For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 25, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
1:07 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Thanks for spending your early afternoon with me.
A few notices here.
The President has invited Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
to meet with him at the White House on February 5th. President
Bush looks
forward to a meeting and working dinner with the Prime Minister.
This will
be an opportunity for the two leaders to review the scope of this
exceptionally close and important bilateral relationship and discuss
its
course in the coming years.
The second item -- and then I'll be happy to take questions -- is
there was some very important testimony delivered on Capitol Hill this
morning by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who talked about
the
fact that, in his judgment, the economy can benefit from a tax cut.
As you know, President Bush, throughout the campaign when he
announced this tax cut, said that this tax cut will also, in addition
to
other reasons, serve as an insurance policy against any future economic
downturns. We're very heartened to see that Chairman Greenspan
has weighed
in on the importance of cutting taxes to protect the economy, and we
hope
that the Congress will join President Bush and Chairman Greenspan in
cutting taxes, in passing the Bush tax, cut so we can protect the
strength
of our economy.
Q Almost everyone agrees that a tax cut would help; even
the
Democrats are willing to go along with it if it appears somewhere in
the
range of $800 billion to $900 billion. The question is, how much?
And do
you read anything into Greenspan's comments about whether or not the
size
of your tax cut is the one he thinks would be appropriate?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think what is most important is to protect the
economy. There are certain tax cuts that we need to do because
they are
simply the right thing in terms of values. There is no reason
that people
should pay a tax upon death; the death tax should be abolished.
There is
no reason that married people should pay higher taxes simply because
they
say "I do." We should reduce the marriage penalty. But the
most effective
tax cut you can make to protect the economy, in President Bush's
opinion,
is a marginal, across-the-board income tax rate cut.
Q Maybe I missed it, but where in his testimony did
Chairman
Greenspan say -- talk about the importance of cutting taxes to help the
economy? I thought he was saying there was room --
MR. FLEISCHER: He is talking about in the soft economy --
Q He was saying there was room in the surplus for cutting
taxes.
MR. FLEISCHER: But he also talked about an economic softness.
Q But did he link the economic softness to the need for
tax
cuts?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think he referred to the fact that in a time of
economic softness, tax cuts could be helpful.
Q But isn't the opposite true, didn't he make the opposite
--
MR. FLEISCHER: I saw that, actually, in an AP wire story.
Q But I'm looking at his testimony, Ari. And in
fact, he
makes the point that -- as the President said, the President said more,
as
you know, than that we need this as an insurance policy. He says
we need a
tax cut now more than ever as a stimulus. And what Greenspan is
saying
today, "Such tax initiatives, however, historically have proved
difficult
to implement in the time frame in which recessions have developed and
ended." So how does that square with what the President thinks is
necessary?
MR. FLEISCHER: He also said -- and again, there are a series of
reasons -- let me repeat the three reasons President Bush believes we
should cut taxes --
Q But can you skip to this issue --
MR. FLEISCHER: I will. I'm getting there. The
President
believes we should cut taxes because, one, it's the people's money,
they
paid it into the government, they deserve it back. Two, and
Chairman
Greenspan would agree with this, that if you don't cut taxes, the
politicians will have more money to spend. And Chairman Greenspan
did
weigh in today about making certain that we don't spend the surplus.
And
the President believes that we need to cut taxes to help protect the
economy.
The Chairman, in his remarks, did talk about softness in the
economy, and the Chairman in his remarks did talk about -- and this is
one
of the Chairman's reasons for cutting taxes, he did talk about the fact
that there is room in the surplus. So the Chairman did say that,
indeed.
Q Wait, you didn't answer the question, though. He's
saying
that -- the President has said that the tax cut is necessary now, as a
stimulus to the economy. Greenspan is saying, usually it doesn't
work out
when you try to provide a stimulus, because it takes too long both to
phase
in, according to the President's plan, and by the time Congress gets
done
with it, especially in this kind of economy that's gyrating the way it
is,
that it really won't work to provide that kind of stimulus.
MR. FLEISCHER: We've talked about this before. Economists
do
differ about the speed of which a tax cut can impact an economy,
although I
do believe Chairman Greenspan also did talk about accelerating the tax
cut,
if I read that -- I read it quickly on my way in here. But there
are a
variety of reasons to cut taxes, and I've walked you through some of
the
President's reasons. And we're heartened to see --
Q But, Ari, the question is, does the President disagree
with
Greenspan on the ability of his tax cut to stimulate the economy in the
short term?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's plenty of room for agreement
among economists or slight disagreement among economists about the
speed at
which a tax cut can help the economy. But clearly, Chairman
Greenspan came
out today and advocated that there is room for tax cuts, and the
Congress
can cut taxes, given the budget restraints that we're all operating
under,
which are now an era of large surpluses.
There was a final very interesting note in the testimony as well,
which is an intriguing new reason that taxes need to be cut, and that
is,
if you don't cut taxes, and if these surpluses continue to mount the
way
they will, the government will sit on excess accumulated cash.
And in the
previous administrations, they were looking to use that to buy stock,
as a
government ownership of stock. Chairman Greenspan has warned
against
excessive buildups of this type of cash. Either it gets spent, or
it gets
used to cut taxes, and clearly nobody wants to spend that money on
bigger
government.
Q Something else the Chairman said was that he urged that
a
mechanism be devised to suspend the tax cut if the surplus projections
do
not come to pass, and also suggested that any talk of front-loading the
tax
cut should be put on the shelf, because he was saying that it needs to
be
phased in slowly. And I know that your plan is phased in at this
point,
but you've been talking about whether or not to front-load it.
I'm
wondering where you stand on those two ideas.
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of a trigger, President Bush
believes what's important is to enact the tax cut. We need to get
it
enacted, we need to get it on the books, we need to make it a permanent
law
of the land. And then, as of any tax cut proposal and a spending
proposal,
every year Congress and the President will go back and review.
And so,
from the President's point of view, what's important is that Congress
enact
it.
Q You're talking about doing something that Congress has
never
been able to do, which is to undo tax cuts once they're in there.
I mean,
isn't that Greenspan's fear, that you're going to pass --
MR. FLEISCHER: Congress has nothing but a history of undoing tax
cuts once they're in there. Congress has often raised taxes.
Let me
remind you that it was in 1993 that Congress raised taxes to 36
percent,
and to 39.6 percent. Those were increases from the rate which was
established in 1986.
The issue that Congress is never able to do is undo spending
increases. Spending increases, once enacted, seem to never get
taken back.
The problem with Washington is that once Congress and Washington spend
the
money, they don't stop spending it. The other problem with
Washington is
they try to keep raising taxes as a solution to problems. That's
another
reason we need to cut taxes. It's just the opposite.
Q Where are you on the second part of my question, though,
about the idea that you would give up any talk of front-loading this
tax
cut?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're still looking at the exact speed at which
it will be phased in and the exact dates at which it will be phased in,
the
rates, et cetera, and the question of retroactivity; we're still
looking at
it.
Q And based upon Mr. Greenspan's comments, would you be
disinclined to do that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, we're still looking at that. It remains
an
option.
Q Ari, a question for you. When the Federal Reserve
announced
the rate hike a while ago, the President commented --
MR. FLEISCHER: Rate cut.
Q Rate cut, excuse me -- he commented after, saying that
he
decided he was not going to comment anymore. I'm wondering -- you
view the
Federal Reserve as an independent body -- do you not feel that you
should
not comment even on comments that the Federal Reserve Chairman makes on
tax
cuts or any type of --
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I think that when it comes to public
testimony in a question and answer session with people on Capitol Hill,
it's appropriate to mark it and to note it. The President
agrees.
Q You're planning on unveiling this tax cut proposal with
all
its details the week after next?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll keep you advised on the exact date.
But
it's coming up.
Q But that's been the impression that you've created, that
it's going to be the week after next.
MR. FLEISCHER: I always like to leave a little flexibility in
terms of the exact dates or weeks of an announcement, but it's coming
up.
Q Democrats have been laying out the cost of your plan.
On
the Hill today, for instance, in the Greenspan hearing, Senator Conrad
laid
out his version, which is the same that Daschle laid out yesterday,
which
is $1.6 trillion, plus $400 billion in lost interest savings, plus $200
billion to fix the alternative minimum tax. Do you accept all of
that as
being the cost of the Bush tax cut?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can't help but notice this funny new
standard that is trying to emerge from those who have historically been
resistant to tax cuts, and that is for the first time they're attaching
the
cost of interest expenses to the proposal without analyzing it as part
of
interest costs as opposed to tax cuts.
For years people made spending proposals and never attached
interest costs to it. Many of the same people today who said you
have to
attach interest costs to tax cuts have never attached interest costs to
spending increases, for which they were generally known.
So it is a separate budgetary item -- it is a legitimate item.
Of course, there are interest expenses that are incurred as a result of
any
decision, whether it's a spending increase or whether it's a tax cut.
But
to attach it to the cost of tax cuts is not valid, not valid at all,
because what they're suggesting is that the tax cut is -- and then they
give a number. That's not the cost of the tax cut.
Q Did President Bush, when he was campaigning, call for a
fix
in the alternative minimum tax, and is $200 billion the figure you
would
accept for the cost of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: In the President's tax plan, he addresses the
complication created by the alternative minimum tax on the tax credit
provisions that are part of his legislation. Under current law,
and this
was something that was really exasperated in 1993 under the tax plan
that
was passed when the alternative minimum tax rates were increased and it
was
not indexed for inflation. The result of that was it has put
millions of
middle-income Americans at risk of paying the alternative minimum tax.
As a result of that action in 1993, we have protected the child
credit doubling, from $500 to $1,000, from the impact of the
alternative
minimum tax. So the new credits in the President's proposal are
protected
from the AMT. There is an additional AMT problem that is widely
recognized
that affects individuals. There is corporate AMT, as well.
And that is a
worthy area to discuss with the Congress.
Q Can I ask you a question about hiring practices?
This
administration's policy that it is appropriate or inappropriate to ask
a
perspective employee his or her sexual orientation? And if it is
inappropriate, would a department head who asked such a question face
any
sanctions?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is not a question that we ask, and I'm not
aware of anyone who has done such a thing.
Q Do you know if it is appropriate or inappropriate to ask
such a question?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to the law, and we do not ask
that.
Q But, Ari, there is an allegation in the Washington Post
today from a man who was interviewed by John Aschcroft who says that he
asked that very question, and this is, in fact, corroborated by a
contemporaneous witness. So there is someone who in the
administration, or
perspective administration --
MR. FLEISCHER: And Mr. Ashcroft has said that he does not recall
saying that or asking that.
Q Well, he doesn't rule out the possibility that it might
have
happened.
MR. FLEISCHER: I refer you to what he said.
Q Ari, as we all know, the President Clinton pardons are
quite
controversial. Without addressing the specifics, is President
Bush
committed to following the established procedures, pardon procedures,
including notifying the Justice Department?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've not been part of any discussions on pardons
after three days or four days. I'm not aware that the President
is moving
to pardon anybody. But I'm not aware of any procedures. I
think I'd refer
you to Department of Justice on that, and then check back later.
Q Ari, as you know, on January 4th, President Clinton
renominated Roger Gregory for the 4th Circuit. Today two
Republican
senators -- said that he should be confirmed. Does the
administration
favor a confirmation hearing, or are you going to withdraw that
nomination?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard us weigh in on that.
Q Senator Daschle says he was mis-quoted here yesterday
when
you indicated to us that he had told the President that all of his
nominees
would be confirmed. What exactly is the truth here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President received -- one of the
reasons the President thought he had such good meetings yesterday,
among a
number of reasons, was he did receive assurances that all his nominees
would be confirmed.
Q He says you misquoted him.
MR. FLEISCHER: I would differ.
Q He said that what he told the President was that there
wouldn't be any parliamentary moves by Democrats to block the nominees.
He
said you have to be a clairvoyant to know exactly what the outcome was
going to be.
MR. FLEISCHER: I stand by what I said.
Q Do you disagree with him?
Q And he also talked about energy supply. What do
you read
from what he said about the need to increase energy supplies, and also
the
risk to the national economy from what is happening in California?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me remind you that the looming energy problem
that our nation faces have been long in the making, back to last fall,
of
course, when the previous administration thought the problems were so
serious that they decided to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
There
were warnings at that time from President Clinton that the energy
problems
could cause a recession. So that is a very serious ongoing
problem that we
need to face.
I think there are two issues involved here -- one is the nation's
need to enact a long-term, comprehensive energy plan, which President
Bush
has proposed. The other is helping California with its energy
problem,
which is of a different nature. I think that it's safe to say
even if
there was no national energy problem, California would still be going
through what it's going through.
Q Let me just follow up on that if I could. Did you
read
anything into what he was saying about drilling for more natural gas
and
the need to increase supplies? Do you draw any interpretations
from that
with regard to your policies?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does believe, as you've heard in
the testimony, as well, that we need to increase America's energy
supplies,
that we need to address the fundamental supply and demand and balance
by
increasing America's supply.
Q But is there any role for federal coordination --
Q The Utah legislature has reversed itself with regard to
the
electricity deregulation. And this measure was also given the
okay by the
Republican governor of Utah. Do you think that in light of what's
going on
in California, there's a backlash against electricity deregulation and
move
towards --
MR. FLEISCHER: I have no information on Utah specifics, but
obviously some states have moved ahead with it and are pleased with how
it's worked. Other states enacted it differently and are not
pleased with
how it works.
Q Ari, does the administration have any specific ideas
about
how to help California, helping California with its problems?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're reviewing a number of options that may be
helpful to California, and as events warrant, we have may have
something to
add.
Q Can you be more specific about --
MR. FLEISCHER: Not until -- they're not announceable yet.
Q I have two questions about the Andy Card memo of January
20th on regulations. Number one, one of the provisions in there
talks
about postponing the 60 days regulations that have already been
published.
I'd like to know what the legal authority is to allow the
administration to
do that. And my second question deals with Andy Card and
Congress. Do you
know of any moves to go to Congress to ask Congress to pass any
legislation
to actually rescind regulations, which Congress is allowed to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of the legal authority, of
course, they're all done with the concurrence of White House legal
counsel;
they wouldn't be done otherwise. On the question of legislation,
that is
always possible, and often it does take legislation to undo a
regulation.
You can also undo regulations through the regulatory process, but it is
time-consuming. So, too, is, of course, the legislative process.
Q Well, as a follow-up, are you saying that if a lawyer
advises a client, in this case the President, that you can do
something,
that that's your legal authority rather than pointing to something by
statute? I'm asking you what statute -- not whether a lawyer
tells his
client you can do it.
MR. FLEISCHER: I refer you to legal counsel. I'm not a
lawyer.
We check these things thoroughly with legal counsel. Legal
counsel
reviewed it, and it's in full and proper keeping with legal counsel.
Q Could I use your name when I call them up as a
reference?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, let me know if you get your call returned.
Q Is the President committed to doing the radio address
every
Saturday, and if so, how does he plan to use it, what does he hope to
get
out of it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will begin the first radio address
this Saturday. I do anticipate they will be weekly events.
The President
views the radio address as another helpful way to talk to the American
people. I think what you'll find is there will be occasions where
he uses
them to give broad speeches or broad approaches to his policies.
There may
be other times where he chooses to use those radio addresses to make
very
specific announcements about administration initiatives.
Q Do you know the topic for this week?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll deal with that tomorrow.
Q Ari, on the vandalism issue, you made light of that the
other day, but is this now the subject of a more serious investigation,
internally?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no investigation. What we are doing
is
cataloging that which took place. And that's the status.
Q We know about the W's, graffiti in the bathrooms.
Can you
describe what else was done?
MR. FLEISCHER: David, I choose not to. I choose not to
describe
what acts were done that we found upon arrival because I think that's
part
of changing the tone in Washington. I think it would be easy for
us to
reflect and to discuss these things and to be --
Q It is government property.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- and to be critical.
Q This is taxpayer funded property.
MR. FLEISCHER: President Bush chooses to set a different tone,
and that --
Q How is this a tonal issue? This is about
government
property, as you said the other day, that has to be replaced at
taxpayer
money. Were there telephone wires cut, was there graffiti, were
there
keyboards that had to be replaced because they were vandalized
property?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President understands that transitions can be
times of difficulty and strong emotion, and he's going to approach it
in
that vein.
Q What's the purpose of cataloging it?
Q Why give them -- if you're going to give them a pass,
why
bother to catalogue it?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll just make sure we figured out what
happened.
Q What's the purpose of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Just to figure out what took place.
Q Is there a dollar figure?
Q If you're not going to report it to the people who are
paying for it, why --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q Is there an estimate on how much this damage has done?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no estimate.
Q Is strong emotion a defense against a criminal charge?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are no criminal charges to be made.
Q I'm upset right now. (Laughter.)
Q -- in Washington it's necessary always to blame
somebody?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think what everybody did is they took Tom
Herman off their speed dial. (Laughter.)
Q You've got to blame somebody in this town, Ari.
MR. FLEISCHER: But you know -- the question is, do you have to
blame somebody in this town? And bear with us. President
Bush is not
going to come to Washington for the point of blaming somebody in this
town.
And it's a different way of governing, it's a different way of
leading.
Q It's not about blame, Ari, it's just about what
happened.
MR. FLEISCHER: But it attaches itself to blame, and that's a
road that President Bush is choosing not to go.
Q Has anyone from the Clinton administration called to
apologize?
MR. FLEISCHER: There was a phone call made to the office of the
Vice President.
Q By who?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll leave it as a private conversation.
Q Did Vice President Gore call Vice President Cheney?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have any information on that.
Q Did Mrs. Gore called Mrs. Cheney?
MR. FLEISCHER: I really -- I know that a phone call was made to
the Vice President's office, but I don't recall who made it.
Q To the Vice President himself?
MR. FLEISCHER: To the office.
Q And was that where most of the damage was, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: I really stopped paying attention to all the
different places.
Q There is a report that you have someone investigating
this
now.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's not right. I've noted that
report,
I've looked at it; that's not accurate.
Q Was the nature of the call apologetic? Was it an
apology?
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't get a read on the call.
Q Staff to staff, or was it a principal --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know.
Q On reconciliation, is there any word on President
Clinton's
involvement in foreign affairs?
MR. FLEISCHER: In which affairs?
Q In foreign affairs.
MR. FLEISCHER: President Clinton's involvement?
Q Is there any word on President Clinton's possible future
role in any capacity in foreign affairs?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have no word for you on that.
Q Did you find the flak jacket since Monday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the flak jacket has been found and duly
reported here.
Q Where was it?
Q Does President Bush have any plans to close or alter the
White House Office of National AIDS Policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're reviewing all the offices that are set to
expire by previous agreement, and he will, as events warrant, have
something to add to that or say on that. There are many office
that have a
term to expire here.
Q On that particular one, people in the health care
community
are saying they're hearing the plan is to close it. Is that the
case?
MR. FLEISCHER: No decision has been made. We're still
reviewing
all those offices and finding out where the most appropriate place is
to
put any missions that have been underway.
Q Ari, a follow-up to that. President Bush said when
he went
to the NAACP that civil rights would be a cornerstone of his
administration. And there is an office under the Clinton
administration
called The President's One America.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
Q Is he planning on keeping that or something similar to
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Same answer.
Q Basically, it's going to go --
MR. FLEISCHER: Same answer. We have made no decision on
those.
We're taking a look at those offices and determining whether or not
there
are other appropriate venues or places for them. The missions are
important missions and we're just dealing with what exactly is the best
place, and we have made no decisions about any of those yet.
Q On the civil rights front, has he made an appointment
with
Reverend Jackson as of yet to come here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing that I'm aware of.
Q But he still wants to meet with him?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what he said to Reverend Jackson.
Nothing's changed since then.
Q Ari, on Greenspan, one of the things that Greenspan said
in
addition to endorsing tax cuts is that the economy is probably at a
near
standstill right now. I think he said the words, probably near
zero
growth. Are there additional steps that the administration wants
or needs
to take to address that more quickly than cutting taxes?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's important to focus on a couple
items, but they're long-term in nature. One of them is education.
That is
a key part of the economy -- making sure we have a work force that is
able
to be entered into, particularly the high-tech community, to have
America's
work force be job-ready. And the second is energy policy does
impact the
economy. That, too, is a vital part of keeping the economy
strong. And
that's, again, why President Bush believes that the Congress will need
to
pass his energy policies.
Q It looks like from what he's saying that we're on the
cusp
of going into negative growth in the next quarter.
MR. FLEISCHER: And we're going to continue to monitor it and see
what the economy does. I would remind you that Vice President
Cheney
warned about this; many other people in our administration have been
warning about this, and people said to us that we were not giving
accurate
information. With every passing day, it looks like President
Bush's
admonitions about the strength of the economy are increasingly true.
Q Ari, what can you tell us about tomorrow, how the
President
plans to round out Education Week, what he's got planned? And
also, you
sort of said this at the gaggle. I wonder just in a sense of how
you all
are feeling with almost the first official week of business coming to
an
end?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll have information out on tomorrow's meetings
a little bit later today, so let me suspend on that. But I do
want to say,
this is our fourth day in office, and I think it's fair to say that
this
administration is off to a very strong and fast start, particularly
given
the fact that we had a shortened transition due to the Florida recount.
So
we're all very heartened by it and very encouraged. I think it's
a sign of
a strong leader. I think it's a sign of growing bipartisanship in
Washington that has allowed us -- and thanks to the Senate, both to
Leader
Lott and to Senator Daschle -- for allowing us to be able to have this
fast
start. The Senate has been very cooperative.
Q So we're going to see week to week -- this week,
education,
and then faith-based will be sort of the week theme of next week?
Is that
the plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. The prescription drug
language,
the prescription drug proposal the President has to help seniors get
prescription drugs will also be sent to the Hill. And we'll have
more on
that --
Q Next week?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- we'll have more on that. And there will
be
some weeks where you're going to see a strong focus on one issue -- not
exclusive; there was no intention to have an exclusive focus on one
issue.
But there will be weeks where we have a strong focus on an issue.
There
will be other weeks where there will be several issues discussed at any
one
time.
Q So, as I understand, faith-based and prescription drugs,
both proposals going to the Hill next week?
MR. FLEISCHER: Next week.
Q On that subject, Ari, will the proposals that the
President
sends to the Hill next week track very closely with his campaign
proposals
in those two areas, or will there be differences?
MR. FLEISCHER: They will. The President made a series of
promises during the campaign and he's going to honor them.
Q No substantial differences?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q We should expect the helping hand proposal?
MR. FLEISCHER: Indeed, you should.
Q -- explain the criticism it's gotten of people objecting
to
going through the states --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. The President ran on it, he
believes in it, he will submit it. We're also heartened to see
the very
strong support there is now for bipartisan broad Medicare reform.
That,
too, is an important issue. The Medicare system was set up in
1965 in
world where we really had hospitals and you had doctors and the two
didn't
really commingle unless you have to go visit the hospital because your
doctor sent you there.
We live now in a totally new era of health care delivery, and the
Medicare system is a 1965 system. And in his talks with Senator
Breaux, in
his talks with Congressman Thomas, in his talks with a variety of
people on
the Hill, we're heartened to see we really may be able to make broad,
comprehensive progress on reforming Medicare, too.
Q But next week you're just talking about helping hand,
you're
not talking about the
longer-range larger prescription drug
program for Medicare, are you?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Just the first part?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q When do you anticipate doing the second part?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're still working through the time on all the
legislative initiatives.
Q Ari, any new communication with foreign leaders?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we're going to have something for you on
that in a little bit. There were a couple more calls the
President made --
Mary Ellen will give you a read on it. I know he talked to the
President
of South Korea last night, and the President of Poland.
Q What was the purpose, what was the substance of the
conversation with the President of South Korea, and did North Korea and
its
missile program come up?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was an introductory courtesy call. He
talked
about the importance of the alliance we have with South Korea.
Q Can I just follow up on John Roberts' question from
earlier?
He asked you if someone asked a perspective employee about their sexual
orientation would that be okay. You said, they need to follow the
law. As
I understand it, the law doesn't provide any protection, or federal law
provides no protection on grounds of sexual orientation. So does
that mean
it's okay for perspective employees to be asked questions like that?
MR. FLEISCHER: In all cases, people have to follow the law.
But
it is President Bush's position that -- he hires people on the basis of
their ability to do the job. That's the sole criteria he uses.
This was
discussed extensively during the campaign, and he'll hire people,
regardless of their background, so long as they're qualified to do a
job.
Q So everyone in the government shouldn't be asking
questions
of that sort, regardless of what the law --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the President's position.
Q On first strike, is there any plan for the
administration to
request the fast track authority through Congress, taking the fact that
the
Prime Minister of Canada is one of the strongest -- solution for the
free
trade of the Americas, and he's going to meet President Bush soon?
MR. FLEISCHER: Fast track is a priority and it is something the
President discussed throughout the campaign, but there's no date set.
Q Can I follow on that, Ari? On the Canadian Prime
Minister
visit, he's a pretty strong opponent of ANWR oil drilling up there, and
skeptical -- is there any particular pitch the President is going to
make
to him on either one of those --
MR. FLEISCHER: Let's wait a little bit closer to the meeting and
maybe I'll have more to share.
Q Will it be on the agenda?
MR. FLEISCHER: The meeting was just announced today.
Q Ari, after the Israeli elections do you expect to become
more involved in the Israeli-Palestinian situation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the President is going to
continue to work to make certain that any agreement by both parties, if
both parties enter into an agreement, the position of our government
will
be to support it.
Q After a year, though, of the White House being very
directly
engaged in those talks, there's a sense of you guys disengaging,
pulling
back, of it being left to ambassadors in the area and the State
Department's responsibility. Is that the way the Mideast peace
process is
going to work?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, actually, the talks that are underway in
Egypt right now, of course, are bilateral talks, by design and by the
two
parties.
Q But will the White House be as directly engaged in the
process, do you think, as the previous administration?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll advise you.
Q Ari, what about President Putin? He said that he
wants more
interaction with the new administration. Are you planning any
overtures?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me ask you on this, please refer those to
Mary Ellen, and she'll be happy to answer them.
Q Ari, is Steve Goldsmith working in the White House or
for
the White House now?
MR. FLEISCHER: As far as personnel announcements to go, we'll,
of course, keep you filled in as we have them to make.
Q -- as opposed to a present tense?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Let me answer this question. It's kind of
offensive, but it
was made by the President of Cuba. He said on Sunday that --
MR. FLEISCHER: I thought you were professing yours.
(Laughter.)
I appreciated the warning.
Q He hopes that President Bush has proved that he's not
stupid, as many people call him. Do you have any reaction to that
kind of
comment by the President of Cuba?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there is no reaction to that.
(Laughter.)
Q Oh, yes, there is.
Q Ari, a question on taxes?
Q You might want to answer that.
MR. FLEISCHER: Bob Davis.
Q Do you want to answer about the stupid question?
MR. FLEISCHER: You're not allowed to comment on my noodling.
Q A couple on taxes. Am I to read you right when you
are
talking about what is included and what isn't, I get the sense that
there
is nothing -- we shouldn't expect anything about a trigger mechanism,
and
we shouldn't expect anything about business taxes. It should be
all
individual?
MR. FLEISCHER: The plan that the President submits to the
Congress will be the plan on which he campaigned.
Q It had neither of those elements that I just mentioned.
MR. FLEISCHER: Except for the fact that when you lower marginal
income tax rates for unincorporated businesses, which are millions of
small
businesses, they stand to benefit as a result of those marginal income
tax
rate cuts. That is a business income tax cut.
Q But not being business specific --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, beyond what I just said, I'd have to review
some of the more specific items on there. Certainly the abolition
of the
death tax is very helpful to businesses. Again, usually you're
talking now
about small businesses, you're talking about farms. So those
would be
covered under business. I'm just thinking through some of the
other major
provisions we had in there. But if your question is about capital
gains,
if your question is about corporate AMT, depreciation, no, those were
not
part of it -- R&D; -- I'm sorry, the R&D; -- the President did propose a
permanent extension of the R&D; tax credit. That will be part of
his tax
plan.
Q You had said earlier that the effective dates would be
the
one big change in the proposal, from the campaign proposals.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, what I said was we're reviewing effective
dates. We're reviewing the question of retroactivity, and we're
reviewing
the question of effective dates, which are phase-in dates, as well.
Q They will not necessarily change in this proposal?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's all under review. We have
acknowledged
that we're taking a look at that, with the possibility of
acceleration.
But we've made no decisions.
Q We're assuming today's event was one in a series of
events
to highlight his education package, and he'll take up different aspects
of
it? And secondly, do you have an out of District trip next week?
MR. FLEISCHER: Out of District? Well, I think he's leaving
the
District tonight, actually, for his dinner.
Q Is he getting on a plane at all next week?
Q Or even a long car ride?
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't looked that detailed at the schedule
for next week. I don't think so. Let me --
Q Is this part of an education roll-out?
MR. FLEISCHER: Tomorrow we'll give a look ahead; every Friday
I'm going to give a look ahead.
Q And is today a part of a bigger education roll-out?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Today is a continuation of developing
reasons for the Congress to pass the President's education plan, which
was
submitted to the Hill this week.
Q Ari, one more question about the tax cut.
Throughout the
campaign it was always discussed as this kind of monolith, this $1.3
trillion or $1.6 trillion tax cut, but there's a lot of talk on Capitol
Hill about breaking that up into bite-sized chunks and even the
President
is potentially amenable to that. But would he accept anything
less than
even the sum of those parts remaining at $1.6 trillion?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's too soon to start discussing
what he would accept or not accept. He is going to fight for all
of it.
And he's very optimistic that he's going to get all of it or virtually
all
of it. And that's why the process is just beginning. You
have to allow
the House to take the first action on tax cuts.
And, of course, this is one of the decisions as far as the timing
of what will move that will play itself out, frankly, over a
considerable
period of time, in most likelihood, while we can submit it in one
comprehensive form. Of course, the House will make its
determinations
about what they choose to do with it. So, too, the Senate.
And in the
past, the House has, indeed, split it into smaller pieces; the Senate
has
combined it. So the House and the Senate have different rules for
consideration of tax cuts. It's much harder to do the split
approach in
the Senate than it is the House, but those are House and Senate
questions.
Q Are you saying that his strategy on all of his programs
is
to introduce exactly what he campaigned for, rather than talk behind
the
scenes with members of Congress and figure out what is likely to pass
and
then propose that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not prepared, Jim, to say that for all,
that's too all encompassing. But he's going to submit what he ran
on.
Now, there may be some modifications, for example, on the education
plan.
He heard some very good suggestions from some Democrats about moving up
the
funding, increasing the funding for schools that are failing, to help
them
to do a better job educating their children. That was a
modification from
the campaign proposal.
But I think everyone would agree, the plan he sent up there was
the campaign plan with that modification. So he's going to
continue in the
course of the meetings to listen to people, and when he hears good
ideas,
there will be some flexibility. But for the most part, what
you're going
to see is what you heard.
Q Ari, has the President talked to John Ashcroft at all in
the
last week? And how optimistic is he about the nomination, at this
point?
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't asked him that question, so I don't
know.
Q Optimistic?
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, yes. We think we're going to get every
single person the President named. And, again, I think it's a
sign of the
good bipartisan spirit that has been created in the wake of this
election.
And we're very pleased by it.
Q Ari, does the cataloging of some of what's missing or
been
vandalized, does that extend to Air Force One? Because,
apparently,
according to Air Force officials, there are members of the Clinton
party
who actually made off with some glasses etched with the Air Force One
symbol, hand towels and other products off of Air Force One on the
final
trip up to New York; estimated value not a great deal, a little over
$100.
Is that part of the cataloging?
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't looked at the cataloging, so whatever
took place, we'll know it took place and we're going to leave it at
that.
Q The President didn't have any reaction to that?
You told
him about all this stuff and he just said, well, let's just change the
tone?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're just not reacting to it.
Q But, Ari, a couple questions. You're telling us
here,
publicly, that you are creating a catalogue of what was done, but you
can't
tell us why you're creating that catalogue or what you're going to do
with
it or what the purpose is? And then my follow-up would be, were
all
staffers in the entire complex asked to tell somebody what they found?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's very informal. It's just a question
of
if you saw something that came to your attention, we're going to note
it
and that's that. And I don't think anything will ever come of
it.
Q For what purpose, though?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just think people are just getting a sense of
what happened.
Q Just curious or is there some greater scheme here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it may even fade away. So we're just
taking a look at what was done, and that's that.
Q But does the President consider this conduct consistent
with
the high standards of high office?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, we're just not going to look back.
Q You are looking back.
MR. FLEISCHER: We're not looking back to place blame; we're not
looking back to ascribe motive. Again, transitions can be
difficult times.
-MORE-
Q Then why catalogue?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're just noting what took place.
Q Did you ever give us an estimate on the cost to
taxpayers of
what took place?
MR. FLEISCHER: If one arises, we may decide. I don't know
yet.
Q Ari, can you tell us if there have been any ways in
which
the White House was unable to function or staffers weren't able to do
their
jobs or anything along those lines as a result of --
MR. FLEISCHER: No. Obviously everybody -- the whole move
into
the White House, of course, took some time and there are just things in
terms of the carpeting that was pulled up and the wires that had to get
moved around just in the normal course of business that were part of
the
transition that slowed everybody down on our first couple days.
But
everybody's moved forward since then. There may be some other
things that
relate more just to all these new people showing up.
Q I mean, specific to vandalism that you believe was done,
not
to the general --
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have any more updates on that.
Q Ari, if there was all this renovation that went on, how
do
we know, or how do you know if phone lines were cut or if things were
damaged that it couldn't be a by-product of tearing up rugs and carpets
and
repainting and moving furniture around?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think that the people who are
professionals who make it their business to go in and prepare a White
House
for new arrivals would cut wires.
Q So there is a Clinton carpet scandal?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q There's a Clinton carpet scandal.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 1:45 P.M. EST
|