For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 5, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Personnel Announcements
- President's
Tax Plan
- Debt
- National Missile Defense
- Embassy Bombing Trial
in New York
- Congressional Black
Caucus
- Energy
Policy
- President's Lunch
with Chairman of Fed
- Africa
- U.S. Embassy
in Israel
- Vandalism of White House
Offices
- Defense
Budget
- Israeli Elections
- Terry
McAuliffe/DNC
- Gifts/Clintons
- Proposals/Congress
- AIDS
- Canada/Mexico/State Visits
- Tonight's
Readout on Chretien Visit
- Ashcroft
Confirmation
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.
Q 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 forward.
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 blueprint 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 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 voluble 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.
END 1:50
P.M. EST
|