|
05 February 2001
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed.
Following is the White House transcript:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
February 5, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
1:12 P.M. EST
Mr. Fleischer: Hello, troops. Good afternoon. I have two personnel
announcements to begin with. President Bush today announced his
intention to nominate Mark A. Weinberger as Assistant Secretary of
Treasury for Tax Policy. And President Bush today announced his
intention to nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of
Defense. News releases will be circulating after today's briefing.
Those are my only announcements and I'm prepared to take any
questions.
Question: Ari, will the President actively seek to block any move
despite corporate lobbyists on the Hill to add on to the tax plan that
he's going to send up this week?
Mr. Fleischer: The President proposed a tax plan that he believes is
the best tax plan for the country, both to give people their money
back that they paid in high taxes to return the tax surplus to the
voters before the politicians can spend it, and also to promote
economic growth.
There, are, of course, First Amendment speech issues that are involved
in what people can do who are not elected officials, and we don't
presume to tell people what to do or how to carry out their business,
but the President will fight for the plan that he sends up to the
Hill.
Q: Well, he seemed to indicate that this morning, and he phrased it in
terms of this idea of add-ons to the tax bill. I'm just wondering, how
determined is he to make sure that the American taxpayers get their
slice and that American corporations don't get a piece of this?
Mr. Fleischer: The President's remarks were focused more on Congress
than on anybody else. The President will propose it and the Congress
will consider it, of course. And throughout that process, the
President will advocate and fight for his tax relief proposal.
Congress, of course, will lend its voice to it as well. And that's who
the President was talking to.
Q: Following that, though, when he's saying -- talking about loading
up a tax plan with their own vision of tax relief, minus the right
size plan, is that a suggestion that he wants to hold the line against
Republican plans to add on taxes? Is that a message to Republicans?
Mr. Fleischer: It's a message to everyone, to all sides -- Democrat,
Republican alike.
Q: But is it a message just that I'm not going to accept anything
lower than that what I proposed, or also, I don't want anything higher
than what I proposed?
Mr. Fleischer: I think the likelihood is, what you will see is a
number of Democrats say they want to keep taxes higher, and therefore
they shouldn't cut taxes -- Bush shouldn't cut taxes as much. I think
you might see some Republicans who say it's not enough tax relief.
The President's proposal, in his opinion, is the right amount to cut
taxes.
Q: Is it their position that they want to keep taxes higher, or they
just want to give back what we can currently afford?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, certainly, if you don't cut taxes as much as
President Bush has proposed, if you say the tax cut must be a
different level, a smaller level, that means people will pay more
taxes than they are currently paying under the Bush proposal -- than
they would pay under the Bush proposal.
Q: It's totally a matter of semantics.
Mr. Fleischer: That's what I do for a living. (Laughter.)
Q: At the Wehrkunde Strategic Policy Conference in Munich over the
weekend, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said in effect that the decision
to deploy a national missile defense is a done deal. As you know,
there is strong opposition on the part of many NATO members, as well
as Russia and China, and there are some who believe that Russia could
try to use this issue to split the Alliance. Having said all that and
realizing that, is there any wiggle room in there? Are there any
conditions under which the President would choose not to deploy, or is
he still totally committed to it?
Mr. Fleischer: I think if you go back to September of 1999 and examine
the President's statements at the time he gave a series of defense and
foreign policy speeches, it is very clear that President Bush believes
very deeply that the best way to preserve the peace is through the
development of a national missile defense to protect against an
accidental launch or a rogue missile launch -- rogue nation launch of
a missile. And he intends to pursue that matter in consultation with
our allies, and he will indeed pursue it. He believes it's a very
effective way to protect America and our allies.
Q: One follow-up. If this opposition becoming a groundswell and really
becomes serious, and there's danger of the Alliance falling apart, any
possibility?
Mr. Fleischer: I'm not going to comment on any hypotheticals like
that. We're going to continue, the President will continue to consult
with our allies and friends as we proceed and move foward.
Q: Ari, the embassy bombing trial just got started in New York today.
I wonder what the President's expectations are for the trial's
outcome, and also, since two of the suspects are charged with
worldwide conspiracy associated with Osama bin Laden to kill Americans
and to destroy American property; so I wonder what steps President
Bush is going to take to counter terrorism?
Mr. Fleischer: I'm going to, for the moment, refer that question to
Mary Ellen, to the Department of Defense.
Q: On the tax plan, Bush indicated today he was in favor of making it
retroactive to the first of January. Lindsey said yesterday that Bush
also favored accelerating it, which implies shifting more of the
benefits into the first year of the plan. Can you kind of clarify
exactly what the President would accept in terms of front-loading?
Mr. Fleischer: By definition, if you make it retroactive you've
accelerated it. It's one and the same.
Q: Okay. But it seemed from the discussion yesterday that there were
two different issues they were thinking. I mean, it could take effect
early, but it could also have -- be phased-in faster.
Mr. Fleischer: There are two primary ways to address the question of
when the tax bill goes into effect and at what rates it goes into
effect. And let me underscore that what the President indicated today,
you heard him say it, and what Mr. Lindsey said. We're going to work
with the Congress. And the proposal that the President will make on
Thursday will mirror the proposal he made during the course of the
campaign.
Now, we are hearing from a number of people in the Congress, given the
economic slowdown, the importance of making it retroactive, and you
heard the President and his support of that today. Now, there are two
principal ways that you can impact the effective date of the tax cut
and then there's a third way that actually gets more benefit to
taxpayers sooner.
You can make it retroactive. Obviously, we're here on February 5th; if
you make the tax cut retroactive to January 1st, that, in effect,
clearly speeds it up. You can also change the phase-in rates. The tax
cut, for example, the 15 percent bracket comes down to 10 percent.
Under the plan the President announced during the campaign, it comes
down in a series of stair steps, from 15 percent to 10 percent, over a
period of years. You can change the period of years. That's another
optional way to accelerate. That will all be what we work on with the
Congress.
The third way is by adjusting withholding tables. So as workers, for
example, in this year, in 2001, where you don't pay your taxes until
April of 2002, if you don't change your withholdings, taxpayers don't
receive the benefit until, in most cases, 2002. You can change the
withholdings to address that question as well.
So those are a series of the options that the administration is
looking at and will continue to work with the Congress on.
Q: Let me ask about the retroactivity. Doesn't that inevitably
increase the cost, pushing it forward over a 10-year period? And isn't
this kind of an example of one of the add-ons that the President
himself warned against?
Mr. Fleischer: This is an example of the type of add-on that the
President has indicated he is taking a serious look at for the past
several months. So this is not surprising, this is something the
President, given the softness in the economy, sent a lot of signals he
was looking at.
Q: And would it increase the cost?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, I think it all depends on what other steps are
taken in the plan. And, again, as we work it through with the
Congress, we heard a powerful statement from the president today about
what the ultimate size should be. Mr. Lindsey has addressed the same
question and we have established a pretty clearly-defined ballpark
where we think this should end up. I think that helps establish fiscal
discipline because there always is a tendency in tax legislation, if
you're not careful, to add too much to it.
Q: Does that mean if things are accelerated, he's going to want it to
balance out on the other end so it's roughly the same size?
Mr. Fleischer: The other area you're going to have to look at is what
impact does it have on growth. President Bush, as you know, comes from
the school of thought that says cutting marginal income tax rates
leads to higher rates of growth, and if you have higher rates of
growth, you, of course, increase revenues.
Q: So he doesn't mind the new growth then?
Mr. Fleischer: We're all going to see what the dollar amounts are as
the proposal moves forward. But the President and Mr. Lindsey clearly
spoke today about the ultimate size that we think the tax cut should
be limited to.
Q: If the size is clear, Ari, will you, in fact, attach a cost
estimate when it goes up on Thursday?
Mr. Fleischer: No, I do not anticipate that will be this Thursday. As
with our previous announcements, I anticipate that will be after OMB
has a chance to carefully crunch the numbers, which will be not too
far from now. Each passing day in February, we get closer to that day
where I've suggested -- probably late February.
Q: Are you asking anyone on Capitol Hill going to take a closer look
at it and actually do anything on it if they don't know what the cost
is going to be?
Mr. Fleischer: The traditional pattern is that the President will
propose it, Congress takes a beginning look at it, the budget then
comes up -- really, we're not talking very long. If this tax proposal
gets sent up to the Hill on February 8th, I think it's just a matter
of a couple of weeks after that where the OMB will then have its
chance to submit the actual numbers that would go along with any
budget proposal the President would make, and that's really a
function, frankly, of the fact that it's a new administration, and
it's typical of a new administration; is not in a position to put down
in writing all the specific numbers until the economic bluepint is
ready.
And then following that, Congress will take a look at it on its own,
and they will ask the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is Congress'
official estimator of tax cuts, to weigh in on how much they estimate
the tax cut costs.
Q: But I understand on a lot of these things, you've been reluctant to
give out the numbers and everything. But, surely, on the tax cuts, you
know what the cost is, because it's obviously a large-ticket item and
you can't really figure out the other things until you know what the
cost to the taxpayer is.
Mr. Fleischer: We're going to be careful and thorough, and that's why
the Office of Management and Budget will be the ones who put the price
tag on it.
Q: Ari, the press secretary of Texas Congresswoman Johnson confirmed
that while non-blacks can join the Congressional Black Caucus, they're
called auxiliaries, and they are not allowed to vote. And my question
is, if the President had known about this racial discrimination, would
he have invited this organization to the White House, or did he know
about it and believe it's all right because they're black?
Mr. Fleischer: Listen, there are a number of congressional caucuses
and groups that have formed over the years, and it's the prerogative
of Congress --
Q: None are racially segregated, Ari, I've checked it. None of them
are racially segregated. Only this.
Mr. Fleischer: It's the prerogative of Congress to set those terms and
I would refer any questions on that to the Congress.
Q: Well, doesn't he think think they would want to stop this racial
discrimination, Ari? He certainly isn't in favor of racial
discrimination, is he?
Mr. Fleischer: The President met with the Congressional Black Caucus
and I gave the report on the results of that meeting and I think he
would be pleased to meet with them again, as he indicated.
Q: Could you give us an update on energy policy? Has the Policy
Development Group been working and should we look for something on
this issue next week?
Mr. Fleischer: They have been working. They continue to meet. I think
the last meeting was on Friday of last week and they -- when we have
something in the way to announce, we will, of course. That group, I
want to remind you, is focused on the national energy policy that the
President ran on during the course of the campaign. And that's where
we stand.
Q: And I'm a little bit confused on that. Why do you need to develop
policy when you laid out the policy during the campaign? Why do we
take that approach on this issue when we haven't on the others?
Mr. Fleischer: For the same reason that, during the transition, we had
an Education Working Group that developed the fine print on the
policies that the President sent up two weeks ago. It is part of good
government. It began with the campaign, of course, but then you bring
in all the new people into the administration from the various
agencies so they can actually see what it was the President proposed
during the campaign for any people who were new to the administration.
And it also just allows us to put meat on the bones for a variety of
these proposals.
Q: Will we likely see anything different than what he proposed during
the campaign?
Mr. Fleischer: I think it will be substantially like what he proposed
in the campaign. We have to allow the working group to develop its
product.
Q: Back to the numbers question on when we are going to have hard
numbers on the cost, I thought you had said a while ago that the OMB
would be doing just a general blueprint on the budget and that we
wouldn't have real budget numbers until later.
Mr. Fleischer: That's correct.
Q: So does that mean in February we are going to have real budget
numbers on all the President's proposals?
Mr. Fleischer: The economic blueprint traditionally has a series of
costs of the major programs and of, all, for example, domestic
discretionary spending, defense spending. So you will have a lot of
top line hard and accurate numbers. Then the follow on in April will
be down to the appropriated item levels which is the big, thick phone
book worth of statistics and facts.
But you will have an awful lot of what you are looking for in that
February blueprint.
Q: Ari, the Democrats, in addition to the size of the tax cut, many
have talked about the distribution of it.
Mr. Fleischer: Yes.
Q: Are there elements of progressivity injected into your tax cut plan
that aren't apparent to us at this point?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, it's a very progressive tax cut plan that
President Bush has proposed. And, frankly, it disproportionately helps
people at the low and middle end of the scale. And the reason for that
is by dropping the 15 percent lowest bracket down to 10 percent and by
doubling the child credit from $500 to $1,000, you deliver a lot more
oomph and help to people at the low and middle ends of the scale.
One of the families we were joined with this morning would have their
entire income tax burden erased under the President's proposal. They
would have a $1,000 -- they currently pay about $1,000 in taxes and
this proposal would eliminate virtually all their income taxes that
they pay.
On the other side of the scale, when it comes to taxes paid by the top
percentage groups in the country, the President believes very strongly
that no one should pay more than 33 percent of their income in taxes.
Under the current system, the top rate, just for income alone, is
approximately 40 percent. When you add into it the amount of taxes
people pay for their Social Security and for their Medicare, and for
the deductions that they're no longer entitled to take, the federal
taxes alone can be in excess of 50 percent for some people.
Now, consider that also when you take a look at the fact that
President Bush's proposal will cut taxes for all Americans. He will
not punish those who are successful. But to put it in perspective, the
top one percent of taxpayers in this country pay 34.8 percent of all
the income taxes in this country. The top 10 percent pay 65 percent of
all income taxes in this country, and they pay 50 percent of all taxes
in this country.
We have a progressive tax code. And the tax cut that the President
will deliver to the Congress this week will cut taxes. The biggest
percentage gainers will be low-to-moderate income people. But he will
indeed cut taxes for all income tax-paying Americans. He thinks it's
the right thing to do.
Q: Ari, how realistic is it to think of this as an economic stimulus
plan, given the size of the non-Social Security surplus this year and
next year? In other words, if he stays within the boundaries of that
number, the dollars that would be funneled back to taxpayers just
simply would not seem to be enough to amount to much of a stimulus at
all.
Mr. Fleischer: Well, there are three reasons the President thinks we
need to cut taxes. And the first is that the surplus, the tax surplus
belongs to the taxpayers. It's their money, and they deserve it back.
Two, if you don't cut taxes, the politicians of both parties will
spend that money. And three, he does believe, and he said at the time
he announced his tax cut, that this can be an insurance policy against
economic downturns. And he believes all three of those are powerful
and good reasons to cut taxes.
Q: And as an insurance policy, does that constitute, then, sort of a
self-stimulus?
Mr. Fleischer: Certainly it does. It can be a stimulus of a level that
I think economists will discuss, and some will agree with more
wholeheartedly than others. But it is the belief of many people,
including the President, that cutting taxes can be a stimulus. It's
one of the reasons he expressed his support today for retroactivity.
Q: The President used the term "class warfare" again this morning.
Mr. Fleischer: Right.
Q: Does he believe that those who don't like the mix of the different
tax brackets that he is proposing are engaging in class warfare?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, there is a -- there is always an endeavor in this
town to deny tax relief to people, because they accuse some people of
being rich or successful, and therefore they're not entitled to tax
relief. And that's just not a view that President Bush holds.
We shouldn't split people by class. We shouldn't split people on the
basis of success or not success. All income taxpayers deserve tax
relief, and that's why the President's proposal addresses it for one
and all.
Q: Well, let's say that one of the opponents believes, okay, the size
of the tax cut's about right, but I just think -- and I'm for the idea
of having four brackets as opposed to five, it's fine -- but I just
don't think the particular levels he's chosen for those four -- is he
still engaged in class warfare?
Mr. Fleischer: I think if someone were to make a rather economic,
esoteric, scholarly argument like you just did, that wouldn't be class
warfare. (Laughter.)
But the game in this town often is to try to divide people and try to
disparage and criticize others because they are successful. They call
it "tax cuts for the rich." That's not going to be the approach of
this administration. The approach of this administration, of this
President, will be that all income taxpayers deserve tax relief, and
no one should be denied tax relief because they worked hard and were
successful.
Q: In the spirit of bipartisanship, does that mean he's now open to
tinkering with those four brackets?
Mr. Fleischer: You heard the President address that today. He thinks
his proposal's the right one and will fight for it.
Q: Ari, who initiated today's lunch meeting between the Chairman of
the Federal Reserve and the President? Will it be a regular thing? And
are taxes on that agenda?
Mr. Fleischer: It will be a periodic meeting. I don't know that it's
going to be a regular meeting, I haven't inquired. And the agenda will
be private, their discussions will be private, as is the tradition
between --
Q: And who initiated today's lunch?
Mr. Fleischer: I'd have to find out. Don't know.
Q: Ari, can we go back to Energy just for a minute? Let me talk about
energy. As you know, the ten Western governors met with the Secretary
of Energy in Oregon on Friday. They asked that a cap be placed on
wholesale sales of energy to those states, and the federal government,
through the Energy Secretary, has said thanks, but no thanks. Is there
anything the federal government can do to alleviate the situation? And
is this in a way punishing California because the President
California?
Mr. Fleischer: Not even close. As far as the notion of price controls,
the President does not believe that price controls work, and that is
why he does not see that as an option that would be helpful to
anybody, in either the short run or the long run.
As for the question of what can the federal government do, we are
reviewing whatever steps the federal government can do. We're pleased
to see that California has acted and has passed legislation to begin
to address the problems in California.
But I want to remind you that, for example, the question of the
two-week extension that the President provided to have forced sales of
energy and natural gas, electricity and natural gas from other Western
states to California, is not a one-way street. By providing that from
the other states, it creates an impact on those other states. It
affects their ability to have energy for their needs within those
states. It's not as if you can just flip on a Western switch and power
California. It has implications for the region as a whole.
The President was pleased to extend that order for two weeks. It
expires tomorrow, and it shall expire tomorrow.
Q: And it will not be extended again?
Q: Has the President changed his thoughts about the importance of
Africa, especially since Colin Powell last week said that Africa is
very important to his agenda. And also, what are the President's
thoughts about the letter from Dick Gephardt and Bill Clay about
renominating Ronnie White?
Mr. Fleischer: On the question of Africa, the President himself
brought that issue up in the meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus
last week and said that Africa will be on the front burner of foreign
policy for him, that it is a priority.
And the question of the nominations, I'm not going to discuss
personnel. The President is aware of the request.
Q: I have a follow-up to the Africa situation. During the second
debate with Gore, he said -- basically he said that Africa wasn't as
important as European countries. So what made him change his thoughts?
Mr. Fleischer: I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of what he
said in the context of that debate. But the President said what he
said last week at the Congressional Black Caucus.
Q: On tax cuts again, you said a couple of moments ago that the
President wants to make sure that everyone gets tax relief?
Mr. Fleischer: Yes.
Q: And that was framed along the idea of making sure the people in the
upper income brackets get income tax relief. But, as people start
talking about this on the Hill, they are going to have to live within
a budget. And, as you know from your time in Congress, those with the
most influence get what they want. And the people with the most
influence tend to be corporations and upper income earners.
What will this President do to ensure that middle and lower income
Americans do get their tax relief as this process goes through on the
Hill?
Mr. Fleischer: Let me dispute the premise of that. I think we have a
rather balanced system, where all Americans get represented in the end
rather fairly. I can cite you a number of pieces of legislation that
were enacted into law. The Welfare Reform of 1996, for example, was
very bipartisan and I think that helped lift up a lot of people in
this country who were suffering and who were poor. And I am not sure
they are the best represented in this town, but that piece of
legislation was, indeed, one of the noblest and most helpful
legislations.
So on that score, what's important is that you have leaders both in
the White House and the Congress who hear the voices of those who are
on the bottom. And that is one of the reasons I want to remind you
that President Bush sent his tax writers back to the drawing board in
the fall of 1999. That's one of the reasons President Bush then took
on the Republican House of Representatives, to fight for the Earned
Income Tax Credit program.
Those are beliefs that are fundamental to President Bush. And, as a
result of that, that's why, frankly, he doubled the child credit from
$500 to $1,000. That disproportionately helps lower income people.
Q: So in the next 180 days, he will do what to ensure that those
people, that as you say he has fought for in the past, get their slice
this time?
Mr. Fleischer: He will fight for his tax plan with everything he can.
Because his tax plan does disproportionately help people at the low
and middle income ends of the scale.
And the reason I say that is any time you cut taxes across the board,
people who pay the most taxes will receive the dollars back generally
in proportion to which they pay. And, as I explained earlier, the top
10 percent of taxpayers in this country pay 65 percent of the income
taxes. The bottom 20 percent of taxpayers in this country pay less
than one percent of all taxes in our society -- the bottom 20 percent
pay less than one percent.
The President wants to still help and protect those bottom 20 percent
and that's why the proposal he sends up there cuts that lower rate
from 15 percent to 10 percent, which was a previously unheard of
notion on Capitol Hill.
Q: So if it comes to a budget crunch and somebody has to go without,
will he fight for the people in the lower income bracket?
Mr. Fleischer: He is going to fight for his proposal, which takes care
of all income tax paying Americans.
Q: Ari, last week you said that the defense budget the President sends
up will be lean. I am wondering by "lean," how that will stack up with
the numbers that President Clinton submitted in his place-holder
budget. Is it going to be more than that, less than that, about the
same?
Mr. Fleischer: The President believes very much that we need to make
certain that America's military is the best in the world and is able
to complete its mission and is very concerned about cutbacks that have
affected the military. And he was looking forward to the Pentagon
completing its review which Secretary Rumsfeld has directed the
Pentagon to begin.
At the end of that process, we will have then a new strategic vision
of what the force structure for the Department of Defense and for our
nation's military will be and at that point, the President will be in
a stronger position, along with Secretary Rumsfeld, to make those
determinations.
Q: But that won't be done in time for your budget submission.
Mr. Fleischer: Correct.
Q: What's your first year plan? Is it going to be the Clinton
placeholder or are you going to ask --
Mr. Fleischer: No, it will be reflective of the President's promise
during the campaign to increase defense spending by approximately $45
billion, where that extra money goes to give military men and women a
pay increase and to improve housing. The rest of it will be determined
by the force structure review and the president looks forward to
working with the Secretary on that.
But that is also part, I think, of a wise approach to budgeting.
Identify first what the strategic needs are. Once you've identified
the strategic needs, then work directly and closely with your Cabinet
secretaries to have the exact dollar amount required to fill out those
needs.
Q: Ari, can you clarify something on retroactivity? The President said
today he is for it. Is he going to formally propose it on Thursday?
Will that be in --
Mr. Fleischer: No, the proposal he will make Thursday will mirror the
proposal he made during the course of the campaign. And as he
indicated today, he will work with members of Congress on the question
of retroactivity. He supports it.
Q: So he's for it but he's not going to propose it?
Mr. Fleischer: That's correct. He is going to propose the plan on
which he ran. But, just like on education, we made some minor
modifications to the education package because of some of the things
he heard on the Hill. He has shown a willingness to work with members
of Congress on both parties on all his proposals. And you are going to
continue to see that.
He is going to fight for the package that he proposed in the campaign,
the core principles in it, and we are going to work with the Congress.
Q: Ari, the President said or you said the President believes that the
surplus is the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Fleischer: Correct.
Q: But that raises the question of whose money is the debt.
Presumably, any delay in paying off the debt continues the obligation
of future taxpayers to pay, you know, for the borrowings made now and
in the previous years. So how does he resolve that, you know, moral
question?
Mr. Fleischer: And that's exactly why the President's proposal pays
down debt as well. Under the President's plan, and actually over the
last three years, debt has been paid down by $600 billion. The budget
the President will send to the Congress will continue that pattern of
paying down the debt and, until we are able to enact a Social Security
reform, which the President is committed to, $2.5 trillion over the
next 10 years of Social Security surplus will be earmarked for debt
reduction. And that also puts us in a stronger position, then, to
reform Social Security, because we will be doing so from a basis of
less debt.
In fact, by some estimations all available debt, even after our tax
cut is enacted, will be paid off by 2006. Virtually the end of his
first term; just after that. And that is --
Q: -- what do you mean --
Mr. Fleischer: All available debt. All available debt. And that's a
reflection of the fact that there are some bonds that are two-year or
three-year issues that are longer-term bonds, and it makes no economic
sense to pay those off before they're due.
What you do is -- the Treasury Department last week announced, for
example, they're no longer going to issue one-year Treasury notes. I
mean, it's just a remarkable event in our economic lives for people
who mark remarkable events by economic things like that.
Q: So this, the publicly held portion of the debt could be paid off by
--
Mr. Fleischer: It's all available public portion of the debt. And
again, all available meaning that it just makes no economic sense to
prepay bonds, to snatch bonds out of the hands of the people who
invested in them, before they're due.
Q: Ari, do you have a number for that publicly held debt that you're
talking about?
Mr. Fleischer: Check the CBO books. Or OMB will have it, too, at the
time.
Q: The administration has said repeatedly that it's not going to get
involved or interfere in the election. But is President Bush
consulting with foreign policy advisors about different scenarios that
could emerge after tomorrow's election?
Mr. Fleischer: He's always talking with his foreign policy advisors.
He met with Secretary Powell this morning, for example. But I'm not
going to indicate anything beyond that, obviously, the election takes
place tomorrow.
Q: Ari, you had said two weeks ago that the administration was going
to keep its promise and move the embassy to Jerusalem. Secretary
Powell yesterday suggested that's on hold. How long is that on hold
for?
Mr. Fleischer: I think what the Secretary said is that the process is
beginning, and the process is going to be cognizant of the realities
of the situation in the Middle East. And the President has indicated
that he has asked General Powell, Secretary Powell to take a look at
this matter and begin the process.
Q: Ari, you have repeatedly responded to our questions about the
vandalism of White House offices and the looting of Air Force One
discovered on January the 20th by directing us to look forward rather
than backward, because, quote, "it's all over." But on February the
2nd, there was deafening Republicans applause when the President said,
just don't take any silverware. Now that the President has justified
our inquiry into the January 21st past, can you, looking to the future
as you've asked, can you assure us that in 2005 or 2009 when you
leave, there will be no such vandalizing or looting of Air Force One?
Mr. Fleischer: You can check my pockets now if you would like.
Let me look into the past for a moment. When the President made that
remark -- that's a remark, for those of you who covered the campaign,
you've heard it many times prior in Austin, as people visited the
governor's mansion. It's one of his favorite things to say.
Q: But there was silverware on Air Force One, though, Larry.
Q: Larry?
Q: He must have known there was silverware on Air Force One, didn't
he, that was missing?
Mr. Fleischer: I would remind you that silverware existed before Air
Force One existed.
Q: In response to the question about the defense budget, you seem to
be saying it'll be Clinton plus $45 billion. Did I hear you right?
Mr. Fleischer: The President proposed increasing defense spending by
$45 billion during the course of the campaign above baseline.
Q: Right. And the question was, will that be on top of what Clinton
proposed? And you seem to be saying --
Mr. Fleischer: Well, above baseline. We will begin, of course, with
this year's budget submission being a new submission, baseline will be
the marker.
Q: So it would be this year plus $45 billion?
Mr. Fleischer: If that's baseline, that's correct.
Q: Ari, there are all kinds of reports that the administration is
worried from violence after the Israeli elections. How is the
administration going to deal with the situation in the Middle East
immediately after the elections?
Mr. Fleischer: The United States will remain engaged in the peace
process and being a helpful partner to secure peace in the region, and
will continue to maintain the position of any agreement that is
reached by -- the parties in the Middle East, we will support.
Q: Given the President's efforts to change the tone of politics in
Washington, was he at all disappointed with the tone of Terry
McAuliffe's acceptance speech at the DNC on the weekend?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, I would have to say that I thought those remarks
were disappointing. I think that it is incumbent on all people and all
parties, even those who occupy the party posts, which are normally the
most vociferous, to recognize that a new beginning is starting here in
Washington.
There is an old Washington, and that old Washington is often marked by
rancor and division and partisanship, which leads to gridlock.
President Bush is endeavoring to create a new Washington, and that new
Washington should be marked, in the President's opinion, by principled
disagreements and by civility. And that extends even to the heads of
the parties.
Q: He thought his remarks were not principled and were uncivil?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, I think that continuing to question the
legitimacy of an election that I'm not certain that even the Democrats
in the Congress would share that point of view is not a wise way to
begin tenure.
Q: Is it uncivil or unprincipled?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, I just think again it's disappointing. Our nation
has spoken and President Bush is the nation's President.
Q: Can you guarantee that the RNC Chairman will not engage in any such
partisan remarks?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, again, I said there is a role to be played, and
each of the party leaders does occupy the position to be the most
voluable in politics, which is proper. And that's their job.
But again, the new Washington the President is seeking to create is
going to try to tone that down, to create more civility and less
rancor. It will happen. It will happen from all parties, from time to
time. We can't stop it. What we can try to do is diminish it. And the
President addressed this question, frankly, in his National Prayer
Breakfast remarks, when he talked about civility. And he said it in
those remarks last Thursday that we can't make it go away overnight.
There are many things we can't ever make it go away. But we can try to
do less of it.
Q: Sorry, another question on the tax cut. In his remarks a couple of
weeks ago, Chairman Greenspan made a special point of urging members
of the Finance Committee to try to create some kind of mechanism for a
trigger that would suspend tax cuts if these extraordinary surplus
projections did not come to pass. Will there be anything in the
legislation that the President sends to Capitol Hill on Thursday on
that topic?
Mr. Fleischer: Let me remind you that Chairman Greenspan's remarks
applied to tax cuts and spending. That's what he said.
Q: But he said specifically suspend a tax cut.
Mr. Fleischer: He said for both spending and tax cuts. I think the
point he was making is, this town has often spent money, and he
prefers to see a trigger, as he said, on that. He did say that applied
to tax cuts as well. But it applied both ways.
But the President's position is that is important to enact tax cuts,
to enact tax cuts based on the best, most accurate, reliable forecasts
that we have. And that's where his focus will be.
Q: Did the President communicate to the RNC Chairman Gilmore his
desire to reduce his rancor? I mean, did he personally express that,
because the RNC did take a leading role during the Clinton
administration.
Mr. Fleischer: I think there's hardly anybody in this town who hasn't
heard the President say that. And I would remind you at a fundraiser
last year, at the Armory here in Washington, with some of the most
influential Republicans in town, the President delivered those remarks
too, and told everybody we need to tone that down. That's a message --
he's not going to shy away from saying that to Democrats or
Republicans.
At the Republican retreat, he had similar words, frankly, that dealt
with the nomination of Senator Ashcroft to Attorney General. The
President said to the Republicans at the joint House-Senate retreat
that we should move beyond this, that he knows that there are many
Republicans who are angry with the Democrats for the manner in which
they treated this nominee. And he said, we should have no
incriminations. We should move forward. And it's going to take time.
It will still happen. Both sides -- there will be instances where
people say things.
And that is part of Washington. And we're not going to be able to make
it go away over night. But I do think it begins with the manner in
which the White House and White House officials comport themselves,
and I do think you're seeing it start to spread. Hopefully it will be
contagious, and we'll see how far we can take them.
Q: There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not some of the
gifts that the Clintons took from the White House were intended for
the White House itself or for the Clintons themselves. What is the
White House doing to try to resolve this confusion? The President said
he'll wait to see the facts as they come out. Who is collecting those
facts and when will they come out, and what is the White House
position on that?
Mr. Fleischer: The President did address that earlier today. I would
refer you to his remarks. I know that the former President's staff has
been in touch with the Curator's Office here and I know that the
Curator's Office will be helpful in trying to help the former
President to ascertain what it is they need.
Q: Is the Curator's Office empowered by you or someone at the White
House to answer questions? Because when we call and ask and they refer
you to your office, who refers us back to the Curator's Office.
Mr. Fleischer: We will try to fix that infinite loop. We will try to
be helpful to you on that.
Q: Ari, you talked about the possible missile attacks by rogue states
in the context of a national missile defense. Is North Korea one of
those rogue states you have in mind? Does this administration still
call North Korea a rogue states?
Mr. Fleischer: I am not going to go down and start delineating states.
The President's concern is general.
Q: There has been a certain amount of vagueness to some of the
proposals that you guys have --
Mr. Fleischer: A certain amount of what?
Q: Vagueness.
Mr. Fleischer: Vagueness?
Q: There hasn't been specific legislative language attached to them,
necessarily. And I was wondering if what you are sending up on
Thursday is an actual bill or it's just a series of proposals?
Mr. Fleischer: Let me remind you that, seldom does the President send
up to the Hill bill language. That is traditionally the job of the
Congress to take proposals and put them into legislative language with
all the subsections and all the little symbols that very few people
understand what they mean.
Presidents traditionally send up detailed specifics, which is what we
did on the education proposal the President made. It was very
detailed; and on the faith-based proposal the President made. And that
is the pattern we will continue; you will see that on Thursday. And
there will be a lot of specificity to it.
But legislative bill language? No, we're not going to do that now.
Q: Yesterday, Secretary Powell said that he considered AIDS to be a
national security issue and concern, presumably from the foreign
policy aspect. Has the President decided to either raise or lower the
AIDS budget for developing countries such as Africa, or even
domestically, compared to the Clinton budget?
Mr. Fleischer: That will be a line item that will get worked out much
closer to submission of the actual line items in April. That was an
issue that the President had again himself brought up in the meeting
with the Congressional Black Caucus and he discussed the problem of
AIDS. In that case, he brought up the problem of AIDS in regard to
Africa and some of the successful AIDS programs that are under way in
that continent.
Q: Does he plan to name an AIDS coordinator, a post that's existed in
previous administrations?
Mr. Fleischer: I am still trying to review the information about that
office, as well as a couple other offices. We talked about that
before. I have nothing further yet.
Q: How much flexibility will the White House have toward possibly
increasing the size of the tax cut and at what point would the tax cut
become so large that it would either be economically harmful or would
be fiscally irresponsible?
Mr. Fleischer: As you know, the process begins this week when the
President sends his plan up to Congress and we are going to focus on
fighting for that proposal that the President is going to make. I
think that might be a question to ask sometime down the road if it
comes to that point. You know, perhaps, the Congress will adhere very
closely to what the President has suggested.
Q: Not that you have even sent the plan up to the Hill yet but you
still haven't fully answered where the transition costs for
privatizing Social Security is going to come from in all of this. You
said general revenue, but --
Mr. Fleischer: I think you should wait until we move forward on Social
Security.
Q: Where do you get the extra $1 trillion?
Mr. Fleischer: Let's wait until we move forward on Social Security.
Q: Ari, the Canadians have expressed some opposition to the missile
defense plan, and also to drilling in Alaska. Are those going to be
the primary topics of the President's meeting with Chretien this
evening? Or is he going to steer the conversation more towards
expanding free trade?
Mr. Fleischer: I think the meeting is an early opportunity for them to
get to know each other, a two world leaders' get-acquainted session.
You will have a readout later tonight, and so you'll have some
indications about the types of things that were discussed, so I don't
want to preview that. But I think trade is very important with Canada,
the upcoming Summit of the Americas, which will be in Quebec from
April 20th to 22nd. Surely I think -- I would advise you to wait and
then you'll get a readout tonight, and have a better report.
Q: What do you say to the Canadian officials who say they felt kind of
slighted that he was traveling to Mexico first?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, I think the Canadian government is very pleased
that Prime Minister Chretien will be here for this first visit. And
frankly, all our discussions with the Canadians have been nothing but
positive, and the President looks forward to the meeting tonight.
Q: On the slight front, why isn't Prime Minister Chretien staying at
Blair House?
Mr. Fleischer: I don't have any information on that. It's a working
visit.
Q: What time is the readout?
Q: That does --
Mr. Fleischer: I think for state visits they typically will stay
there. For working visits there is a lot more variety than that.
Q: -- extended that courtesy?
Mr. Fleischer: I think you do; for working visits, it's of a different
nature.
Q: This is a working visit?
Mr. Fleischer: That's my understanding.
Q: What time is the readout?
Mr. Fleischer: The readout will be after dinner, so it all depends on
how fast they eat their food. So I think -- my best estimate for you
is somewhere between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.
Q: It's not a follow-up to some of the previous questions --
Mr. Fleischer: That's okay, you can have an original.
Q: Okay. It's quite original, I hope. Since last week, Senator
Feingold offered an olive branch by voting for Senator Ashcroft; can
we expect that negotiations on campaign finance will speed up a bit?
Mr. Fleischer: Well, I think the President has made his position
clear, where he stands on campaign finance reform. And he's had a very
good meeting, as you know, with Senator McCain to discuss that. And
we'll just continue to monitor events on the Hill as they warrant, and
move forward to try to get campaign finance reform enacted into law.
The Press: Thank you.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to the Washington File
|
