion. And the President does support legal action to help
protect people who would seek to come to this country, hopefully
legally.
There has been a request received for the week
ahead. A little bit on the weekend, first.
The President will travel to Camp David upon
his return from Congressman Moakley's funeral tomorrow. Just
one point of note, there will be a rededication of the chapel at Camp
David. It will be the tenth year anniversary of the
chapel. The President's parents will be in town for
that. So that will take place. It's a closed
press event, but that will take place up at Camp David this weekend.
On Sunday evening at 5:00 p.m. on the South
Lawn, an open press event. The President will host the second T-ball
game on White House grounds. It will feature the Senators
League, Fort Lincoln Brewers against the Ward 7/6th District Benning
Park Parrots at 5:00 p.m. Baseball Hall of Fame member Ernie
Banks will serve as the play-by-play announcer for the game.
Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta will be the first base coach, and
Daryl Green, formerly of the Washington Redskins, will coach third
base.
Hall of Famers Bob Feller and Lou Brock will
also be in attendance at the game and the President will be joined by a
special visitor and that is Tommy Shawhan, his family from Quantico,
Virginia. And Tommy is a little child who plays on a Marine
team. His father was a combat pilot in the Persian Gulf War,
an active duty Marine. Tommy suffers from disabilities. He
cannot talk, he cannot walk. He plays T-Ball, and he plays
on his team at the Quantico facility, and he will be here as a special
guest, along with his parents, of the President for the game.
On Monday, the President will travel to the
Everglades National Park in Florida, where he will make remarks about
his budget's impact on helping to preserve the Everglades and other
national parks. Also on Monday, the President will travel to
Tampa, for an event that talks about the tax legislation, and how it's
going to affect the lives of individual Americans. He will
overnight in Tampa.
On Tuesday morning, the President will
participate in a Habitat for Humanity event in which -- at which the
President will help build a home in Tampa. He will also make
remarks about his budget, and the plans in the budget to help increase
homeownership across the country.
For your planning purposes, the press charter
will leave on Sunday night, after T-ball, for the trip to
Florida. The alternative was a 2:30 a.m. check-in
Monday. So apologies to the comptrollers at your
organizations.
Q Do you know what time
that Everglades speech is on Monday?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll have exact
times out later, in writing. We don't have the specific
times. On Wednesday, the President will attend a dedication
of the National D-Day Memorial, in Bedford, Virginia. And he
will also make remarks that are a preface to his upcoming trip to
Europe. He will talk about the strong trans-Atlantic ties between the
United States and our European allies.
On Thursday, the President will make remarks
at the fourth national summit on fatherhood in
Washington. He will also have a photo opportunity with the
2001 Super Bowl Champion Baltimore Ravens. You can also
anticipate that the President, at some point next week, at an event at
the White House, will sign the tax legislation into
law. We'll have more details on that forthcoming.
On Friday, the President will travel to Omaha,
Nebraska, for the College World Series, and then he will depart for
Crawford, where he will be until Sunday. On Sunday, he will
return to Washington, and the President and the First Lady will
participate in a time-honored presidential tradition of attending the
Ford's Theater Gala.
A reminder, about the upcoming trip to Europe,
the press charter for Europe will depart on Monday morning and the
President and the First Lady will depart at 7 p.m. for
Madrid. That's a week from Monday. We will let
you know about any other pre-briefings for the Europe trip next week.
Q You will have them?
MR. FLEISCHER: We will have some.
Q He goes straight to
Crawford from Omaha?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q And what day is the
dedication of the chapel? Is it Saturday or Sunday?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Sunday. Correct.
Q Do you know if any
other family members will be here for the weekend?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's
possible. I know the parents are. There may be
others. Possible, possible. Thank you,
everybody.
END 12:59
P.M. EDT