For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 7, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Personnel announcements
- House
vote on tax plan
- Vice President Cheney's
health
- Stem cell research/President's
view
- North Korea/White House
policy
- Ambassador to Ireland
- Pardon
policy
- Guns/code of
responsibility
- Airlines/labor
unrest
- President's call to Greek Prime Minister
3:05 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President has
several personnel announcements for today. The President
intends to nominate Pete Aldridge to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The President intends
to nominate Robert Gordon Card to be Under Secretary of
Energy. The President intends to nominate Kristine Ann
Iverson to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs. The President intends to nominate
Bobby Jindal to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for
Planning and Evaluation. Finally, the President intends to
nominate Donna McLean to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation for
Budget and Programs, and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of
Transportation.
That paper
should be coming out shortly. And with that, I'm pleased to
take questions.
Q Ari,
is the President calling House Democrats before the tax vote in the
House? And is he responding to blue dog Democrats or even to
Senator Breaux who is saying it's not responsible and he's very
conservative to put the cart before the horse, to vote on tax first and
budget comes second?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is very pleased with the progress
that he's been able to make on enacting tax relief for the
voters. It wasn't so long ago when people told the
President, you're never going to get tax relief done. And we
stand now on the eve of a very important vote tomorrow, and the
President looks forward to that vote.
He's
encouraged by the courage shown by several Democrats who intend to vote
with him and with the Republicans to provide tax relief. If
there are any phone calls, I'll try to advise you. There's
nothing that I have at this moment.
Q Ari,
three Republican senators came out today and proposed a trigger
mechanism, similar to the one that Chairman Greenspan talked about.
That would now count the six Republican senators are not on board your
tax cut. Would the President, because of this development,
entertain a trigger? I know you said he believes the trigger
should be on spending, but there seems to be growing opposition to that
philosophy. And does he need to do some more work in the
Senate?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has been very clear about this
matter. The President believes that there really are only
two things that are going to make surplus diminish, and one is
excessive government spending -- and that's why he supports a trigger
on spending -- and a softening in the economy, which would mean less
revenue. And he believes that in the event of a softening of
the economy, we must cut taxes.
So those
are the President's views and he's going to continue to work with
members of Congress to build the coalitions to get the bill
passed. Tomorrow is the vote in the House and we're pleased
with the progress we're making. The Senate will come up
following that.
Q What
about the idea that six Republican senators now are not on board his
tax plan?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think there are varying levels of support
for a trigger. I'm not sure that's an indication that they
won't vote with the President in the end. We understand that
there are differing approaches and, as the President said earlier today
at the Treasury Department, this is the beginning of the process.
Q The
bottom line is he's got no intention to change his mind on the trigger
mechanism?
MR.
FLEISCHER: You know where the President stands.
Q Ari,
two quick questions on Cheney. First of all, in the
statement that was released last week there was a reference to a
Thursday EKG matching same EKG results from the Thursday
before. So the question is, is he doing an EKG weekly?
MR.
FLEISCHER: My understanding is that was a follow-up to the
heart attack that the Vice President experienced last November, the
mild heart attack, and that was a follow-up approximately three months
after that. You should talk to the Office of the Vice
President for that information.
Q So
he's not having them weekly?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I would ask you to talk to the Office of the Vice
President, but that's my understanding.
Q Okay. Secondly,
the Bush Sr. administration and the Clinton administration both had
contingency plans in place for succession of the vice
presidency. In part, that was because the 25th Amendment is
unclear about when a vice president may be removed beyond the question
of retirement, resignation or death. And so, they had set up
contingency plans for this. Do you all have anything
similar?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't even think it's appropriate, in the
context of what took place yesterday, to be discussing that topic from
here.
Q Well,
it certainly is appropriate. I mean, he had a health issue,
and the whole reason that these contingency plans are in place is for
something unexpected.
MR.
FLEISCHER: There are, of course, contingency plans in place
and they follow the normal order of succession. But again --
Q So
you do have a contingency plan?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's the standard governmental plans that have
always been in effect, as far as I understand it.
Q But
the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration have
reviewed and created contingency plans of their own. Have you all done
that, or did you all just --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me take your question and see if there are
any more specifics I can lend to that.
Q But
you are saying that you have a contingency plan of some sort that would
deal with the process.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, I think that it's not -- in the context of
what happened yesterday, I think bringing that question into play in
this context is --
Q This
is perfectly the context for it. So, is there a contingency
plan in place?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As I said, I'll be happy to take the question to
see any more specifics that I can bring to you.
Q On
that subject, Ari, is the public now entitled to more specific
information about what medication the Vice President takes, how much
weight he's lost and other questions that he's been unwilling to answer
thus far about his health?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the Vice President has been very
forthcoming and he's made his doctors available and people had
opportunities to ask his doctors those questions. Again, I
think those are questions you may want to address to the Office of the
Vice President. But the Vice President has been very open
about a significant amount of information, and if you have anything
further to discuss, I think you should address it to the right place.
Q Well,
you're the spokesman for the President of the United
States. I think this is the right place. He has
been forthcoming about a lot of information, but as you know, there has
been certain information that he has not been willing to release,
including medication and other specifics related to his diet and
exercise and weight loss, et cetera. In light of what
happened yesterday, should those details be made available to the
public now?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I speak for the President, and you've heard my
answer: The President believes that the Vice President has
been very open and provided a significant amount of information, and
that's the President's belief.
Q The
answer to my question is that no more is necessary and the public does
not deserve to get any more, additional information?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the President believes the Vice
President has provided an awful lot of information and has been very
open about it. He made his doctors available yesterday and
people had an opportunity to ask whatever question they chose to ask,
and that's the President's belief.
Q But
on an ongoing basis, Ari, the only -- the White House policy is going
to be that we will only be updated about the Vice President's condition
if he goes to the hospital for some kind of procedure? Or,
as David suggests, will we get regular information about his
condition? Do you believe -- does the White House believe
that the only appropriate time to talk about the Vice President's
health is when he's on his way to the hospital?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that in all cases health decisions,
health questions will be answered as they come up, depending on events
warrant. But there is no such policy, as you indicated.
Q Ari,
yesterday the Vice President came out of the hospital; today he's had
an extremely busy schedule -- an hour meeting with President Kim, then
he's going to Congress to hold a press conference. Is the
administration trying to send a message about his vitality or --
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. The President is pleased that the
Vice President consulted with his doctors and has come to work as is in
accordance with his doctors' instructions. If the
instructions from the doctors had been any different, the Vice
President, of course, would have followed them.
Q What
is President Bush's stance on stem cell research?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We've discussed this at great length and there is
a review underway right now at HHS.
Q Is
it different from what Tommy Thompson said yesterday?
MR.
FLEISCHER: What specifically are you referring to that Tommy
Thompson said yesterday?
Q Well,
he said that he was troubled by the law banning stem cell research.
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has expressed his views on this
directly and that's why he's asked HHS to undertake the
review. The President is very understanding and respectful
of the promises of science, but he's very concerned about any procedure
that would involve taking stem cells from fetuses that are viable.
Q Ari,
it looks like there are probably a handful of Democrats who will vote
for the plan tomorrow. And if you only get a handful of
Democrats, doesn't that really kind of increase the difficulty of
getting to the Senate, where you have a 50-50 split, and right now you
definitely need --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President's view is that he's pleased
that there are any number of Democrats, no matter what they turn out to
be, who vote for the right proposal, to lower taxes on the American
people. He thinks those Democrats, however many there are,
deserve praise for voting to lower that tax burden. And he's
going to continue to work to build additional support from additional
Democrats.
But again,
the tax process -- this is just the beginning, as the President
indicated, and we'll keep building support and we hope more Democrats
will choose to follow the lead of the Democrats who are voting with
Republicans in a bipartisan manner.
Q We
asked you this in the gaggle this morning, but just for the cameras --
what's your sense going into the vote tomorrow? Are you
confident in going into tomorrow's vote?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President views tomorrow's vote as very
important. The President views the vote in the House of
Representatives tomorrow on tax relief as the key moment in honoring a
campaign promise that he made and in delivering tax relief that the
American people deserve. He calls on members of Congress to vote for
it. He's very praiseworthy of those Democrats who have
indicated they will, and he hopes that a good number will follow that
lead. But the President is pleased that early indications
are that this will likely pass in the House tomorrow. He's
hopeful it will. And that makes it one step closer to
delivering tax relief for the American people.
Q If
I could just follow up again, as you know, many House Democrats,
though, are just saying, all talk of bipartisanship is a big sham, that
the House Republicans are pretty much ramming this through without sort
of taking into account Democratic concerns on this and other
issues. So they say any talk of sort of bipartisanship,
working together coming from here really isn't spreading to Capitol
Hill.
MR.
FLEISCHER: And the President's hope is that other Democrats
will follow the lead of those Democrats who have chosen to vote with
the Republicans and with the President. He praises those
Democrats who are voting in a bipartisan fashion tomorrow, he thinks
they're doing the right thing for the country. He hopes that
their example will lead others to do the same.
Q But,
Ari, isn't it true that the White House really isn't interested in
negotiating at all in the House, they just want to get it through the
House, do it quickly, and all the time for negotiation will happen in
the Senate?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President has said right from day one
that he was going to fight for the tax plan on which he
ran. He believes it's the right tax plan for the country and
he's very pleased with the fact that this town is now
governing. And he praises those Democrats who are joining in
getting the job done. He's very pleased -- the President is
very pleased that all the Republicans have joined together to get it
done, that there are no Republicans in the House who are voting against
tax relief. And that's a good achievement, and he's proud of
it.
Q In
the Senate if you only get a few Democrats voting for your plan, you
won't actually stand here and say that's a bipartisan agreement, will
you?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, tomorrow is the House and we're going to
keep moving forward.
Q The
President has been barnstorming around the country trying to drum up
support for the tax cut and put pressure on specific members of
Congress, spending political capital. Where does he get that
capital, given the manner in which he came to office? And
given tomorrow's vote he's not going to have a lot of Democrats on the
side, is he squandering that --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think just the opposite. The
President is building it. And he's building it because
tomorrow his tax plan appears on its way to passage, and he's very
pleased about that. He hopes that it will. And
the President believes that it starts to send the right message to the
country that he meant what he said when he ran on tax
relief. He gave his word; he's honoring it. And
he looks forward to continue to work with Democrats and Republicans
alike to get the job done.
But I think
people also recognize that this is the beginning of a
process. Of course, you have committee passage, House
passage; then you'll have Senate action; then you'll have a conference
agreement; and then additional votes will take place following the
conference agreement. And if all those votes line up, then,
indeed, the American people will receive the tax relief that the
President is working to deliver.
So I think
when you look at everything that's happened in this administration, the
President's message and his proposals have been very well-received by
the American people in an increasingly favorable fashion.
Q So
that's the source of this political capital that he's spending here?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President views political capital as the
voters and the American people agree with the things he's doing and
saying. And that certainly has been the case.
Q On
North Korea, Ari, General Powell's statements this afternoon seem to be
in stark contrast to what he had said yesterday and what he had also
said before Helms and Biden up on the Hill. What changed
between yesterday and today in our approach to North
Korea? And I'm also wondering about the idea of a
review. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry did an
extensive review on North Korea; why do we need another one? And,
further to that, is it inconsistent to have a review while at the same
time we're engaging with Pyongyang?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Rephrase the second part of your
question. I'll take the first and the second, but is it
appropriate to have the force structure review you're asking about?
Q No,
no, no, a review of our policy toward North Korea. Since Bill Perry
just went through a rather extensive, year-long review of our policy.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think what you've heard from President Bush
today at the news conference following the meeting with President Kim,
and what you've heard from Secretary Powell and others in the
administration is the same message, the same voice. Our
approach to dealing with Korea is that any agreements must be
verifiable. Although some promising developments could have
taken place and may take place, we want -- and the President stressed
this today -- to make certain that they're all verifiable, which is
something that Secretary Powell has addressed. And you will
have an opportunity -- at 3:30 p.m. there will be a background briefing
that can answer additional questions on Korea.
Q Well,
can you take the other part of that, why do we need a review when there
was just one conducted? And is it inconsistent to have a
review ongoing at the same time that this administration engages with
the leadership in Pyongyang?
MR.
FLEISCHER: John, it's not unusual for every new
administration to come in and review foreign policy for an eye toward
what changes need to be made and ought to be made, and that's what
we're doing.
Q And
any idea of conducting a review while engaging in some sort of
dialogue? Why do you have to shut off the dialogue while
you're conducting the review?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President has addressed that today, in
terms of expressing his support for the vision of South Korean
President Kim, and you heard him say that today. And he has
expressed his skepticism about North Korea and its intentions, but he
has expressed his support for the vision of President Kim.
Q Ari,
there is word today that the President is close to picking an
ambassador to Ireland. What assessment do you have of his
level of involvement in the Irish peace process? And what
kind of role do you expect he's going to want the ambassador to play in
that process?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President and Prime Minister Blair discussed
the situation in Northern Ireland and Ireland during the course of
their visit, and as Prime Minister Blair and President Bush said at
that time, the President stands ready to help if there's anything that
Prime Minister Blair and the United Kingdom asks for him to
do. If that were to take place, we'll keep you advised.
As for the
report about the nomination of ambassador to Ireland, as you know, I'm
not going to speculate about any of the names that were mentioned -- or
the name, in this case.
Q Back
on Korea, Ari. Is the President comfortable with the
assertion Secretary Powell made yesterday and which the Secretary
seemed to back away from today, that we would pick up the U.S.-North
Korea missile agreement where the Clinton administration left off?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think that there are two sides of
the coin. And the President, as I indicated, is skeptical
about the intentions of North Korea. And although there have
been some promising developments in the past, the President's
intention, and he will make certain, that any agreements are, indeed,
verifiable at their core. And that's the President's point
of view. I think that's what you've heard from this
administration.
Q Also
on Korea, Ari. The Secretary of State, when he came out,
said, we'll be formulating our policies and, in due course, decide at
what pace and when we engage, but there is no hurry. And the
Koreans were very clear to us when they were arriving, they're in a
very big hurry; that they believe that there is a narrow window of
opportunity here and that to delay too long is to risk losing
it. How do you reconcile those two views and did that come
up today?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me ask that question come up at the
background briefing at 3:30 p.m. I think you'll get a more
-- fuller answer.
Q We
would like an on-the-record answer to that. That's why we're
pressing you on this.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, one of the things you've heard the
President say repeatedly is that it's not going to be the approach of
the United States to dictate the pace of international events to our
allies; that he believes the United States has to play a humble role in
foreign policy and work well with our allies, but not force a timetable
on anybody else.
Q But
he's also said that he'd like to work within a timetable that works for
the two parties who were involved. And if a rapid timetable
is what they want, why wouldn't he support that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: And I think you can anticipate continued
consultations between the United States and South Korea on the
timetable.
Q Ari,
the President welcomed President Kim's comments today about the
national missile defense and his putting his statements of last week
with Russian President Putin in what appeared to be a very new
perspective.
MR.
FLEISCHER: You've got that addressed in the joint statement
that was issued by the President of South Korea and the President of
the United States. And you have that in here, talking about
the two leaders share the view that countering these threats requires a
broad strategy involving a variety of measures, including active
nonproliferation, diplomacy, defensive systems and other pertinent
measures. That is the joint statement made by the two
leaders and the President was pleased to make it.
Q Ari,
someone asked this earlier today -- former President Bush pardoned this
Edwin L. Cox, Jr. back in '93, January, and then Cox's father
contributed -- or the family contributed about $31,000, I believe, to
George W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential
campaign. So, A, any connection between the pardon and
subsequent contributions?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. Obviously, any funds that were
contributed to Governor Bush were contributed because people believe in
Governor Bush. And as far as anything that was done in any previous
administration, you have to talk to the previous administrations about
that. That's not been something that I've been looking back
on, as you know.
Q Is
that the example of -- this was a longtime supporter, or even James
Baker, in a memo, said that this was a longtime supporter of the
President. Does this show that perhaps there is more of a
review that's needed for pardons, and the fact that sometimes there may
be a connection of access that donors are getting to high-level
administration officials in all administrations, when it comes to the
pardons that are done by Presidents at the end of the --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I've never spoken to the facts of any previous
pardons that took place under any previous presidents; I have no
intention of doing so. I speak for President Bush, and
President Bush has not issued any pardons.
Q Where
do things stand in terms of Al Gonzalez's review of how this
administration will approach pardons and what rules and regulations
would be followed when it comes to pardons?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He's working on what the process review would be,
and if there's anything to inform you about, I'll try to.
Q Senator Schumer yesterday called for the NRA and other parties in the gun
control dispute to come to an agreement on a code of responsibility for
gun owners and gun-owning families. Is that something that the
President can endorse, a code of responsibilities?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me tell you what the President's position has
been. As he said yesterday, he thinks that everybody in
society has to do a good job of teaching right from
wrong. He thinks that is a question of values, and that lies
at the core of so many of these terrible and unfortunate incidents,
including what took place today in Pennsylvania.
During the
course of the campaign, the President had a series of initiatives that
involved gun safety and strict enforcement of gun laws. I
would refer you to those statements that the President
made. But it all comes down to, again, people knowing right
from wrong and parents raising their children in a manner that helps
them to carry out their acts in a way that is rightful and not
wrongful.
Q So
he would believe that a code of responsibility in initiatives doesn't
do any good?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I haven't seen the specifics of that, and so
I can't comment on the specifics of that one proposal. But
that's what the President has said in the past.
Q There
appears to me more labor unrest in the airlines on the
horizon. I was wondering if the White House has a staff
person or a point person to monitor the situation at the various
airlines to advise the President.
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's all done through Larry Lindsey's office.
Larry is the principal staff person on that.
Q You
all had a statement, I guess, at the beginning of February, like the
9th or something, where you said the President would go ahead and call
for, I guess, a presidential emergency review board if Northwest
negotiations aren't resolved. Would that kick in exactly 30
days from when you put out that release?
MR.
FLEISCHER: There was a 30-day clock that began with the
nations of the National Mediation board. That clock has not
run out yet.
Q So,
exactly, at that time, that will kick in and that will be the first of
30 days?
MR.
FLEISCHER: You would have to check to see what the rules are
as far as weekends and Saturdays and Sundays counting; I'm not sure how
that works.
Q I
think it's 12:01 a.m. Monday, isn't it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We can get back to you on that if you need to
know when the 30-day clock runs out.
Q You
have five days. The President has said -- let me take that
back -- a senior administration official has said he would not take
lightly the threat of concurrent strikes by all four
airlines. Would you seek to act on this one, or would you
wait for the next one?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think the first thing, let's find
out when the 30-day clock exactly expires on the action that's already
been taken. And any subsequent action involving the
President on any of the airline disputes would, of course, also depend
on any actions taken by the National Mediation Board.
Q Is
the President or his political strategists, are they of the opinion
that if these tax cuts pass, that that will --
since people in polls generally feel they're not going to
see a tax cut, if they
actually see a tax cut, then that will be a political gain for the
President?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President doesn't look at it in terms of a
political gain. The President looks at it in terms of this
is what he ran on, this is what he said he'd do, and this is what he's
fighting for to get done because he thinks it's the right thing.
One of the
reasons there has been a sense in Washington at least, or that people
don't think that Washington will follow through on tax cuts is because
they seldom happen. They happen much more often in state
capitals, which is a good thing, and that's part of the reason the
President is trying to bring change to Washington and to bring tax
relief.
The
President believes that in fulfilling his promise to bring tax relief
people will recognize that he is serious about cutting taxes and
Congress is, too.
And we've
got to wrap up in a minute for the background briefing.
Q Representative
Velazques is pretty much concerned, saying that the President is going
to pay for his tax cuts with a strong impact on small business, saying
that budget cuts will cut the agency by over 40 percent, virtually
crippling its ability to support small businesses that are the key to
economic growth.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Kelly, the President's tax cut is going to be
very beneficial to small business. Many small businesses pay
taxes at top rates of 39.6 percent. Small businesses are
often taxed at the same rate as individuals; they're not taxes at the
rate of corporations. And that's one reason why the
President believes, especially in this time of economic softening, that
we need to cut taxes to help small businesses grow and hire more
workers.
Last
question.
Q Ari,
what was the main reason for which President Bush placed a telephone
call to the Greek Prime Minister Simitis the other day at the
initiative of the American President?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President called to express the interest of
the United States in maintaining strong ties with Greece and to discuss
other issues of importance between our two nations.
Q Did
President Bush extend an invitation to Mr. Simitis to visit Washington,
as reported?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Once we have an invitation to announce, of
course, I will announce it. There's nothing to announce at
this time.
Thank you.
END
3:30 P.M. EST
#19-03/07
|