For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 13, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Upcoming Visit of President de la Rua of Argentina
- Personnel
Announcements
- John Ashcroft
Swear-In
- Accident in
Kuwait
- FERC
- Airlines/Ergonomics/Executive Orders
- Stock
Market/Budget/Tax Cuts
- Projected Annual
Growth Rate/Revenue
- Public's Understanding of Policy
- Last Thursday's House
Vote
- Secretary Rumsfeld/Black
Berets
- President's Meeting with Prime Minister Mori of Japan
- Presidential
Pardon Probe
- Russia-Iran Arms
Deals/Missile Defense
- Party
Ad/Kennedys
- Consumer
Confidence
- Faith-Based
Initiatives
- Senator Domenici's
Comments
12:22 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. A few announcements to
begin today.
The
President has invited President Fernando de la Rua to meet with him at
the White House on April 19th, the President of
Argentina. The President welcomes a working visit with the
President just in advance of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec
City. The United States and Argentina share a broad agenda
of common interests and values in the hemisphere and beyond, and the
President looks forward to reviewing ways to strengthen cooperation in
pursuit of common goals.
We have
four personnel announcements to make today. The President
intends to nominate Roy Bernardi to be Assistant Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development for Community Planning and
Development. The President intends to nominate William James
Haynes to be General Counsel at the Department of
Defense. The President intends to nominate Victoria Clarke
to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; that's Tori
Clarke.
The
President intends to nominate Michael Chertoff to be Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division at the Department of
Justice. And paper will shortly follow.
I see
April's hand is up first.
Q Ari,
there's closed press today for Ashcroft's ceremonial
swearing-in. But with this controversial swearing-in, there
seems to be some question about if a procedure that he's had done
before will be done at this event -- the anointing of oil, as he's
sworn-in. Is that --
MR.
FLEISCHER: No such procedure today.
Q Do
you know if it happened at his last swearing-in, the official
swearing-in?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Do not know.
Q Does
the United States plan to offer any compensation, not just for the
Americans killed, but the New Zealander killed in Kuwait, and any sort
of apology to the New Zealand government?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The Department of Defense has been in contact
with the government of New Zealand on this matter, and they expressed
the opinions of the government yesterday, informed them of the news,
and that's all I have to report for now.
Q But
is it standard procedure to offer any compensation to foreigners --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Mary Ellen, do you want to say anything?
MS.
COUNTRYMAN: Yes. Also, the Charge of the Embassy
in New Zealand sent a letter of condolences to the New Zealand
government.
Q What
about compensation?
MS.
COUNTRYMAN: I don't --
MR.
FLEISCHER: There's been no such discussion.
Q Ari,
does the President have confidence in the current leadership at FERC,
or is he considering making a change?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Ken, as you know, that's a matter dealing with
personnel and I won't speculate about any potential personnel
announcements.
Q Ari,
is the President or the White House concerned that it might be living
up to the stereotyped image of Republicans as pro-business and
anti-labor? I ask that because of the ergonomics rollback
and the position on the airlines, and now it's been reported that a
group of Republicans in Congress have sent a letter to the President
asking him to -- or expressing protest about the ruling on government
contracting and bad executive orders --
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's position is the government should
not tilt either toward organized labor or away. The
government should be neutral. And the President's executive
orders are aimed at creating neutrality in government
contracting. That is the purpose of the executive orders the
President signed earlier this year. That's the purpose of
the actions he took.
As for the
airline strike, particularly dealing with Northwest where the President
honored his commitment which he expressed some 30 days ago that he
would appoint a Presidential Emergency Board upon the recommendation of
the National Mediation Board, the President's concern is that the
traveling public not be disrupted and that the economy, particularly in
this fragile time, not be given any additional setbacks. So the
President's positions have been focused on a broader community of the
traveling public, protecting the economy, and the cause of neutrality
in government contracting.
Q How
is it staying neutral if he made Northwest Airlines employees go back
to work?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, under the terms of the bipartisan act which
creates -- which gave the President the authority to create a
presidential emergency board, upon recommendations from the national
mediation board, the President has that authority, and he invoked
it. The neutrality applied to the executive orders that the
President signed earlier. What I just indicated was that the
President has appointed the presidential emergency board to protect the
traveling public, and to prevent harm to the economy. Two
separate issues.
Q And
the President made pretty clear when he announced that decision that he
was going -- not that he did not want to see the traveling public
disrupted by other airline strikes.
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q He's
ready to use the same weapon on behalf of management, against labor, no
matter what the circumstances of those other negotiations are in the
airline sector, isn't that true?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Number one, the national mediation board must
first recommend to the President the appointment of a presidential
emergency board. Without that recommendation from the NMB,
the President does not have the authority to act in the manner in which
you just described.
But the
President is indeed concerned about four major airline strikes
crippling the economy and the traveling public. He expressed
his concerns. He does not think four airlines striking at
the same time or any number of those airlines striking would serve the
public well or the economy well. And he's prepared to act if
he has the authority to act.
Q So
if you work in a union that's having a dispute with an airline, you can
pretty much forget strike -- striking as an aspect of your negotiating
posture, because the President's going to stop you from doing it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, Terry, that's a misread of the
law. The law, which again, is bipartisan, provides for a
cooling off period, in the event of an impasse. And
certainly, in the case of the Northwestern strike, there was a
multi-year impasse. The parties were not able to reach any
type of agreement, which is why the National Mediation Board, a group
of experts set up to bring people together, recommended to the
President that he take the exact action that the President
took. The parties were unable to reach an agreement, and an
impasse had been reach, and to protect the public, the mediation board
gave the President the recommendation it did.
Now, what
the President is making unequivocally clear is that he is concerned
about the impact of these strikes on the traveling public and on the
economy, and if the National Mediation Board acts again, he will take
the same steps, which means, a cooling off period. After the
law -- the number of days allowed under the law for a cooling off
period is fulfilled, then of course either the Congress can step in or
the parties are free to act.
Q Does
he have any other options past the 60-day cooling off period?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President does not; the Congress does.
Q Ari,
an interesting day on the markets yesterday, and immediately reactions
from sort of both sides on the tax cut debate. Some
Republicans say you need bigger tax cuts with more pro-business
incentives, to spur the economy. Democrats say turmoil in
the markets show you can't base this on 10-year surplus projections,
and you need a smaller, more cautious tax cut. Interested in
your thoughts on how market turmoil affects not only the math of the
tax cut debate, but the politics and the psychology of it.
MR.
FLEISCHER: In terms of the math of the debate, let me take
that first. The budget that the President submitted to the
Hill is an extremely conservative budget in its
projections. It breaks with several trends, in terms of
underestimating the amount of revenue coming into the government,
compared to the way it's been done before. By most
estimates, the amount of money coming in will exceed what we have
projected, even given the recent economic weakness.
The
President, last Monday -- I believe it was Monday -- at the Department
of the Treasury announced that revenues for this year are so far coming
in at $32 billion higher than last year, even with a significant
decline in economic growth. So that underscores what the
President said about the conservative nature of the estimates in his
budget. And that underscores why the President is confident
that the estimates that he has projected will indeed be
realized. And if there's going to be a mistake, the
likelihood is a mistake will be made on the other side of the scale,
that more revenue will come in.
The
President has cited before weaknesses in the economy, the statistics
about weaknesses in the economy, the effect on real people who are
touched by this in terms of jobs, in terms of economic security, and
that's one more reason why the President thinks it is so important for
Congress to pass what he has called his economic recovery plan.
The
President believes that the best way we can help the economy is for the
Congress to pass his budget plan and his tax plan.
Q On
that subject, though, the President has said repeatedly he wants this
plan. It's just right, no add-ons. I wonder what
the President thinks when, yesterday, he sees someone like Dick Armey
from the leader of his own party in the House, or second, right there,
you know, proposing add-ons. Does he regard that as sabotage
or as unhelpful, or is he a stalking horse?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He regards it as something he's heard before in
private meetings where he has said in public what he has said in
public: which is, he believes that the best proposal is the proposal
he made, which is across-the-board tax relief that he has announced --
double on the child credit, elimination of death taxes, reduction of
the marriage penalty. That's the proposal the President made, that's
the proposal he thinks will help the economy best.
In several
of these private meetings, the President has talked about the need for
capital formation, and that's one reason why he wanted to have a
reduction in marginal income tax rates. And members brought
up some capital gains taxes. The President has made clear
that he thinks we should take care of the people first and enact a tax
plan that he has proposed before we consider any other
provisions. And he has addressed that message to Democrats
and Republicans alike.
Q Does
he regard that they're in defiance of what he's trying to accomplish,
members of his own party?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. He understands perfectly well that
it is the prerogative of members of Congress to give suggestions and
actually to take up the legislation. But he's making his
point of view perfectly clear, too. He's very respectful of
those who offer suggestions. He has said that his job is to
listen to the 100 various voices that we're hearing from in the
Senate. Everybody has a different suggestion.
In the end,
he's going to continue to fight for the plan he's proposed, and he's
confident it's going to come out very much his way.
Q Ari,
you used the term "weaknesses in the economy" in response to John
King's question about the market. Are you saying that what happened
yesterday in the market is a reflection of economic weakness?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm describing the President's approach overall
to his budget proposals and what he views and has viewed for months as
signs of weakness in the economy. I'm not going to speculate
about the causes of markets going up or down; I'm not qualified to do
that. Very few people are.
Q What
does what happened in the market tell us about the economy?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, I'm not going to judge what market
fluctuations mean or don't mean. That's not the job of a
government official.
Q Why
did he use the term "economic weakness" in responding to that question
and others this morning about the market --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because the President believes that the best way
to address several of the signs of economic weakness that we have seen
is for the Congress to pass his budget and tax plan. The
President has been very obvious and direct on that.
Q Ari,
are you saying you can't diagnose the state of the economy, but you can
certainly say unequivocally that this tax cut particularly will provide
a stimulative effect to the economy. What kind of numbers
are we talking about? Because $1.6 trillion is really not
relevant to what's happening today this year.
If
retroactivity happens, as you support it, as the President supports it,
what's the dollar figure of the impact on the economy this year in
terms of how much money would go back to taxpayers this year?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's a combination of factors. One,
it's the immediate impetus of having more money in your pocket as a
consumer, and knowing that each year, every year in the future, you
will have more money. That way, families can make longer-term
investment decisions, longer-term savings decisions, longer-term
education decisions.
They can
also know, comfortably, as a result of a tax cut that is permanent,
that is not put in a straightjacket, for example, by any type of
trigger mechanism, that they will be able to count on having more money
in their paycheck each and every pay period, and that allows people to
take vacations, it allows consumers to make purchases, all of which
strengthens the economy.
So there is
the immediate short-term help as a result of the retroactivity; the
longer-term knowledge that a consumer has they can count on that money
every paycheck.
Q It's
a dollar figure this year.
MR.
FLEISCHER: We're still working with the Congress on what
that figure is. You would have to take a look at --
Q What
do you think of it? You guys have already looked at it.
MR.
FLEISCHER: You would have to take a look at what Ways and
Means passed. They have -- the House passed a retroactive
provision; I don't know the number off the top of my head about what
Ways and Means and the House passed, but obviously it was retroactive
back to January 1st, and the President thinks that's helpful.
Q The
budget that you've proposed you said has conservative estimates of
approximately, what, 3 percent growth annually? Is that
correct -- 2.8 percent?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The growth estimates are conservative in --
Q But
they are what, about 2.83 percent? Something like that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, it's lower than that, Jay. In 2001
or 2002, the estimates were about 2.4 percent to 2.2 percent, and that,
I think, it was 3.1 percent, which is lower than blue chip for the
out-years. But the other cause -- it's not the growth that
is where you're going to find the conservative estimate --
Q Can
I just ask you, is it not true that the average -- and even this year's
or next year's projected annual growth rate -- is higher for every year
annually for the next 10 years than an economist would expect growth to
be this year? So, isn't it ironic when you're talking about
conservative projections that the year you want to pass this budget,
you're going to have anemic economic growth, more anemic than any year
your conservative estimates project for the next 10 years?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not sure I understand your
question. You're saying are they having different estimates
for this year or next year? Of course.
Q Very
few economists expect growth of 2.4 percent for this year, given the
state of the economy now. And yet, your budget projects
average growth above 2.4 percent, closer to 3 percent.
MR.
FLEISCHER: If you want to have additional information on the
source of the conservatism in there, which is what your question was,
what you want to look at is the projection of revenues that are coming
in. And the amount of revenue growth that this budget builds
into it is less than economic growth. That's a departure
from the way previous budgets were done.
That's the
source of the conservative estimate. That's more important
than the estimate of economic growth because -- the question is, are
you accurately estimating the size of the surplus? Does the
President's budget accurately, as best government estimators can do,
estimate the size of the surplus? What you want to look at
are revenues --
Q --
economic growth?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The revenues that we've anticipated coming in lag
behind economic growth. That's the source of the
conservative estimates in this budget. That's the reason
that the President feels the budget he's sent up there, if anything,
will err on the conservative side. It's deeper than just the
economic growth question; it deals with revenue projection questions.
Q Okay. But
then, if we have anemic growth, then even if the lagging indicated,
then we'll have more anemic surplus revenues in the future.
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. Exactly the opposite because of
what I just said about the way they've estimated
revenues. Now, we can turn this into an estimating seminar,
but again, the proof is in the pudding. For the first four
months of this fiscal year, despite the fact that economic growth is
less than originally thought, revenues are coming in at almost twice
what they did last year, despite growth being a great slump from last
year. And that's again, if you underestimate revenue, which
is what our budget likely has done, you're building in a very strong
cushion of conservative economic projections.
Q Ari,
a question to follow up. Do you believe that the American
public fully understands the budget, tax and surplus proposals that --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the American public fully understands
everything that is discussed in this room.
Q No,
no, not discussing -- (laughter.) --
Q Do
you think that the American public fully understands the President's
budget proposal, his tax cut and his plans for the surplus?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I don't know what your definition of fully
understands is. I can tell you that the President, when he
travels across the country and hears the sounds of the voters out
there, he's very encouraged by the reaction the American people have
given to his budget plans and his tax plans. He views it as
a very helpful step in the direction of sending a signal to the
Congress that the Congress needs to support this plan.
There's
been a series of recent data suggesting that the American people are
increasingly supportive of the President's budget and tax plans, his
tax-cutting priorities, because the American people see that he's
funding government priorities like Medicare and Social Security, that
he's paying down all the available debt, improving education, and after
those priorities are met, the President reduces the tax burden.
And I think
that approach has been well supported by the American
people. And with every passing day, there are increasing
signs that the American people are rallying behind the President's
position.
Q Let
me ask my follow-up, if I could. What's the President's
overall assessment of the economic fundamentals? And are
people right to be gloomy about the long-term prospects of this
economy, or is what we're looking at now a short term downward trend,
in his estimation?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's a question on which economists have
differed. And the President -- that's another reason why the
President feels so strongly that Congress needs to pass this plan,
including the retroactivity portion, to help boost the economy.
Q I'm
just wondering what his thinking is.
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is not an economist, and does not
make those judgments about long-term/short-term. The
President monitors the events and he is going to continue to focus on
getting the Congress to pass a plan that he believes will benefit the
economy, no matter how long or short any potential down turn
lasts. But clearly, growth has declined, by every measure.
Q But
does he believe that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong,
and productivity, unemployment, some of the other indicators, or does
he believe there's real concerns in the basic fundamentals?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He's keeping his eye on it. Again, I
think the data is -- not all the data is consistent on that point at
this time.
Q The
votes in the House on Thursday were safe, but is the President not
afraid of loosing his allies in the middle, both Republicans and
Democrats, by brushing through the tax cut in the House and also by his
unwillingness to compromise on key issues like the trigger?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Particularly at this time of economic weakness,
the President hopes people will join with him in moving swiftly, so we
can get the economy going again. That's another reason why
the President was pleased that the House moved in the way it did, and
at the speed that it did. It's another reason the President
was heartened to have the support of as many Democrats as voted for
it. So that's how the President approaches that issue.
Q What
are the possible areas for a compromise -- said -- just said, any
trigger is dead on arrival with this President. So the
trigger is off the table?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is going to continue to fight for
the plan that he sent up to the Hill. As the President has
said, there are 100 voices in the Senate. He intends to
listen to them. But the President's going to continue to
fight for what he proposed.
Q Ari,
two weeks ago, an answer to my question about General Shinseki's
ordering Army Ranger -- black berets for everybody in the Army, you
said, the President had asked that this be reviewed. But
last weekend, Secretary Rumsfeld was quoted as saying, I have not asked
the Army to do anything particular about that. My question
-- two part question. Why is the Commander-in-Chief so
reluctant to command on this issue, given the statements of deep
concern on this from Senator Lott and Speaker Hastert, as well as
Senators Miller, Helms and Chairman Warner, who yesterday asked
Rumsfeld for a stand down on this Clinton administration
order? And I have a follow-up.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I'm confident that Secretary Rumsfeld is
looking into this matter. I know that DOD will be
briefing --
Q He
said he's not doing anything, Ari. This is after two weeks.
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's not what he said. The President
has asked the Secretary to look into it. The President knows
the Secretary is.
Q Why
doesn't he command? He's the
Commander-in-Chief. Why can't he command?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because this is a decision that needs to be made
in consultation with the Department of Defense, and to listen to their
input.
Q Was
the President glad or regretful that the purchase of these $25 million
worth of black berets from overseas included Mainland China, and this
was not reported by The New York Times or The Washington Post, who also
refused to cover the rally of Ranger veterans at the Lincoln Memorial
on Saturday. Was he happy about that, or was he sad?
MR.
FLEISCHER: About the Times and Post coverage?
Q Yes. (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: Oh. This is something that DOD is
looking at, and I'll -- Secretary Rumsfeld will be addressing those
questions.
Q If
I could, Ari, I'd like to follow that, because I actually would like to
get a full and uninterrupted, Lester, answer to this. The
President did ask, specifically, Secretary Rumsfeld to look into this,
yes?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q But
Secretary Rumsfeld says he has not ordered a review of the decision.
MR.
FLEISCHER: He said he has not asked the Army to do
so. I think you should allow the Secretary to speak for
himself. The Secretary is aware of -- certainly, he had a
conversation with the President. Because he said he hasn't asked the
Army to is not an indication of what Secretary Rumsfeld is or is not
doing. And as I mentioned, DOD will be briefing this
afternoon and --
Q What
time?
MR.
FLEISCHER: At 1:30 p.m. And the Secretary is well
aware of what the President said.
Q Ari,
why is the President going to meet with Prime Minister Mori of Japan
who is widely expected to step down in the near future?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's a sign of the importance of relations
between the United States and Japan, and it's always important to
receive the Japanese Prime Minister when he's in this country.
Q Are
they going to talk about the future of the bilateral alliance?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm certain they will.
Q Ari,
back on the tax package for a moment. On top of what Dick
Armey said yesterday, there are corporate groups, corporations or
whatever that are swarming all over Capitol Hill, still looking for
some kind of corporate income tax cut. Is the President
still not open to that, or what would you say to them?is?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President believes very strongly that this
tax bill should be for the people and not for business. And
he has made that point clear. He has told members of
Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, privately and said it
publicly, that we should take care of the people first, which is why he
supports a bill that would provide across-the-board income tax relief,
reduce the marriage penalty, eliminate death taxes, et cetera, double
the child credit. That is what he proposed; that is what he
ran on; that's what he believes should be done and that's what he's
going to continue to fight for.
He's aware
of many of the other groups who want to add provisions to it, which
often those groups are able to have a good bipartisan listening-to on
Capitol Hill. But he's also aware that's how bills start to
grow and exceed the limits that he has set. And he is
sending a sign of fiscal discipline not to let that happen.
Q When
does he start threatening a veto?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Not even near that. The House just
passed his plan. If anything, he's getting his pen ready to
sign it.
Q Ari,
so do the business breaks come later?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has said that after this is done,
in subsequent years he's more than prepared to take a look at other
important tax priorities. When he says that those should not
be part of this bill, he's not saying that these ideas, some of them,
are not meritorious; they very well may be. But he is
sending a sign of fiscal discipline that the bill that is before the
Congress now should be limited to the amount that he has set it at,
$1.6 trillion.
Q Was
the President notified or even consulted by the Attorney General prior
to the expansion of the pardon probes?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm certain that through Cabinet Secretary
Affairs the White House was informed. We're always informed
on those matters.
Q Does
he agree with the decision to expand those --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, the matters of the Department of Justice
pursuing criminal investigations are not political
decisions. They should not be made because of or as a result
of support or opposition to the thoughts of the
President. Those are decisions made by career professionals
for their reasons, and it would not be appropriate for the White House
to say, proceed or don't proceed. And that's one of the
reasons that the President chose John Ashcroft to be the Attorney
General, because he has confidence that the decisions made at Justice
will be non-political.
Q Ari,
back on the tax cut for a second --
Q Is
the President planning to pick up the phone or otherwise communicate
with President Putin his displeasure with the Russians helping Iran's
nuclear program? And also, is there anything in the works
for the two of them to meet at the EU?
MR.
FLEISCHER: If there are any phone calls or any meetings,
we'll keep you advised.
Q Can
I follow on that, Ari? Does the President consider that this
agreement between Russia and Iran weakens the Russian position on the
national missile defense, or, conversely, strengthens the need for
one?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, as far as national missile defense goes, of
course, Russia has indicated earlier their support for a missile
defense with Europe. You've heard them talk about that, and
the President was heartened to see that. He believes that's
further indication, as you're seeing from nations around the world,
that the need nations see to develop defensive weapons systems, missile
defense systems. So that's how the President interpreted the
Russian statements previously about missile defense.
I think
that's a separate matter, though, from what you were talking about --
but the President continues to believe in the need for America to
develop a missile defense to protect ourselves and our allies from many
rogue nations that may acquire missile technology that could be harmful
to our interests.
Q Would
Russian technology transferred to Iran make the need for a missile
defense more urgent?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President continues to believe that we need a
missile defense because of threats throughout the world. I'm
not going to comment on any of the specifics of those arms transfers,
but the President continues to believe that in the case of the
proliferation around the world and the threats to our nation and our
allies.
Q The Kennedys have complained, as you know, about this party ad using
JFK. Is the President aware of that criticism? Is
he going to be speaking on this -- members of the family today,
including Senator Kennedy. Is he amenable to telling the party to
scrap the ad?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I haven't talked with the President specifically
about that one ad, but I can tell you that the President is not going
to weigh in on everybody's ads that they do in this
country. There are groups who have ads on the left, groups
who have ads on the right. They don't check with the
President before they run them. The President himself has
cited both Ronald Reagan and former President John Kennedy when they
called for tax relief to get the economy moving again. It's
another reminder of the bipartisan nature of cutting taxes, or it's a
reminder of how taxes can be bipartisan if people want to make it
bipartisan. And the President wants to make it bipartisan.
Q So
if today, if his friend, Senator Kennedy, asks him to weigh in, the
answer will, without any question, be, no, I'm not going to weigh in?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I don't deal with
hypotheticals. If Senator Kennedy raises that, we'll try to
take it up. And if the President has anything to say, I'll
let you know.
Q You've
said a couple times, you've mentioned economic weakness in talking
about the tax cut and the need for it. So has the
President. Earlier, you declined to say that the
fundamentals of the economy were sound. Is there any
concern, given that consumer confidence is partly psychological, that
the statements coming out of this administration are reenforcing the
negative trends in the economy? And do you fear the labeling
of a Bush recession, if that's what we get?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President takes just the opposite view, Jay.
The President believes it would be a failure of leadership for the
White House to put a Pollyanna-ish glow on the economy if the facts
indicated otherwise.
The
President thinks it would not be appropriate to withhold information
from the American public about the state of the economy. And
the President also believes that presidents who are direct, who are
straight and who are forthright with the public serve the public
well. And that's why he has discussed the economy in the
manner that he did.
The
American people want to know what the facts are. It's the
job of government to solve the problems, and that's what the President
is trying to do.
Q John DiIulio's spoke before the Reform Jews this morning about the
faith-based initiative. There seems to be a growing
disagreement, both on the left and the right, with the idea of
discretionary grants and how they're going to be administered.
Do you
think that as the faith-based initiative comes to Congress they're
going to have to break it into pieces? Or how do you
reconcile the sort of controversy -- goes between religious groups
about the nature of proselytization in the awarding of government
grants?
MR.
FLEISCHER: When the President announced this initiative, he
anticipated at that time there would be some elements of controversy
among various groups, without regard to political affiliation, dealing
with issues involving church and state. And he's very
sensitive to that. And that's why he feels so strongly that
this vital program must go forward, and do so in a way that -- for
groups that also offer -- as long as there are secular services also
provided, and for groups that have a separate function set up that does
not proselytize, there should be no bias against them; that these
groups can help solve some of society's most difficult
problems. And that's where his focus is on.
He wants to
focus on ways to help people that work, and that's what he'll
do. And very often, some of the most important changes that
come in our society, particularly affecting the poor and people who are
the hardest for the government to reach, come with some controversy
attached. That won't stop the President from proceeding; he thinks
it's that important to get help to people who are poor and needy.
Q Is
it a deal-breaker, as this legislation comes forward, if, as the Reform
Jews seem to be suggesting this morning, that they were going to --
there is support for the idea of actually punishing or prosecuting
people who proselytize when receiving a federal grant? Is
that a problem?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, under the President's vision of how to
deliver faith-based services to those in need, that money will not go
for the purpose of proselytizing. And, of course, that will
all be worked through in the details of the legislation to make certain
that that wall exists so federal money cannot go to proselytizing.
But that
won't stop the President from pushing forward with a plan that can work
with groups that have a faith-based character who also deliver vital
services -- like if it's a Boys Club or a Girls Club or Alcoholics
Anonymous, for example, is a faith-based organization that has done a
world of good in improving and helping peoples' lives, people who are
really struggling and needy.
And the
President will not turn a blind eye to those who are in need because of
important issues that are being raised. He's going to solve
those problems, and that's one of the reasons he's encouraged by the
reaction he's gotten on the faith-based initiative. He
always knew there would be controversy, but he's going to proceed.
Q Two
questions on different subjects. A few weeks ago, Senator
Pete Domenici said you probably didn't have 50 votes to pass a tax
cut. This morning, he said you probably don't have 50 votes
in the Senate to pass a budget that limits spending to 4
percent. I'd like a reaction to that comment, to begin
with.
And my
second comment is, in our recently departed administration, there was
often fairly vocal criticism of Japan in terms of its economic
policy. Will you maintain that tradition or break with that
tradition, with the meeting with Mr. Mori, because Japan obviously has
some economic problems.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Is there a connection between your two
questions?
Q No,
I just only get called on once. (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'll come back.
As for
Senator Domenici, I have not heard the Senator's statements, but I can
tell you that the President has said, a funny thing about votes, you
never how they're going to go until the voting actually
starts. And that's another reason he feels as confident as
he does, that after working with the Senate, listening to the senators
and fighting for what he has proposed, the outcome is going to be very
much what the President desires.
As for the
agenda of the upcoming meeting, a little closer to the meeting we'll
have more to say.
Q A
style** point, I mean, will the U.S. officials be as vocal as they have
been in the past?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let's talk a little closer to the meeting.
Q Smart
money is that Bush is going to have to compromise on the tax cut,
sooner or later -- probably closer to a Senate vote. Does he
feel like the odds are against him on getting his whole tax cut?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has been very powerfully encouraged
by the process as it has unfolded so far. From his
perspective, it was only six, eight months ago where people were saying
to him, you really need to give up on that tax cut, no one wants it.
And now the
debate has so powerfully shifted from an opposition proposal at that
time of a $250 billion tax cut that would have left taxes too high and
a lot of needs unmet, to $500 billion, to now $900 billion. And the
President is going to continue to fight for the proposal that he sent
to the Hill.
Q But
he doesn't have 51 votes right now, does he?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, as the President said, a funny thing
happens to votes as voting day gets closer.
Last
question there -- he hasn't asked a question yet.
Q Thanks. A
follow-up on the Japanese Prime Minister's visit. Basically, Mori is
on his way out, and people are looking at him as a lame
duck. Is the White House looking at this more as a courtesy
call or a goodwill visit? If not, what are you hoping to
expect?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's exactly as I indicated before. It
underscores the important of the United States relations with Japan,
and the President is looking forward to the meeting.
Thank you,
everybody.
END
12:56 P.M. EST
|