*EPF201 07/02/2002
Transcript: White House Daily Briefing, July 2
(Bush Milwaukee trip, faith based welfare/CARE Act, International Criminal Court, 4th of July/Bush schedule/security situation) (3560)

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and Jim Towey, the Director of the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives office, answered reporters' questions July 2 on Air Force One as they accompanied the President on a day trip to Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Following is the White House transcript:

(begin transcript)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)

July 2, 2002

PRESS GAGGLE WITH ARI FLEISCHER

Aboard Air Force One En Route Milwaukee, Wisconsin

9:55 A.M. EDT

MR. FLEISCHER: The President had his early morning CIA, FBI briefings before he departed the White House. Then the President will take a tour of a faith-based welfare reform program in Milwaukee, at the Holy Redeemer Institutional Church of God in Christ, and then will depart Milwaukee, return to the White House, where he has various staff meetings and meetings with Cabinet Secretaries.

What I'd like to do at this point is introduce Jim Towey, the Director of the Faith-based office, to you. And the President's remarks today on day two of discussing the importance of compassionate conservative solutions to some of society's social problems will focus on some of the barriers preventing faith-based organizations from getting assistance.

I think you're very familiar with the President's proposals that are being discussed right now in the Congress that have passed the Senate Finance Committee. Progress is being made; hopefully, it will come for a vote in the Senate. But what's really gone unaddressed in this debate is why groups right now aren't getting money. There are some groups that do wonderful work in various communities where you don't have to dig deep to find some of the most amazing counterproductive stories you will hear about groups just getting denied federal aid or discouraged from even applying for federal aid, for the simple reason that they have religious sounding names even.

Let me introduce to you Jim Towey for a second, and then I'll stay to take other questions.

Q: On this topic, can you tell us where the legislation is now and why it's held up in the Senate?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Senate Finance Committee has passed legislation that the President supports that is similar in the goals to the House of Representatives passed legislation on faith-based. We are waiting for floor action in the Senate. Senator Daschle has indicated that he will bring this to the floor. Time is running out in the Senate, however. They have a busy agenda. And the President hopes that this will not be unfinished business in the Senate. He thinks it's too important for the public, particularly for people in need, for it to go undone.

Q: And Daschle is committed to bringing this to the floor?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct, Senator Daschle has committed to bringing this to the floor.

Okay, let me introduce Jim Towey on the record.

MR. TOWEY: The legislation that you referred to, the CARE Act, when it was reported out of Finance, the good news is you've got 25 Senate cosponsors almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Senator Daschle, in a February 15th op-ed in his local newspaper in South Dakota, stated very clearly his support of the legislation. So we're excited about that. This looks like a piece of legislation that actually could move.

Some of the provisions in the bill, of course, there's incentives for charitable giving, which will help particularly in some of the inner-city churches and synagogues, mosques, where some lower-income givers, some of the non-itemizers -- you have 84 million Americans who are non-itemizers. So the Senate bill includes incentives for charitable giving for non-itemizers.

There's also provisions on equal treatment language that you would think on their face would not be necessary, but in the real world they are. If you have a religious name, or if you have governing articles that are faith-oriented, you often can be excluded from even being considered to provide a federal program or federal service, regardless of how effective your programs are.

The Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty in New York City is an example. They do receive some public funds, but they found that with certain agencies, they just quit trying because they were told you had Jewish in your name, and therefore, you weren't eligible to apply.

There are some federal regs that exist that prohibit religious affiliated organizations from even applying. And so what President Bush I think has said is, we should judge these programs on their effectiveness, whether they're turning lives around, whether they're providing good services, and not simply look at whether they have a religious name or title.

Lutheran Social Services in South Dakota, they had their application kicked back because they had a mission statement that was faith-based in it. It didn't have anything to do with the service they were going to provide, it simply had to do with the fact this is who we are. And I think President Bush is saying, through the CARE Act legislation and through the faith-based legislation that cleared the House, we can change that and make it clear that a religious name or title or governing articles is not going to be a barrier for you to be considered.

And so I think what the President has talked about is having a faith-friendly public square, not a faith-favored public square; one where people are welcome to apply, and let the best program win.

Q: What was the Lutheran group -- what service were they trying to provide? Do you remember?

MR. TOWEY: Oh, gosh, I'm going to have to get back to you on it. I've got the notes in my office. It was a $6,000 grant. It wasn't a big program. But even on that, they -- and they ended up resubmitting and changing their papers to comply with the government request, which -- but then there's St. Francis Home, another example, a shelter in South Dakota, $65,000 HUD grant. Secretary Martinez actually sent a letter to clarify it. But they had offered a voluntary prayer -- it was voluntary, and it was, like, 30 seconds, a minute, something like that.

So you see there's a lot of places where it's not even fundamental to the service being provided that groups have been excluded from being able to even offer programs. So I think the President wants to make sure that the playing field is level.

Q: What exactly would the equal treatment provisions in the Senate Finance Committee passed version do?

MR. TOWEY: It would state that you are not to be excluded from consideration to provide a federal service because you have a religious name or faith-based governing articles. So if your board of directors are all Jewish, or they're all Baptist, or Catholic, that's not a barrier. What you are going to be, of course, expected to do is provide the federal service, not to promote religious belief or practice, but to provide the service for what you're seeking federal funds. It might be job-training services.

What you'll see at the Holy Redeemer Church of God in Christ, they provide a range of different programs, many of which are publicly funded. They provide homeless services; they provide senior services; job training. Some of these welfare-to-work programs in the country, when you look at the percentages of -- there's about 7 to 8 percent of the welfare-to-work contracts are going to faith-based organizations.

So what the President is promoting isn't something new. What he wants to do is make sure that the playing field is level and that groups aren't being excluded simply because they're called St. Luke's or Hebrew Home for the Aged.

So the Senate language and the House language would make it clear that just having a religious name is not a barrier. You'd say that's ridiculous, of course, that shouldn't be a barrier, but it is. It exists today. And I think this should provide guidance. And I think Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum, the bill sponsors, have made this clear that this needs to be at the state level and at the federal level, this guidance is important.

What you'll find through these formula grants, the majority of federal Health and Human Service programs are administered through formula grants. What happens is that gets to the state level, and often they set their own rules and guidance. So this is why this -- the CARE Act is so important, is to give that guidance at the state level.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that the American people would be just as shocked to hear that there are barriers to prevent faith-based groups from getting federal aid as they were shocked to hear the ruling of the San Francisco court that struck down the words, "in God we trust." I think there's a similarity, in fact, that the public does believe that the government should be neutral on faith, but it should not discriminate against faith.

MR. TOWEY: We're very encouraged that the Majority Leader Friday began the dialogue and discussion that we hope is going to lead to Senate action. So we're working very hard with the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. I met with nearly all the Finance Committee members, and that passed the committee 15-1. I think that the people present to vote, it was 11-1.

So we're excited that there seems to be such bipartisan support for legislation that could actually now get out. And it's ready now to be brought up on the Senate calendar, so we're excited about that.

Q: What do you understand, if anything, about a potential time frame for bringing the bill up on the Senate floor? Have you had any indications from Senator Daschle?

MR. TOWEY: At the staff level, we are hopeful that Senator Daschle -- when we discussed it with staff we say we're ready and hopeful and we need to move it. Obviously, there's a logjam as you get into the fall, so July is a perfect month for this.

Q: What does the bill represent in terms of the President's original proposal? Is this half a loaf, is this two-thirds of a loaf, three-quarters of a loaf?

MR. TOWEY: We are very encouraged by the CARE Act because it meets most of the principles of what he laid out originally. I'm sure the language is different, the non-itemizer deduction, for example, is different in the Senate bill from the House bill. So are other provisions on food donations. But what is -- and the equal treatment language is different from the House's charitable choice language. So there are differences in the bills, but the principles are the same. He wants a faith-friendly public square with the playing fields level, so that groups can compete and that judgments are made on the quality of the services, not on the identity of provider.

Q: -- specifically, if you can, though, between the differences between what will pass if the Senate brings this up and what the President originally proposed several months ago? What did you have to give up to get this far?

MR. TOWEY: When you say specifically -- the President laid out principles. I can get you a checklist of what were the principles of his faith-based initiative.

Q: -- in general what those were, but what specific provisions --

MR. TOWEY: He wanted to make sure that non-itemizers could have some of their charitable contributions deducted. That's in the House bill. It's at one level -- they phase it in over 10 years. The Senate approach is different. They have a ceiling and a floor. So when you say, is that the President's plan -- he wants to see non-itemizers have their deductions -- get some credit for their charitable contribution. So that's met.

IRA rollover is another example. The President wanted to see that money from IRAs could be rolled over into a charity without tax consequence. That's in both bills. We're excited about that. He wanted to have language that would treat faith-based organizations fairly, equally; there's language in the House bill, language in the Senate bill.

So we're excited that the provisions -- the House bill that was passed a year ago is different from what's being considered in the Senate, but the fact is both bills are furthering what President Bush laid out early on. And obviously, they'll have to reconcile the different versions between the Senate and the House bill, but the President feels this can get to his desk this year. And there's a charity crisis -- he's documented this. There's been a huge increase in demand for services.

When you go to certain cities and ask them, what's it like now on your waiting list for your food pantry, for example, talk to the food pantry people in the country -- 75 percent of the food distribution through food pantry's emergency food distribution are faith-based organizations -- 75 percent of them. And you ask what it's like now. Call up America's Second Harvest out of Chicago. Ask Bob Forney what it's like -- huge increase in demand.

So this CARE Act would immediately give some -- there's food donation provisions in there that would help; they want it. Hundreds of millions of dollars in relief.

Q: Can the President live with the Senate Finance Committee passed version?

MR. TOWEY: What do you mean? He'd love to see --

Q: Would he sign that? Would he sign that?

MR. TOWEY: Oh, into law?

Q: Yes, if that version came -- not the House version, but that version.

MR. TOWEY: Where I think the President is right now, and Ari can correct me, is he wants to get the bill through the Senate --

MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, anything that's moving through the process the President lets the process work. He wants it to get to conference and bring people together to get it done. He doesn't tip his hand before the conference, but he's encouraged by both the House and the Senate's progress.

All right.

Q: Can we ask you about something else -- just the ICC that's coming up -- that's coming up at midnight tomorrow. Is there any movement or progress? And also can you say whether the President is sort of very actively monitoring this or whether he's involved in resolving this?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's being discussed actively at numerous levels, led by State and Ambassador Negroponte, of course, has been involved through the U.N. It's a very important issue that the President thinks is a vital matter of principle, to protect American servicemen and women and peacekeepers. We are involved deeply, globally, and the United States has a lot at risk. And so it's an important issue. These are difficult talks, and it's impossible to predict what their outcome will be.

Q: What about skeptics who say that this is a pretext to get out of a lot of these far-flung peacekeeping missions and sort of get back to the President's campaign stance, which was maybe to pull some of these guys back?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely not. This is on the merits of the trouble that the United States sees for men and women who serve our country abroad. The President's message about peacekeeping is something that he reiterates, and you see his actions where he says, we came in together, we'll go out together in Kosovo, for example. The President has been clear about that. This, however, is separate and apart from the President's broad belief about peacekeeping missions and the United States role. This is a threat to America's involvement to be peacekeepers and to help around the world, as the President sees fit.

Q: How does the President respond to the accusation that he's trying to set up one set of special rules for the United States and exclude America from the rules that the rest of the world had to abide?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants a level playing field, because those other nations that are signatories to the ICC and are participating under its purview have negotiated similar immunities for their personnel.

Q: What are some of those nations -- I'm sorry?

MR. FLEISCHER: What are the specific nations?

Q: Yes.

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me look something up before I give you two nations that are on the tip of my tongue; I want to make certain it's accurate.

Q: -- they've negotiated immunities for their peacekeepers?

MR. FLEISCHER: What happens is the participatory nations under the ICC, as participatory nations, have negotiated their own series of immunities for their personnel. So we're not asking for anything that's very different from what they themselves are granted.

The risk Americans face is because we are not a participating nation under the ICC. We have not gotten the same protections that these other nations have gotten.

Q: Why not become a participatory nation and, therefore, get those protections?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because we think the ICC is fundamentally flawed. And so, too, did President Clinton when he said -- when he signed it. And the point in signing it, according to President Clinton, was to negotiate changes to it. Those changes were not agreed to by the ICC. And Congress, in an overwhelming bipartisan nature, opposes United States participation.

Q: Can you say in one sentence why it is, in your view, fundamentally flawed?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks the ICC is fundamentally flawed because it puts American servicemen and women at fundamental risk of being tried by an entity that is beyond America's reach, beyond America's laws, and can subject American civilian and military to arbitrary standards of justice.

Q: Do you worry that some of those nations might harbor anti-American biases that would -- for example, if a soldier, American soldier got picked up, that these biases would come into play against that soldier?

MR. FLEISCHER: There's a clear worry about American -- protecting America's servicemen and women and American sovereignty.

Q: Ari, just looking ahead to the 4th of July, after the President's trip to West Virginia, do you expect him to watch the fireworks, as usual, from the South Lawn, or from the balcony?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the President will be -- there will be a gathering on the South Lawn, and the President will likely watch it from the balcony.

Q: Was that a private gathering on the South Lawn?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's the tradition of the White House opening up to various government workers. We rotate it around. Remember, we started last year, and it's smaller than it had been in previous years. So we're doing it the same way we did it last year, which is a rotation of those people who work in the Executive Branch who get invited to watch from the South Lawn.

Q: Where is he going to be did you say?

MR. FLEISCHER: Most likely on the balcony.

Q: By the residence, the top one?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know which level of balcony.

Q: Has the administration received anything other than the vague unsubstantiated threats of potential problems on July 4th?

MR. FLEISCHER: There's no change in the security situation. It remains a time of celebration and vigilance. The American people, unfortunately, have become familiar with enhanced security setups for large public gatherings. And it's something the American people have seen before; they will see it again on July 4th. Local law enforcement will be more vigilant; the American people are asked to be more vigilant. The American people are also asked to celebrate their nation's independence as a time of celebration, and it should be.

Q: Still no change in the threat status?

MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.

Q: Is it possible to elevate the threat level in particular localities? For example, could it be increased in New York and not elsewhere?

MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly at the time that the color-coded system was announced, it was indicated at that time, and remains in place, that you could have a national level of one color and, as a result of regional issues, you could have it heightened.

For example, in the Super Bowl the nation was on a yellow alert. The New Orleans area, of course, the Utah area during the Olympics was on a much more elevated status of alert.

Q: To your knowledge, is there any elevation of status for any other -- for any locality?

MR. FLEISCHER: No.

Q: -- also elevated or decrease for different parts of the -- for different parts of the market, for nuclear plants or for -- is there any change in that, as well?

MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing that has crossed my attention?

Q: -- yellow across the board?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's the last report I have.

Q: Last report as of when?

MR. FLEISCHER: This morning.

All right? Thank you all.

Q: What are those nations that are signatories that have cut their own deals? Can you get that for us?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'll make a quick phone call on that right now.

Q: They are members of the ICC --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's Britain and France. I want to be accurate.

(end White House transcript)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents