For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 29, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Opening Remarks/Announcements
- Faith-based programs
- Abortion
- Prescription drugs
- Medicare reform
- Seniors
- Helping Hands
- Economy
- Rumsfeld
- Executive orders
- Pardons -- Marc
Rich
- Energy
- California
- Task force
- LIHEAP
- OPEC
- ANWR
- Russia/President Putin
- White
House vandalism
12:24 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon,
thank you for joining us. I have no announcements, just want
to make certain that if we haven't circulated it yet, you will be
shortly getting the copies of the executive orders the President signed
earlier today, creating the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Q Ari, why should this
faith-based initiative not be interpreted as an unconstitutional
funding of religious institutions in America?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because as the
President made clear in his statements just a little while ago that
this will not be funding religion, but this will be funding faith-based
organizations of a wide variety of views that bring social help to
people in need. It's not the religious aspect of what they
do that's getting funded, it's the community service aspect and there
are other parts of this, too, that increase -- focus on increasing
peoples' ability to give to charity and to nonprofits.
Q How do you make the
distinction, when it's all going on under the same roof?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the programs
that they will provide are not going to be programs that preach
religion. They're going to be faith-based programs --
Q How do you know
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- that help people
to improve their lives, which has been the experience that we have seen
already with some of the faith-based programs that are privately
funded, that are big successes.
Q What about the idea
that religious organizations don't have to adhere to civil rights laws,
and they may not be held to the same standards as private organizations
who provide these social outreach functions --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's
focus will be on helping programs that work. He takes a look
at the poor in our society, the people who have the most difficult
needs, and he sees a need to help those people to improve their
lives. And he recognizes that there are limits to what
government programs can do. But that doesn't mean that our
country and our society should give up on those who are in need --
addicts, alcoholics, the homeless, as he explained earlier
today. And so he wants to find ways that
work. And we have seen throughout our society that these
faith-based programs, which often are strapped for cash, do
work. They do improve people's lives. And that's
why he is determined to push ahead.
Q What about the two
concerns that I just raised? Might he put into legislation
or might there be a proviso for funding that they have to adhere to the
same civil rights laws that private organizations do, and that their
people have to be subject to the same certification as other social
outreach organizations that are private and not religious?
MR. FLEISCHER: You will see the
proposal that he makes tomorrow. You can evaluate it and, of
course, we'll be pleased to work with the Congress on any other issues
that come up.
Q Does he address those
concerns, specifically?
MR. FLEISCHER: You'll see
tomorrow. He's making the proposal tomorrow.
Q Let me ask about the
prescription drug plan. When do you intend to put it
out? I think last week I heard you say that you thought
there was a lot of room for compromise on that issue.
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll be putting it
out early this afternoon. The President will be having a
meeting with Chairman Grassley and with Chairman Thomas, and we'll be
following that meeting. The President intends to send the
proposal up to Capitol Hill, and that proposal will be just like he
discussed during the course of the campaign -- an Immediate Helping
Hand so we can get prescription drugs to low-income, needy seniors.
Q Did I hear you right
when you said that -- I thought you said that there was a lot of room
for compromise with Democrats on that. And, if so, what
makes you think that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the whole
question of Medicare reform must be bipartisan. You cannot
have a one-party approach to reform in Medicare. The Medicare program
is much too important and much to central to the lives of our
seniors. And so any proposal that anybody makes on Medicare,
whether it's giving prescription drugs to seniors or whether it's
structural reforms that involve Part A, Part B, all need to be explored
in a fashion that brings Democrats and Republicans together.
I would remind you that we came very close in
the last Congress; there was a bipartisan commission on Medicare
reform. It had, I believe, 10 of the 17 members of the
commission agreed on a recommendation. It was not welcomed
by the previous White House, but there certainly is a mood for
bipartisanship on Medicare reform, and President Bush will welcome it.
Q Ari, do you see this
legislation moving as a separate bill or as a part of a broader reform
either with prescription drugs or --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's
preference is that it move as a separate bill. That's what
he announced during the campaign. At the same time, the
President is very encouraged by what is a strong showing of strength
for bipartisan Medicare reform. He is aware that there are
some important people in the Congress who have expressed reservations
about it moving as a separate bill, and we'll be pleased to work with
them.
Q Ari, on the
faith-based thing, as I understand it, you're kind of separating the
overtly religious aspects from the community service
aspects. Why doesn't that same kind of thinking apply to
these international family planning groups that were saying, well,
we're not using your federal dollars for abortion. We're
getting that from some place else. The response here was,
well, we've got to cut you off because you can't --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we explored
that issue last week. You know why the President did
that. His reasons were clear.
Q On that question, a
lot of these organizations work when people see the light, when they
accept a faith. And so isn't this, in effect, government
funding conversions?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, this is a
voluntary program where those who seek to participate should have other
options. We as a society have to face up to the fact that
there are so many people in need who government programs aren't getting
the job done. That doesn't mean we should walk away from
those people. They need help, and the government can play a
role through faith-based communities and nonprofits in delivering that
help. The government shouldn't walk away or leave people
languishing on welfare simply because some people raised questions
about faith-based groups. Faith-based groups can often be the answer
that helps people get off the street and back into life.
Q A lot of these groups
hire only people of their religion and work only for people of their
religion. Isn't that discrimination?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think as we
just saw from the variety of people who participated in a very powerful
meeting with the President, we have people from all walks of life, all
religious faiths and backgrounds joined together in saying that the
power of faith can lift up peoples' lives. And what's
important is you let people voluntarily make the decision that they
want to enter a certain program, and that's the first way to get them
help.
If you're an addict, if you're an alcoholic --
it's very hard to be helped if you don't take that first step,
yourself, to seek help. And we should welcome people to seek
help where it can do them most good.
Q Even some churches
are concerned that there will be strings attached to the federal money,
and this can be a way to influence the churches.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you'll see
in the proposals he sends up tomorrow, and as they take the legislative
path and as the bill works its way through the Congress, all concerns
will be addressed. But the President is going to push
ahead. He believes this is vital to helping improve the
fabric of our society in this country.
In fact, one of the things he said in the
meeting with the leaders is he said, the reason this will work is
because America is full of love. And he believes very deeply
that the reason we have a lot of people who are still in poverty,
despite a myriad of government programs that have cost trillions of
dollars, is because the government programs aren't always the best
solution. So don't give up, capture the compassion of the
American people and put it to work.
Q Do you expect the
issue to wind up in the courts?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we can draft
something that is fully in accordance with the Constitution and,
frankly, I think you're also going to see a large outpouring of
bipartisan support for this. It gets sent up tomorrow and
we'll monitor it.
Q On the question of
prescription drugs, the complaint is that even though you're program is
aimed at the poorest, virtually every senior has a problem paying for
prescription drugs because they're so expensive and inflations is so
high. How much wiggle room is there in your proposal to
cover some of those people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Under the
President's proposal, it was a two-part proposal, the first part was a
four year, $48 billion Immediate Helping Hand that would get
prescription drug coverage to seniors, the neediest seniors.
His comprehensive Medicare reform, which
tracks with many other visions of comprehensive reform on the Hill,
would be broader in nature, it would help more seniors.
Q Will it ultimately be
a universal kind of benefit, as the Democrats have talked about?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the
President's comprehensive proposal did apply to all seniors.
Q Ari, at his press
briefing last week, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said, "It is not helpful
to have Saddam Hussein's regime in power." He said, this is
now a government policy. If it is government policy, what
specifically is the President going to do to remove Saddam Hussein from
power and does that possibly include military action?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the
President has made his position clear on that before, that we will
protect America's interests and the region's interests in that area of
the world. And we are prepared to do so, if necessary.
Q On the executive
order, can you explain to us the difference between what the President
can do by executive order and what he needs legislation for?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the executive
orders create the offices within the executive branch. He
signed two executive orders today; the first creates within the
administration the post of Office of Faith-based and Community Activity
that reports directly to the President. The second executive
order he signed creates in five various agencies, government
Cabinet-level departments, those which work closest with people in
their social problems and poverty, it created an office within each of
those agencies to also find new solutions to old problems.
Beyond that, the legislation that we will send
up tomorrow are going to be issues that require congressional
action. For example, allowing all Americans to have a
deduction for money they give to charity. In 1986, under the
Tax Reform Act of 1986, 70 million Americans were denied the right to
get a deduction for money they gave to charity. That was
part of '86 reform. The President will propose tomorrow
allowing all Americans, not just those who itemize their taxes, to get
a deduction for giving money to charity. That will be one of
the proposals he sends up to the Hill.
Q Ari, do you have to
deal with legislation by some of the questions that were asked here
about discrimination, possible discrimination, and so on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, anything
that goes beyond the power of an executive order will have to be dealt
with legislatively.
Q What's wrong with
itemizing charity?
MR. FLEISCHER: People should be
able to itemize their charitable deductions, but that doesn't mean that
those who aren't in a position where they itemize should be denied a
deduction of their own. So this extends one of the best
benefits of our society to those who give to charity. We
shouldn't divide people --
Q But those who accept
it don't have to itemize, is that what you're saying?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, no, no, these
are the givers, those who give money to charity. And,
typically, those --
Q Why couldn't they
itemize it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the only
people who itemize, typically, are people who own a home and pay
interest expenses on their home, or live in high property-tax
states. There are 70 million Americans who, just because
their income tax circumstances, don't itemize. And they
should not be discriminated against by the tax code when they, too,
give to charity.
Q Ari, on the Marc Rich
pardon, is the administration -- can you describe any efforts the
administration is now going through to seek to overturn the pardon?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me, on the issue
of possibility of any action on a pardon, while the President may not
agree with the pardons that his predecessor put in place, his
predecessor did make those decisions in accordance with his
constitutional prerogatives, which brings us to a bigger
issue. President Bush will not explore whether or not he has
the authority to take any action in the case of his predecessor's
pardons. The President, under the Constitution, has
unfettered authority to grant pardons, and that is President Bush's
position.
Q -- that he is opposed
to the pardon, though? Your language there is the first, to
date, suggesting that the President disagrees with the decision to give
Marc Rich a pardon.
MR. FLEISCHER: I addressed that
broadly. I said that while the President may not have agreed
with all the pardons his predecessor granted --
Q Does he agree with
this pardon?
MR. FLEISCHER: These are the
decisions that President Clinton was able to make under his
Constitutional prerogatives, and we're going to work forward, not
backward.
Q Well, but his status
moves forward. I mean, you may not want to look backward,
but the truth is that his status and his pardon and the resolution of
his particular case and his citizenship in whichever country he lives
is moving forward. Does he not have a view on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: His position was
settled in accordance with the Constitution when the previous President
took the actions he's entitled to take.
Q Ari, WCBM in
Baltimore wants to know, do you and the President acknowledge that
Baltimore is now the much bigger apple? And does the
President believe it was wrong for Jerusalem's Temple Mount to be
visited by General Sharon, because the Temple Mount should be given to
Yasser Arafat?
MR. FLEISCHER: Is there a
connection between the two questions? (Laughter.)
Q Remotely, yes.
Q But he has no follow
up. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: In deference to the
President and the Cowboys, I take no position on the first question.
Q You don't think that
they are the much greater -- much bigger apple, Ari, really?
MR. FLEISCHER: In deference, I
defer.
Q All right, what about
the second one?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ask that again?
Q Does the President
believe it was wrong for Jerusalem's Temple Mount to be visited by
General Sharon, because the Temple Mount should be given to Yasser
Arafat?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not asked the
President that question.
Q Could you ask him?
Q Ari, can we have a
readout on the energy meeting that took place earlier today?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the
President addressed a lot of it when he brought the pool in at the end
of the meeting. And the President today convened a group to
focus on our comprehensive national long-term energy
needs. He is directing this group to develop a long-term
energy strategy. As you know, during the course of the campaign, the
President promulgated an energy plan, and this group will help now to
develop it, put it together.
Q Ari, how much was
California a focus of this meeting? Was any new ground
broken on California?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no new
ground broken.
Q How much of it was
talked about?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was
national. The purpose of the meeting was
national. California's energy situation was discussed, of
course. But the purpose of it is to focus on a national
solution. But you can't talk about a national energy policy
without also talking about California. California is
terribly important.
Q Ari, someone said at
that meeting that there was evidence that the California problem is
spilling over into western states. What evidence does he see
of that, and what time table did he give the Vice President for
delivering?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's spilling
over in a couple different ways. One is that you have industries that
are dependent on hydro power and other sources of energy which are now
being shipped to California facing difficulties. In the
Pacific Northwest, there are some aluminum plants that are shutting
down. In Arizona, the agriculture community is being
affected as a result of the sales to California.
On the other side of the equation, of course,
any time you have a problem related to energy, in a state that is as
large and important and significant as California, that has a
spill-over effect on the neighboring states and on the rest of the
economy. Energy represents approximately 6 percent of our
nation's GDP, and the cost for consumers for energy are going up
nationally, as well, of course, as in California. So it has
an effect in both directions, which is another reminder of why our
nation needs a national, comprehensive energy policy. And
President Bush intends to fight for one.
Q Ari, you said that
the President won't be doing anything going forward on the Marc Rich
pardon. Was he doing anything -- was anybody in the
administration or any of the other agencies doing anything last week?
MR. FLEISCHER: Our lawyers were
looking into the question of whether one President has any options in
succeeding another President. And the President has not
taken action, so nothing will proceed.
Q So they've reported
to the President and he's --
MR. FLEISCHER: There was no formal
report. The lawyers just started looking into things and the
President -- President Bush has made the determination that the
President -- as I said, there's a bigger issue involved here, and that
is the President's constitutional prerogatives are unfettered when it
comes to pardons.
Q Did the lawyers look
into on their own, or did the President or somebody on his staff ask
them to?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it began
with the Justice Department and lawyers, as lawyers do, they ask
questions and think about things.
Q By putting the Vice
President in charge of this energy task force, do you not raise the
possibility of concerns that any policy he comes up with be favorable
to oil companies, rather than consumers?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that the
policies they come up with will increase America's
supply. One of the factors that we've seen is that supply --
our demand has grown nine times in the last -- I don't have the exact
number of years -- but particularly in California, where no new supply
has been brought on line, no new plants have been built, but demand is
surging. There's a lot of that as the result of the strength
of the economy; the high-tech community, which thrives on electricity.
So to address an imbalance, what's important,
in the President's opinion, is to increase supply. And we
need to increase our supply from domestic supplies, which means oil, it
means natural gas, it means coal, it means clean burning
coal. That's where the focus will be, to a substantial
degree. There will be other measures, as well, as we work
forward.
But the President believes there is a
supply-demand imbalance and the best way to address it is to increase
America's supply.
Q Well, is there no way
to try curbing demand, at the same time?
MR. FLEISCHER: There are efforts to
curb demand, of course. And the President has proposed
increased money for weatherization as part of his national energy
policy; he's proposed an increase in funding for LIHEAP. And all of
that can be helpful.
But the imbalance question is best addressed
by increasing America's demand -- I mean, America's supply, not only so
we can bring prices down to the American consumer, but also so we avoid
an unnecessary over-reliance on foreign supplies.
Q Has the President
gotten around to reading the letter from President Putin, and has he
responded to it?
MR. FLEISCHER: He has read the
letter, as he indicated last week. I do not believe any
reply has been sent at this time.
Q On prescription
drugs, you indicated there was something of a consensus -- before the
election campaign. If that's true, why not proceed on a
broader plan on the basis of the consensus that was in Congress, rather
then on the helping hand? Why not go ahead and build on what
you already have on the Hill?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the
President believes that we need to move as quickly as possible to get
prescription drugs, particularly to low income seniors. It
has been the experience of Washington that broader reforms typically
take more time. But as I indicated, the President is aware
of some of the concerns that have been raised on the Hill about his
Immediate Helping Hand proposal. He will send it up there
today, and he will look forward to working with Congress on it.
Q Well, he seemed to
indicate that he was willing, as he says on many of these things, that
he is willing to listen to other ideas. If Congress were
able to move forward quickly on a broader reform, I take it that he
would be willing to sign on to that effort and drop this one.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's
concern is twofold: one, how do you get prescription drugs
to seniors as quickly as possible, because they need
them. But, secondly, we need to reform a Medicare system
that was created in the early 1960s, when medicine was practiced in an
entirely different fashion than what our nation enjoys
now. And we need to modernize the Medicare
system. And there have been many different people on the
Hill of both parties who, for the last several years, have worked
actively to come up with a bipartisan Medicare
reform. Senator Breaux, Chairman Thomas are a couple
examples of people. And we believe we can make a lot of
progress on that issue this year.
Q Ari, one other
things, while we're talking here. Have you received an offer
from President Clinton to pay for damages in the White House if, in
fact, you can provide him with a list of such damages?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing that I'm
aware of, Jim.
Q Ari, can I ask a
question? Every day are you just going to come out of more
and more layoffs; major industries and enterprises are doing
that. The President's plan to reduce taxes, according to
Chairman Greenspan, will take some time for the effects to kick in --
what is the President doing right now? Is he meeting with
his Treasury Secretary? What are the plans the White House is
considering to reactivate the economy?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know,
he has the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways
and Means Committee coming today. He will have additional
meetings with members of Congress. He has Leader Daschle
coming. And we are taking a look at our tax proposal to see
if there's anything that can be modified in it, with an eye toward
either retroactivity or earlier phase-ins that the President believes
could be constructive for the economy.
Q Ari, going back a
minute to energy. Since the energy crisis of '73, and
probably before, there have been suggestions from this building to try
and come up with new energy policies, new types of fuels -- cleaner, et
cetera. And, yet, it's always come back to the same problem,
America's reliance on foreign oil. And many of the nations, if not
most, we get oil from are members of OPEC. What is the
President doing successfully to try and get OPEC to lower or increase
production?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would differ in
part on the question. It's not just foreign
oil. It is America's ability to produce its own
energy. For example, we have large, large reserves up in a
small portion of Alaska. And the President has proposed opening up 8
percent of that area of Alaska to exploration, so we can protect
America's security, so we can produce energy that the American people
can use. American energy for the American consumer.
So there are a series of steps that we can
take domestically. And, of course, with every barrel of
domestic output that we increase, that is one less barrel that we need
to rely on other nations for.
Q But we still have the
problem with OPEC, OPEC curtailing production, which means prices go up
on the world market. The President has stated he wants to
deal with OPEC to try and reduce that. Any success so far?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that will be
a part of long term diplomacy, of our relations with our allies, not
only with OPEC, but in other oil producing regions of the world which
supply us our energy. As you know, Mexico is a supplier to
this country, and the President, of course, will be meeting with
President Fox shortly.
Q Ari, I noticed the
prescription drug plan is being introduced with less fanfare than the
education plan last week. Is that a sign you're less than
confident about its chances on the Hill?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'd just say
it's a sign of a very busy day today. We have several news worthy
announcements today, and that is one of them.
Q But, why
today? Why not some ceremony to roll out prescription
drugs? It was a big part of the campaign.
MR. FLEISCHER: We have other busy
events tomorrow and the following day. It's always just a
question of scheduling. But the President is committed to
it, and we're going to send it up and see what we can't make
happen. But we are aware that there are some sensitivities
on this issue. Some concerns have been raised.
Q I want to come back
to faith-based. I talked with Reverend Rivers of the Ten
Point Coalition. He said that he doesn't have a problem if
this new legislation spells out separate branches of his organization,
specifically as you deal with the social service component, to make
sure that everyone is honest. I know you don't want to get
into details until tomorrow, but is there a fire wall that
organizations are going to have to establish to make sure that they're
not supporting their religious activities?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you
heard the President address that today. That this is not
going to fund religion, but this is going to fund faith-based groups
that provide social services.
Q Ari, on that same
subject, if I can follow up. I don't see why there's not a
double standard at work here. The President is saying a
taxpayer who opposes abortion shouldn't have to suffer his money to go
to a group that provides international family planning counseling, even
though it just may happen to also advocate abortion. But
it's okay for a taxpayer, let's say me, to see my money go to someone
who advocates actively conversion to a religion that's different from
ours. Why is that not a double standard?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you've
misstated the program. There won't be any focus on
conversion. That's not what the programs do.
Q Are you denying that
any of these groups seek to convert people?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's the faith-based
social services side of the program.
Q But they are talking
about groups that do actively seek to convert you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think that
on this issue, you're going to see a profound level of support from the
American people on a bipartisan basis. It's also an area,
interestingly, that Senator Lieberman reminded us during the course of
the campaign, about the role that faith can play in our fabric of
society.
Q But you don't see a
double standard between the abortion executive order and the --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I
don't. In fact, domestically, that's been the long-standing
policy of the country that you are addressing as international.
Q As governor, the
President had a lot of these initiatives in place. Is there
any hard evidence as to how effective or successful they
were? Not anecdotal, but is there any evidence that more
prisoners got off of drugs, or whatever?
MR. FLEISCHER: There
is. Chuck Colson, during the meeting, told the President
that during the prison ministry program in Texas that the recidivism
rate is way below the recidivism rate for people who do not participate
in the program. And I would refer you to that
program. And I think if you interview many of the people who
came in, they'll share with you their success stories, Floyd Flake, for
example. There are a series of success
stories. But the prison ministry program in Texas is one in
particular.
Q There's no body of
data here that you're relying on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, actually that
did come up at the meeting and they talked about that once these
programs are up and funded that we would welcome bodies of data to show
the success and to make it empirical, as well. We will not
shy away --
Q Would there be the
same sort of accountability standards that you want for the schools in
this country?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you'll see
that as it develops in the legislative process. The
President's focus will be on those programs that work, as he has
said. And so if a program is proved to be working, he is
going to fund it. If a program is not working, he's going to
look for alternatives.
Q Ari, the equation on
the energy situation, you talk about oil, gas and coal. It
seems as if nuclear has completely disappeared. Why this
bias? Is this like a Texas bias towards oil and
coal? Or is there a concern about commercial problems of
building nuclear? But you're talking about getting energy --
MR. FLEISCHER: I would you refer
you to the President's energy policy that he announced in September of
last year. There is, I believe, a streamlining component
that deals with nuclear -- you need to check that. But there was a
small portion in there that dealt with that.
Q There was a very
small portion there, but every time everyone in the administration is
asked about this -- Vice President Cheney yesterday, you today -- it's
oil, gas and coal. It's like nuclear --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the
purpose of this group is to develop the strategy, and if people have
other ideas they would like to submit, of course, I think the group
will have their ears open.
Q I don't know if you
can explain this, but I've never really understood the true division of
church and state in this country. We swear people in, we use
bibles, we have "in God we trust," we have chaplains on Capitol
Hill. Where is there a real division?
MR. FLEISCHER: And I think,
frankly, in the hearts and the minds of the American people, there is
scant a sense of that. I think the American people recognize
that we need to be sensitive to make certain that there is no
proselytizing, for example. However, the American people
also recognize that there are social problems that are not getting
solved by the government, and that there is a vital role that we can
play as a compassionate society to help those who are less fortunate
through faith-based programs.
Q Whenever this
administration talks about increasing supply it always looks to the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But it seems that we've got
a bit of a tax cut problem here and that it's going to take years for
the ANWR to come on line, and then any natural gas that's in there will
only last a few years. So how does that fit into both a
short-term and a long-term reduction of reliance on foreign oil?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the
supplies that come out of there are so massive, they will last for an
extended, long period of time. I think what some of the
opponents have done is said that if America has no energy from anywhere
else other than this region of Alaska, then it will only last a certain
period of time. Well, of course, we do have energy supplies
from other places. You can't pretend we
don't. But it's indicative of a mind set in Washington that
we keep lurching from short-term problem to short-term problem.
President Bush is determined to focus on a
long-term solution, so that his successors and their successors will
not be back in the same box that he is in today. We have
inherited this energy crisis, this looming energy
crisis. One of the reasons is we did not have from the
previous administration a long-term energy policy in
place. President Bush's focus will indeed be long-term.
But short-term steps can be taken, if there
are any, we will see. But if a government only lurches from
short-term crisis to short-term crisis, that government will never
solve their nation's long-term problems.
Q Are you suggesting
there may not be anything you can do short-term?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're going to
see. We've announced this group today. But,
again, short-term, we'd have to make certain that we address the
fundamental imbalances between supply and demand. That does
take time.
Q On faith-based
organizations, Ari, who makes the decision about who gets the
money? To what extent will the White House be involved in
determining who gets grants, and to what extent will it remain in the
departments with those who oversee grant programs --
MR. FLEISCHER: Standard procedures,
just as the government has always done over time with organizations
that are qualified to receive funds. There is a set, written procedure
that goes through the agencies, where the agencies make
grants. I'd also draw your attention to the fact that one of
the programs the President is focused on is after-school
children. There is a need to help parents, working parents,
whose children after school have no place to go.
President Clinton identified this as a
national need, and the former President opened up -- decided to open up
10 percent of a grant program to competition for after-school funds to
non-school groups. Previously, it was restricted to only
schools could apply. President Clinton saw the merits in
opening up that program to 10 percent. So he already
established the principle that others ought to
apply. President Bush proposes to open up to 100 percent.
Q Were religious groups
included in that 10 percent?
MR. FLEISCHER: I believe they were,
under the previous President's proposal. He opened up 10
percent to competition. The exact way it would have worked
out would have been dealt with by the agencies.
President Bush's proposal is to open it up to
100 percent funding. That's the 21st century -- I believe it's called
the 21st Century Fund. It's an educational program.
Q How much, and when
was it created?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have that
information, David.
Q Did he do that by
executive order or by legislation?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Legislation. That requires
legislation, that's correct.
Q On prescription
drugs, given that there's little enthusiasm on the Hill for tackling
the issue twice, which would President Bush prefer? The short-term
helping hand or a long-term solution? He may only get one --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's one
of the reasons he's having leaders down here. He had leaders
down here last week. He'll have leaders down here this week
to talk to him about it, to listen to their thoughts and
concerns. But we always announce it as a first part of a
two-part process: to get prescription drugs to the nation's neediest
seniors, and also to develop comprehensive Medicare reform.
But I want to point something out, because I
think this is part of the healthy signs of bipartisanship we're already
seeing. I think there's agreement among Democrats and
Republicans. We must get prescription drugs to our nation's
seniors. The question is how, and that's a healthy position
for our nation and our seniors to be in.
Q There seems to be a
bipartisan agreement that this helping hand is not the way to go right
now. It seems to be they want to do a long-term solution.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, We'll
see. We'll see. As I said, we're sending it up
today, and we will be receptive to ideas that come from the Congress.
But it's not inconsistent or incompatible that this becomes part of a
longer, broader Medicare reform, if that is the will of the process.
Q What about drug
re-importation as a stopgap? Would you consider that as a
possibility?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have
anything for you on that.
Q On economic issues,
the IMF has lowered its world economic growth forecast rather sharply
from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent, mainly because of economic slowdown in
this country. Do you have any reaction to that, especially
with international implications of an economic slowdown in this
country?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Certainly. There is growing evidence
that the American economy has been slowing down for quite a
considerable period of time, and President Bush has identified that as
one of the reasons he wants to move forward with his tax
package. And he will do so. Of course, we are a
very big driver of the world's economy, and that's another reason for
concern, that's another reason that we're going to seek bipartisanship
in passing the President's tax cut. It's important to our
economy, it's important to the global economy.
Q On the name of the
new office, Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, does that
suggest that you want to also increase your involvement with grassroots
groups that are not religiously based? Is that going to be
part of this as well, or do you have to be religiously based to
participate in the new programs you're setting up?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it opens up to
nonprofits of other natures as well. There are nonprofits,
there are community groups that would be eligible now to compete, which
previously were not eligible to compete. And so it's much broader than
simply faith-based. And again, that's another reason to
expand people's options to give charitable deductions. There will be
other proposals in here helping the states to encourage charitable
giving within state tax structures. So it's a multi-pronged
effort that focuses on community, nonprofit and faith-based to deliver
social services.
Q Ari, in terms of who
may be getting the funding, there are some groups who may apply who --
like, say, the Nation of Islam or the Branch Davidians. How
are you going to gauge who is appropriate to get the money?
MR. FLEISCHER: As with all federal
grant programs, all the regulations get worked out by the agencies.
Thank you.
END
12:55
P.M. EST
|