12:45 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. I want to report on several phone calls the
President made today, and then also give several personnel
announcements.
The President spoke this morning with Israeli
Prime Minister Sharon and Egyptian President Mubarak to discuss the
situation in the region. The President said he is looking
forward to seeing Prime Minister Sharon next Tuesday in
Washington. The President thanked President Mubarak for his
indispensable role that the Egyptian President is playing in assisting
our efforts to bring an end to the violence in the Middle East.
The President later today will be speaking
with Chairman Arafat. And finally, the President has
directed Secretary Powell to travel to the region next
week. And I want to share all that information with you.
On the personnel side, the President intends
to nominate Hilton Lewis Root to be United States Director of the Asian
Development Bank, with the rank of Ambassador. The President
intends to nominate Christopher William Dell to be Ambassador of the
United States to the Republic of Angola. The President
intends to nominate Michael L. Dominquez to be Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. The
President intends to nominate Nelson F. Gibbs to be Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Installations and the Environment. The
President intends to nominate Claude B. Hutchinson, Jr. to be Assistant
Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Management. And two
judicial nominations -- the President will nominate John D. Bates to be
a judge for the United States district for the District of
Columbia. And the President intends to nominate Reggie B.
Walton to be a judge of the United States district for the District of
Columbia.
With that I'm pleased to take your questions.
Q Ari, what is his
message to Chairman Arafat going to be today?
MR. FLEISCHER: His message to
Chairman Arafat will be that it's important for all parties to adhere
to the cease-fire, to embrace the recommendations of the Mitchell
Committee so that peace can be achieved in the region and
confidence-building measures can be taken.
Q And why is he
choosing now -- he's been sort of reluctant in the past to call
Arafat. Why is he doing it now?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've always differed
with that. The President has talked with Chairman Arafat
before. Secretary Powell has talked with him
before. And so this is part of the President's ongoing
effort to help the parties in the Middle East to achieve peace.
Q Is an invitation to
Washington likely to be extended to Chairman Arafat in that phone
call?
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, you know our
policy. At the time of any announcements, we'll make them.
Q Why is Powell going?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks
it's very important for all parties in the region to seize the
opportunity that has been created as a result of the mission that
Director Tenet took to the Middle East that has created this fragile
cease-fire --
Q Does he have a
special mission, or is he just going there to sound out --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has
asked the Secretary to go to the Middle East to help secure efforts to
preserve the cease-fire and to build upon it, to build to a greater
peace in the Middle East and try to get all the parties to continue to
do their part to secure the Mitchell Committee recommendations.
Q Where is he going?
MR. FLEISCHER: There will be
additional announcements later. You may want to talk to the
State Department about it.
Q What about the
timing, Ari? You've always placed a lot of importance on
when it was the right time for the Secretary to go to the Middle
East. Why now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, the President
thinks it's important for all parties in the region to seize the
opportunity that's been created as a result of the Mitchell Committee
report, of Director Tenet's successful visit to the Middle East, to
further build upon the fragile cease-fire that is in
place. And, therefore, the President has made the phone
calls today. He has directed the Secretary to travel. And
the President will continue to be as helpful as is possible, to play
the role of facilitator. But it remains fundamentally
important for all the parties in the Middle East to act to preserve the
fragile cease-fire and to build upon it.
Q Can you give us a
slightly more specific idea of what it is that Powell is being charged
to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we may want
to talk a little closer to the trip. The answer I've given
covers it.
Q When is he
going? Where is he going? Who is he seeing?
MR. FLEISCHER: The modalities of
the trip will be discussed later; not today.
Q When is he leaving?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the
modalities will be discussed later.
Q Soon?
Q This week?
MR. FLEISCHER: Next
week. No, I said next week, he's going next week.
Q It sounds like the
President is getting more deeply immersed in the Middle
East. And, also, why did he tell Mubarak that he was looking
forward to seeing Sharon?
MR. FLEISCHER: I said he told
Sharon he was looking forward to seeing Sharon. He told
President Mubarak that President Mubarak was indispensable and thanked
him for the indispensable role he's played.
Q Ari, since timing is
critical here, why is Powell going to the Middle East when Sharon is
coming here -- like ships that pass in the night?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Secretary does
not always sit in on all the President's meetings he
has. And, again, I don't know the exact timing of the
events, so I would reach no conclusions about who will be where until
you learn the modality of Secretary Powell's visit.
Q Ari, you've heard
this before too, though. Palestinians, though, with the fact
that Ariel Sharon is coming to Washington next week, it will be his
second meeting with the President, and Palestinians say there has yet
to be one meeting with Chairman Arafat. So how do you
respond to Palestinian criticisms that the U.S. looks to be a biased
facilitator in this process?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States
will continue to work with all parties in the region. We
will continue to have conversations with all parties in the region to
help secure the peace. And, clearly, the discussions that
the United States had with the parties in a facilitating role has
helped create the cease-fire, albeit a fragile one.
Q Were you looking to
see Chairman Arafat do more before he would be extended such an
invitation to Washington?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm going to limit
my comments to what I've said about it.
Q Is this a sudden
decision? All of a sudden, he decides to send Powell?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, this is a
continuation of the diplomatic efforts that the President has
launched.
Q Are you still in a
cease-fire maintenance mode or are you looking to take this somewhat
further with this trip?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Mitchell
Committee's recommendations, which have been accepted by all parties,
begin with an unconditional cease-fire from all parties. The
cease-fire is in place, as I've indicated on many occasions here, on a
fragile basis. The next step are the confidence-building
measures that can help move beyond that to a more lasting
peace. So as part of the confidence-building measures, the
President is going to continue to have the conversations he's been
having on a regular basis, either in person or on the phone with
leaders in their region. The Secretary's efforts are
continuing, and the Secretary will be traveling to the region.
Q I'll try again on
this one, if I may. Does the White House believe that both
Sharon and Arafat control or speak for all their
factions? And also, in light of this infamous video tape put
out yesterday by Osama bin Laden, does the U.S. think that some of the
groups under Arafat are connected with Osama bin Laden's groups?
MR. FLEISCHER: Connie, I addressed
your question yesterday about who speaks for whom, and I have no
information for you on your second question.
Q Ari, on a different
subject, on Russia, first off, the advisor, military advisor to
President Putin was meeting today with Dr. Rice. I was
wondering if you could share anything with us about that
meeting? And in a more general way, could you describe what
the White House wants to do to carry out agreement or the decisions or
whatever it was that the two Presidents agreed on in Ljubljana?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the meeting with
Condoleezza Rice, Dr. Rice, I have no information for you. I
don't do readouts on those meetings, as you know. As far as
the meeting with President Putin, I can refer you to the Department of
Defense. As you know, the Secretary of Defense will be
meeting with his counterpart, and you may want to follow up over there
about the exact timing and sequence of events.
Q The Indian ambassador
will present his credential this afternoon to President
Bush. Is it going to be more than a photo op, or will they
extend words or any statement?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the
President is going to have some brief words there, if I recall looking
at the briefing material this morning.
Q Ari, back on the
Mideast for a minute. As you've said a couple of minutes
ago, and you've said before, ultimate progress will be up to the
parties, themselves. Is the administration's goal here to
get Arafat and Sharon to sit down together or to resume direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there have
been direct discussions between Israel and the Palestinians.
Q Not on that level.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's on the security
level. But just as the Mitchell Committee report indicates,
it does begin on the security level because it has to begin with a
cease-fire that both sides, all sides adhere to. And,
ultimately, it has to move from there through the confidence-building
measures into political dialogue, so that additional disputes can be
resolved.
Q But is he, in his
talks with them today and with meeting with Sharon soon, is he going to
suggest that it's soon time for them to get together, themselves?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to get
into the specifics of what the President is going to
suggest. I think you can imagine that these are delicate
diplomatic conversations that take place and that to preserve the
greatest likelihood of a successful outcome over a long period of time,
the right of leaders to have conversations in private should be
respected.
Q Ari, NATO said today
that it's going to begin putting together a force of maybe 3,000 people
for Macedonia. I'm wondering what the President thinks would
be an appropriate role for the U.S. to play in that force and whether
he signed off on that conceptually last week at NATO?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know,
during the meeting with NATO, the President did call for stepped-up
NATO action. The discussion at the NAC in Brussels focused
heavily on events in Southeast Europe. So the talk about
having NATO step up its efforts is perfectly in keeping with what the
President discussed while he was traveling.
As for the specific announcement, if that's
your question, NATO did make an announcement this
morning. The United States supports NATO's decision to
prepare to assist the government of Macedonia with a voluntary
disarmament of ethnic Albanians, the ethnic Albanian
insurgents. Once a comprehensive political settlement is
achieved, which is exactly what NATO indicated this morning -- that
decision is in keeping with the statements that the President made
while he traveled to Brussels last week.
Macedonia's main political parties, including
those representative of ethnic Albanians, are currently in talks aimed
at achieving a political solution to the crisis. And we hope
that the political parties in Skopje can reach an agreement
quickly. The announcement that NATO made is contingent on
the parties in Macedonia achieving a political settlement first.
Q What role does the
President think would be appropriate for the U.S. to play in this kind
of contentious --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Secretary
Powell testified on the Hill today we're going to continue to work with
NATO on this, but it's premature to state what that role would be at
this time.
Q So the President,
when he said last week, which was, there is still political activity
needs to take place before troops are on the ground -- that statement,
more or less, is unchanged?
MR. FLEISCHER: Which is exactly
what NATO indicated this morning.
Q You're not ruling out
U.S. participation in such a force?
MR. FLEISCHER: The participation by
the United States will be something that is discussed at the
appropriate time.
Q But, Ari, they are
planning now -- they are planning that force now.
MR. FLEISCHER: But it's contingent
on an achievement of political agreement in Macedonia first, as NATO
indicated, and as Secretary Powell testified on the Hill.
Q Every other American
President who had dealt with the Middle East has been pretty
even-handed in the sense that the President sees an Israeli official he
will see the counterpart of the Palestinians. The President
is breaking this kind of precedent. Why? Why is
he shunning face-to-face meeting --
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, that's not an
accurate description of the history of Presidents and the meetings
they've held.
Q Yes, it is.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's --
Q I'm sorry, I've been
here a long time -- (laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I know you
have. And you'll be here after I'm gone.
(Laughter.) But that's not an accurate statement about the
history of presidential meetings in the region.
Q Yes, it
is. I'm sorry, it is.
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly.
Q I just want to follow
up on a question that Helen asked a little bit earlier, which is that
it appears the administration is starting to begin this more active
engagement. I know you obviously say the administration has
been engaged for a long time, but the President on the phone today,
Secretary Powell going to the region is more of a shuttling of
diplomacy that you seemed to be critical of in the previous
administration. How do you respond to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what criticism
did the President make of the previous
administration? Shuttling diplomacy? Can you cite
a specific instance for me?
Q Well, you sort of
seemed to say you wanted to kind of make sure that other parties play a
role, that it's not just going to be the U.S. involved and it's not
going to be the U.S. forcing the players to the table in these
decisions.
MR. FLEISCHER: Precisely
right. Precisely right.
Q So you don't see any
difference to what you are doing and what the previous administration
did? Or do you see any difference?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm just
differing with your premise that the United States disputed -- the
President disputed, as you put it, shuttling diplomacy. The
President has been very involved from the beginning of the
administration in efforts to secure peace in the Middle
East. But the President has always maintained that the role
of the United States can best be to help facilitate the peace, that the
United States cannot possibly, despite its good intentions, force the
parties to achieve a peace. And the Mitchell Committee
report is consistent with the President's recommendations and progress
has been made. There is a cease-fire in place and the
President wants to build upon that and that's the purpose of his phone
calls and the purpose of the Secretary's travel.
Q Why is this
administration trying to settle the tobacco lawsuit? And why put out
word that you don't think you have a good case? Doesn't that
hurt your negotiating ability?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the decision
to begin -- the recommendation, I should say -- the recommendation to
enter into a settlement talk came from a 38-year-long career employee
of the Department of Justice, whose responsibility is in this very
area. He made a recommendation -- you may want to ask
Justice what his name is; I don't have his name specifically, but he is
the person who -- he is the acting head of the civil division at
Justice. He is a 38-year-long career employee at Justice who
made the recommendation to the Attorney General. The
Attorney General accepted the recommendation. The President
concurred. And that is to proceed on a two-track approach to
the issue of tobacco.
Q Would you agree with
the officials who said yesterday that one reason to do this is you
might lose, you don't have a very good case?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's hard to
speculate about what the prospects of a court outcome will
be. But it's the Attorney General's recommendation to
proceed on two tracks, one involving the litigation, the second
involving a settlement.
Q Let me follow
up. I don't want to know why the person who recommended it
made the recommendation. Why does the President think that
we should -- the United States should try to settle this suit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the
President believes it's best, most appropriate to proceed on two tracks
to try to bring resolution to the matter.
Q But does he have
reservations about proceeding with it? He's expressed that
in the past, although sort of couching it. But does he have
any reservations?
MR. FLEISCHER: In general, the
President does believe that we are a much too litigious society, that
there are far too many lawsuits. And it's preferable if you
can reach agreements to reach agreements. In the case of the
tobacco matter pending before the Department of Justice, the Department
of Justice is going to proceed on a two-track approach, one involving
litigation, the other involving possible settlement talks, and the
President supports that approach.
Q Ari, can we go back
to the Middle East just for a moment and let me ask the question
another way. In his phone conversation later today with
Arafat, will the President invite him to Washington?
MR. FLEISCHER: If there is any
invitation to be announced, I will share that information with you.
Q Now that the EU is
set to block the GE-Honeywell merger, what steps will the President
take to persuade the EU to change its mind, and how will the
administration retaliate if the merger gets blocked?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you should
address that question to the agencies that are directly involved, and
that would be the Department of Commerce or the antitrust division over
at the Department of Justice.
Q Ari, why did Vice
President Cheney meet with Steve Ballmer of Microsoft at a point when
the antitrust case is still pending?
MR. FLEISCHER: At that meeting they
talked about education initiatives. Microsoft is very
involved in several educational programs. The suit did not come up.
Q Following Karl Rove's
meeting with Intel executives, does the administration have a policy of
meeting with corporate executives, on the one hand, for general policy
matters like education, and on the other hand, for specific private
interests, the likes of which Intel was seeking?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure what
you're -- private interests -- I'm not sure what your question is.
Q Merger, antitrust
issues, specifically related to the corporation itself, as opposed to
an energy company generally weighing in on energy policy.
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration
meets with all kinds of constituents -- citizens who represent labor,
citizens who represent business, citizens who represent particular
causes that they believe deeply in. Foreigners who come to
this country, foreign leaders, of course, who come to this country --
the administration believes it's important to listen to the causes of
the American people, whether it's an individual or it's a business or
whether it's labor.
Q But is it appropriate
for administration officials to meet with corporate executives who are
seeking private action by the government -- seeking action to benefit
their specific private interests?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is
hardly a citizen who is not seeking something from the
government. And that's a formula for saying that government
shall never meet with anybody. There are many Americans who
are concerned about improving education across the
country. There are many organizations that come to
Washington for the sole purpose of lobbying members of Congress or
lobbying the administration on an education issue, for example.
It is entirely appropriate for the
administration to listen, to hear them, just as it's entirely
appropriate for the administration to listen to steel workers who want
to come to Washington, or to listen to business leaders who want to
come to Washington. This afternoon the President is going to
meet with a business roundtable to talk about trade promotion
authority, a very bipartisan effort on Capitol Hill. So it's
part of the administration's effort to listen to people who have causes
that are worth bringing to the attention of government leaders from all
walks of life.
Q Ari, presuming that
almost all of the American Legion voted for Bush and not for Clinton's
Vice President, surely the President has a response to the Legion
commander's letter -- "you campaigned on a promise to shore up combat
readiness, but we are abandoning what the Navy and Marine Corps
consider the most important East Coast training site."
Question: Since you, Ari, defend this as "an incentive"
yesterday to make the Navy look for a new place, will the President
respond to the Legion that he may reconsider and that the Navy needs
only an order from the Commander in Chief, rather than any
"incentives"? And I have a follow-up. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Your question
obviously applies to the situation in Vieques. And the issue
there is, where can the United States most effectively
train. And the President has made his determination that
it's appropriate for the Navy to find another location to
train. That was a recommendation, a decision made by the
Secretary of the Navy. The President shares that
belief. And the President adheres to that.
Q With the population
of Vieques Island only 9,000, to which the Navy has already given 6,000
acres from an ammunition depot, on Monday there was a grand total of 14
demonstrators arrested, one of them was from Chicago. And
since you told us of the President's telephone to the Reverend Jesse
Jackson to tell him "you are in my prayers," shouldn't he have told
Mrs. Jesse Jackson that she was in his prayers, given the conduct of
her husband?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President did
not make any such connection.
Q Well, you wouldn't
deny that she was in his prayers, too, would you, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not been
asking him daily about that topic.
Q -- go back to the
tobacco settlement. Haven't you cut the legs out from under
the litigators by advertising your doubts so publicly in this case?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I
think, again, this is a matter that the Department of Justice
recommended as their way, they think is the most appropriate and
fitting way to reach an agreement.
Q Let me follow up,
because the lawyers for the other side said, wow, this is news to
us. Usually, if you're trying to settle a case you go to the
lawyers first, before you go public; not the other way around.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
concurred with the judgment made by the Attorney General and his
professional staff.
Q Ari, do you have any
idea why the Justice Department thought that that was a matter that
needed to be reviewed here at the White House? Is there any
standard by which matters are referred up here for concurrence by the
President?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration,
as you know, is always in touch with the agencies. And we
have a whole division here set up to talk to the agencies on a daily
basis. And so it's par for the course, it's part of the
everyday routine of the White House to be in close contact with the
agencies. But this was a recommendation or decision made by
the Attorney General and the President concurred.
Q And if I could just
follow up on that. In response to Terry's question, you said
that it's appropriate for White House officials to meet with people
that may have private interests in front of the
government. Is it appropriate for White House officials to
meet with people that have private interests if the private interest is
a litigation matter that's in the courts?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you use
that standard, of course, there's a host of people who have entered
into suits involving environmental matters before the Department of
Interior and before other agencies. That would shut down
almost the entire environmental community, wouldn't it? They
would not be able to have any access to people in government if that's
the standard. So the fact that somebody is in the middle of
exercising their constitutionally given rights to recourse from
whatever decisions the government may make through the judiciary should
not deny them access to any other branch of the
government. If it did, again I would suggest to you, you
would put out of business a large group of the environmental
community.
Q But would it be
appropriate for them to come here to discuss the matter under
litigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a
matter that the ethics attorneys would take a look at in each
individual case.
Q Ari, when you say
this is a litigious society and the President prefers that we work
matters out instead of sue, does that mean that the Justice Department
lawyers and the lawyers on the other side should assume that the
President prefers that the case be settled?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a general
statement for the President. You've heard the President say
that as a matter of overall approach.
Q -- with this
issue. So why should not the people who have been fighting
the government assume that he wants to cave on this thing and wants a
settlement?
MR. FLEISCHER: I answered that
question in terms of the President's overall approach to litigation in
society and litigation from the government. But obviously
the Department of Justice is continuing on also with the lawsuit.
Q Are they pressing it
seriously? Or have they been told by the President through
this podium that the President would prefer that it be settled?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, they are
pressing it seriously and they are also pressing seriously the question
of a settlement.
Q Ari, does the
President still believe or did he ever believe that the tobacco
companies engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a question
that the President -- the President has confidence in the Attorney
General's Office to get to the bottom of that
question. That's a matter of -- a legal matter, and that's
why the Attorney General's Office is involved in this.
Q That's the wording of
the suit filed by the government of the United States. Does
the President still believe that that was the case and --
MR. FLEISCHER: That is going to be
-- that will be resolved in the course of the legal action that is
ensuing.
Q It already has been
resolved by -- the Justice Department has already filed a suit making
that claim. Does the President believe otherwise, and would
the Justice Department --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why the
President supports the two-track approach that the Department of
Justice has underway.
Q Because he has doubts
about whether or not --
MR. FLEISCHER: The Department of
Justice is proceeding with its litigation and the Department of Justice
is also proceeding with settlement talks.
Q Does the President
believe, though, with the Justice Department lawsuit, that the tobacco
companies have been defrauding the public? Does he believe
that, or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is why the
lawsuit is proceeding as well. There is a two-track
procedure underway.
Q I'm just asking, does
he agree with that contention, or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, that's really
-- that's a legal matter that's dealt with in the
suit. That's what the suit contends and that will now be
decided. And there is also a settlement talk that is
underway that the Department of Justice has just launched.
Q The previous
President and this current Justice Department has already taken a
position on that question. Does this President have a
position on --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's
position is that the United States government should work as
productively and cooperatively as it can to try and resolve matters
short of litigation. There are going to be times when it's
appropriate to litigate. The Department of Justice is
proceeding to both litigate and pursue settlement talks and that's the
President's position.
Q Going back to Vieques
for a moment with a two-part question. One, is the President willing
to stop the training before May of 2003? And, if so, under what
conditions? And, secondly, under the previous agreement,
under the agreement worked out with the previous governor and the
previous President, there were two dollar values, one for $40 million
in public works and if live fire resumed another $50
million. What's the status of those chunks of money or
public works?
MR. FLEISCHER: You may want to talk
to the Pentagon about the specific sums of money. But the
President's position is, as the Department of Navy announced, that it
would proceed through -- testing will proceed through May 2003.
Q The President said
today that he would like to see some OSHA rules
eliminated. Does he have any in mind? He said
some are not needed, didn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, let me take
that and get back on any specifics.
Q Ari, on the Middle
East, it does seem that we've gone from hoping that the two leaders
would get together to using American officials to try to nudge them to
get together. Is that fair?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, American
officials have been involved from the beginning. As you
know, one of the reasons that the cease-fire has been
achieved is because of the efforts of Director Tenet, who traveled to
the Middle East two weeks ago, at the President's
request. And so the United States has been a player at the
table, bringing the two parties together. In the context of Director
Tenet's visit, that was for the security talks.
Q But that's precisely
what I mean. The U.S. before -- initially, the
administration has said it's necessary for the two parties to get
together on their own for us to have any role. And now we're
actually helping --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a subtle
mis-statement of the administration's position. The
administration's position was the United States will be a facilitator
to secure the peace, we cannot force the peace. The United
States did not say that the two parties have to get together on their
own. It was always, the United States will be there to facilitate
that.
Q Do you have any
comment on Laurie Berenson giving her first testimony today, or on the
Berenson case, generally, in Peru?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the State
Department is handling that.
Q One more
follow-up. Would you please put out a statement after the
President has spoken to Yasser Arafat, give us some sort of readout?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I'll keep you
advised about that.
Q Ari, one on patients'
bill of rights. Some Democrats, and even some Republicans,
say politically it would be impossible for the President to veto a
patients' bill of rights if it came to his desk, with polls showing
that Americans, more than 70 percent of Americans want Congress and the
President to deal with this issue this year. What do you say
to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, because so
many Americans want Congress and the President to deal with it this
year, it would be very unfortunate if the Congress dealt with it by
inserting a poison pill into legislation that would otherwise be signed
into law. Congress has within its own hands the ability to
deliver these patient protections to the American people, who deserve
them. And it would be very unfortunate if Congress took
those protections away from the American people by inserting a poison
pill into legislation that they know the President would otherwise
sign.
Q What is the poison
pill?
MR. FLEISCHER: The poison pill are
the liability provisions that Congress is debating right now, that go
way beyond the liability provisions that the President is willing to
accept. The President does believe very strongly that
individuals should have the right to sue HMOs after an independent
review.
Congress takes the President's belief and goes
way too far and hands too many favors over to trial lawyers, in a
manner that would make health care premiums go up, in a manner that
would deprive people of health insurance because of rising costs, in a
manner that would hurt our health care system and would fundamentally
hurt people's ability to be protected from their HMOs because it would
stop a good bill from getting signed into law.
Q Ari, what is the
state of play on that? There was some talk yesterday, there
was a meeting I think in Hastert's office, about the possibility of a
compromise on the state lawsuits. Is the White House
involved in that? Is there any movement here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the White House
is involved in a lot of the talks that are up on the Hill going on
about this, because the President would like to see an agreement
reached. And as the President indicated this morning, there
are a lot of things in the bills that are moving before the Congress,
particularly in the bill that is offered by Senator Breaux, a Democrat,
Senator Frist, a Republican, and Senator Jeffords, an independent, that
are worthy of support, that he is looking forward, if Congress will
only send it to him, to signing into law.
So the administration will continue to work
with members of the House and the Senate, Democrats, Republican,
independents alike, to try to secure an agreement. He hopes
that the leaders in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, will be
willing to compromise, and will be willing to work with him.
Q Is there movement?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's just a little
early to say. The Senate is about to take up the bill, and
it's going to be a lengthy debate in the Senate. And as anybody who
has watched Senate debates before know, until the amendments really
start, there's a lot of interesting conversations, but it's also
important to let the amendments begin.
Q The President
received Randy Forbes and his wife not long ago -- this
morning. And the Republicans have picked up a seat in the
4th Congressional District of Virginia that was in Democratic hands for
a long time. I imagine the President's happy on that
one. Does he feel that Forbes' win is a referendum or
endorsement of the President's policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do have to say the
President did take note -- (laughter) --
Q You're forced to do
that.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President did
take note in that race that the Democrat candidate accused the
Republican candidate of being a Bush Republican, and the voters of that
previously Democrat district chose the Republican to
win. And so if there's an accusation by Democrats in
upcoming elections that their opponents are Bush Republicans, this
election proves that the voters like Bush Republicans.
It's a very interesting special election,
because there have been some 70 special elections in the past 25
years. And of those 70, only 19 resulted in a change of one
party to the other. And of those 19 changes, only three were
changes in favor of the President's party. So it took place
in Virginia in a previously long-term Democrat seat is a harbinger of
good things to come for those people who believe, as President Bush
does, in providing tax relief and saving Social Security through
individual accounts and faith-based initiatives. All those
items are on the agenda; particularly Social Security was on the agenda
in this Virginia election.
Q Does that mean the
President is going to be reelected? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, with your
support, the answer will be yes. (Laughter.)
Q A softball like that
--
Q Can I go back to
patients' bill of rights please?
MR. FLEISCHER: I was hoping Jacob
had a follow-up. (Laughter.) We have two people
who have not had their chance yet, so let's go to --
Q If I can follow up,
please --
MR. FLEISCHER: Can we go to two
people who haven't had a chance yet?
Q On managed care, we
sped $4,200 per person per year on health care, and yet 42 million
Americans have no health insurance, 15 million have inadequate health
insurance. The Swiss spent $2,400, the Germans $2,300, the
French $2,200, the Canadians $2,000. Everyone is covered.
And, according to Dr. Quinten Young, of Physicians for National Health
Program, they have a better health care
system. Question: He wants Medicare for all,
national health insurance. Would the President support such
a program?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
believes that the best way to get health insurance to as many Americans
as possible is through a combination of the successful private plans
that have been working, particularly for people who are under 65, and
by reforming and saving Medicare, so that people who turn 65 will have
a Medicare program they can count on and rely on that includes
prescription drugs.
Q And what's wrong with
Medicare for all? Everybody gets it?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is a current
system in place that is focused on employer-provided health insurance
that for tens of millions of Americans is a program that provides
prescription drugs, is a program that provides much lower premiums and
copayments than Medicare currently supplies. So I think if
you were to ask many of those people who have insurance currently if
they want to just abandon what they have and instead accept a different
type of program, they would respond to you and say, no, they prefer to
have the system they have.
What's important in the President's opinion,
is to concentrate on those people who do not have any insurance of any
type, and that's why the President is committed to the health care
reforms that he ran on.
Q Ari, Senator Daschle
said if necessary, he would hold the Senate in through the July 4
recess to pass a patients' rights bill. First of all, what
is the White House comment on doing such a thing?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's an
indication, as every Majority Leader of the Senate has found, of how
difficult it is to govern the Senate.
Q If it turns out that
there is an impasse and nothing can be done, in the past on areas like
the budget, there have been summits held to try to get both sides to
hammer out an agreement. Would the President entertain such
an idea of something like this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's
important to let the Senate have a chance to do its
business. They are just beginning the debate. The
debate begins today or tomorrow in the Senate. Allow them to
begin it.
Q The debate is already
two days late. They started out last week --
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, that would be a
real first. I mean, this is the Senate and the Senate
proceeds in a longstanding tradition in a similar
manner. Often, at the end of the day, the Senate still gets
its business done.
Q Does the President
have any thoughts on Cal Ripkin?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not asked
him. I do notice that the day Cal Ripkin will have his last
game is also a day they play the Yankees, which means tickets will be
hard to find, which is a blow to Yankee fans.
Q They're already sold
out --
Q Ari, on Iraq, what
does the administration make of Iraq's claims that U.S./British air
strikes killed 23 soccer players today?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no
substance, nothing at all, to those claims. It is woefully
incorrect.
Q Who killed them?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that is a
question you need to address to the Iraqi authorities.
Q Ari, just to follow
up on the judgeship, you mentioned that John Bates was being nominated
to a judgeship. Is that correct? Is that the same
John Bates who worked for the Independent Counsel's Office?
MR. FLEISCHER: The biographical
information will be coming out a little later today, so you will have
that in writing.
Q Do you know if he
worked for the Independent Counsel?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have that
information with me. The biographical information will come
out later.
Thank you everybody.
END
1:17 P.M. EDT