For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 2, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
Listen to the
Briefing
- Personnel announcements
- Presidential appointments/confirmations
- FBI
- Patients' bill of rights
- U.S. Senate reorganization agreement
- Offshore oil leases
- Polls
- Surplus/economy
- Medicare/Social Security
- Death penalty
- John McCain
- Vice President Cheney
- Kosovo travel
- Tax rebates
1:38 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
day. I have personnel announcement, coverage announcement,
and then I want to discuss something that is of note in the United
States Senate.
The President intends to
nominate Wanda Nesbitt to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Madagascar. The President intends to nominate Mattie
Sharpless to be Ambassador to the Central African
Republic. The President intends to nominate George McDade
Staples to be Ambassador to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea.
On a coverage note, the meeting with Mr.
Schundler will be a pool meeting, it will be open to pool at the end of
the meeting. You have that on your schedules, that's open to
the pool at the end.
I also want to note that
the President is very pleased to see that a reorganization agreement
has been reached in the United States Senate, which the President hopes
will now allow senators and the leadership from both parties to address
what is a growing confirmation gap in the United States Senate
involving Presidential appointments.
The
numbers are very simple and clear. As of June 30th,
President Bush has nominated more people for confirmation to the United
States Senate than any of his three predecessors, despite the late
confirmation, or the late inauguration of the President as a result of
the transition. By late inauguration, I mean the amount of
time that was available to the President during the transition.
As of June 30th, the President has nominated
315 people to Senate-confirmable posts. That compares with
Bill Clinton, who, as of June 30th, nominated 249 people; George Bush,
former President, 220 people; and Ronald Reagan, 301
people. President George W. Bush has nominated more than any
of these three people. Yet, the record in the Senate shows
there is a growing confirmation gap.
For
President George W. Bush, the Senate has confirmed only 132 of the
President's nominees. Bill Clinton, at the same time, had
188 confirmed; George Bush had 147 confirmed; and Ronald Reagan had 225
confirmed.
So despite the problem of a late
transition, President George W. Bush has nominated more people than
Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or George Bush, yet the United States
Senate lags far, far behind. The problem is in both
parties. There have been holds put by people in both
parties. And the people believes that it's the interest of
good government for the Senate, now that a reorganization agreement has
been reached in a bipartisan fashion, to step-up the pace and to
confirm his nominees, because the only people who get hurt are the
citizens of the country when we do not have a government in place.
Q What is the problem
in both parties, Ari?
MR.
FLEISCHER: There is just a lag. It does not seem
to be a high enough priority of the United States Senate for attention
to be focused on it. We have entered an era where senators,
individual senators are putting holds on individual people for a wide
variety of reasons that seem to be much greater than previously
done. And the numbers speak for themselves.
Q But you think it goes
beyond attributing it to just the changeover in the Senate?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, because
the lag began even before the changeover. I mean, there has
been a lag in the last month, even more pronounced. For
example, as of May 31st, the Senate confirmed 129 people; as of June
30th, 132. So only three people were confirmed in one
month's time.
Now, I do think it's legitimate
to allow the Senate at the time to enter into an agreement on the
reorganization resolution, which they have done. And the
White House issued no comments during this period of time which hardly
anybody was confirmed. But now that the Senate has reached
this agreement, the President believes it's very important for the
senators to step up the pace and begin the confirmation process anew,
so that the government can be put in place.
Q Ari, speaking of nominations, how come there's
been such a delay in finding somebody to run the FBI?
MR. FLEISCHER: I just don't agree
with that characterization of a delay. The FBI is a position
unlike almost any other position that a President will make an
appointment to. It is a fixed 10-year term. It
has a jurisdiction and an impact on people's lives that is very direct,
very pronounced. And it's the type of decision that a
President should weigh carefully and thoroughly before naming
someone. And that's the approach that the President has
taken.
Q Is there a
problem, though? Is it detrimental for the FBI to be sort of
leaderless and without a permanent chief for any long period of time?
MR. FLEISCHER: The FBI will be
under an interim director, and the President has faith that the people
heading the FBI will do an excellent job. But, again, this
is a serious appointment to a 10-year post. It is not a post
that serves at the pleasure of the President. And,
therefore, it's a post that deserves more time, more consideration, and
that's what the President is giving to it.
Q On the patients' bill of rights, Senator
Daschle yesterday suggested that if the President can't support the
current version of the bill that he allow it to become law without his
signature. And I'm just wondering, given the statement that
came out on Friday night, where there was no veto word, he just said
that in clear conscience he couldn't sign that bill, is it possible
that he might take up Senator Daschle's invitation and, in clear
conscience, not sign a bill such as the one that's there right now, and
just allow it to become law without his signature?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, last I looked,
if you allow something not to be signed, it's called a pocket
veto. So I'm not quite sure how you can let something become
law without a signature on it, in the federal system.
Q It depends on the
timing -- 10 days.
Q You have 10 days.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's right. But in any case, the
President's statement was as clear as clear can be. The
President said that the version passed by the Senate is not something
that he will sign. That's just another way of stating what
he has said always, that he will sign a measure that has the patient
protections that he has sought, that the Senate has sought, that the
House has sought. But he will not sign something, he will
veto something if it includes the liability provisions as passed by the
United States Senate.
Q So he would veto this bill in its current
form?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
could not have been clearer in his statement. There's no
change.
Q On the
reorganization, one more, does this reorganization prevent senators
from putting a hold on a nomination?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, it does not. The Senate retains
the prerogative of putting holds on nominations. The
President is simply appealing to the better judgment of the Senate to
step up the pace. Clearly, this Senate lags far behind all
previous recent Senates in the first year of a President's
term. And it lags behind badly. And it's not just
the new Senate. It is a problem in the Senate,
itself. It's not partisan to one party or the
other. But it does cause problems for the nation and for the
ongoing filling of posts in the government. And the numbers
are growing increasingly troublesome. There is a
confirmation gap in the United States Senate.
Q Ari, which is the bigger problem, the politics
on Capitol Hill or the paperwork and all the background checks these
folks have to undergo?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, again, President George W. Bush is way
ahead of the pace of previous Presidents in terms of making nominations
to the Senate, even with a shortened transition. I'll say
the numbers again.
As of June 30th, the
President has nominated 315 people for confirmable Senate
positions. Bill Clinton, with a full transition as of June
30th, only nominated 249; George Bush nominated 222; Ronald Reagan
nominated 301. So President George W. Bush is way ahead of
the pace of nominations. So, clearly, the problem is not on
this end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in terms of filling out the paperwork
and getting the nominations to the senate.
Q Ari, on offshore oil leases, has the President
communicated at all with his brother, and is he at all concerned about
his brother's political fortune, since his brother opposed this move?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not talked to
the President about if he talked to his brother in regard to
anything. There will be an announcement made later today,
and I'm not going to get into the specifics of it, by the Department of
Interior. I will simply say that the President has heard the
voices of many people in Florida; he is concerned about the
environment; he's concerned about people in Florida and their reaction
to development of resources off of their shore and there will be an
announcement made later today by the Secretary of Interior.
Q Is this part of his
energy plan and, if so, how does it fit in, per se?
MR. FLEISCHER: This was always part
of an announcement that was made by the Department of Interior, after
they reviewed the sale, as is routine with all sales.
Q Is there going to be
a surprise turnabout in his views?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think what you will hear will be a reflection
of what the President said during the course of the campaign, which is
he would work with the governors of all the states in the region and
would have a program that is balanced, that allows our beaches to be
protected, as well as development of energy in a way that is
environmentally sensitive.
Q May I ask you another question? Did
the President say the Wall Street Journal poll was BS?
MR.
FLEISCHER: (Laughter.) He didn't say it to me, so
I haven't heard that.
Q You didn't check it out with him?
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't check that
out.
Q Can you tell us
what his views are now on all these stories that his polls have
fallen?
MR. FLEISCHER: He shrugs
his shoulders. He thinks it's a non-issue, a non-story.
Q He doesn't follow
polls, at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: The
President is cognizant of them, but the President thinks the test of a
leader is what you do in office. And the President is also
comforted to know that he has the solid support of the American
people.
Let me reflect on that. I
take a look at the polls, so let me give you little reflections on
that. According to the latest Gallup Poll, the President's
job approval rating is 55 to 33. That's according to Gallup,
and there's some other polls --
Q It's what?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's 55 to 33, most recent
Gallup. There are some other polls that show his job
approval in the low 50s; there are some other polls show his job
approval in the high 50s. Gallup is right smack in the
middle. Let me give you some numbers to compare it
to. In October of 1996, on his way to a landslide
reelection, then-President Clinton's job approval according to Gallup
was 54 to 36 --
Q Why
do you always have to bring in the Clinton administration? I
mean, why don't you just stick with your own --
MR. FLEISCHER: According to the
same Gallup polls of President Reagan, in October of 1984, Ronald
Reagan's job approval was 58-33 --
Q What did President Truman
do? (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: -- and I can get that,
too. (Laughter.)
President Bush, in
1992, in October of '92, his job approval was 34 to 56. And
the reason I bring up the history of it, Helen, is because history is a
good indication of the present, often. And you asked me,
should the President be worried about the poll numbers.
Q I'm wondering what --
MR. FLEISCHER: If poll numbers at
the point at which the President has them are any indication of popular
support, then previous Presidents who had virtually identical job
approvals went on to landslide reelections just a week or two after
those polls were taken. So the President enjoys solid
support of the American people. By some measurements, that
solid support is down from a very high level of support. But
when you take a look at the numbers in and of themselves, the numbers
are solid.
Q May I
just follow up on that? All these stories indicate, other
people are talking that you are concerned, that there are more
meetings, more strategy, more trying to reach out to the Republicans
who are moderate.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Helen, you asked me, is the President concerned,
and I answered the question. The President really shrugs his
shoulders at these polls.
Q Is there more activity around here now to
improve the --
MR. FLEISCHER: I
think it's fair to say the White House is looking carefully at our
summer and our fall strategy. The White House has turned a
corner, where the major initiative that the President believes will
help the economy to recover has been put in place and has been signed
into law, which will give a boost to growth and give a boost to the
economy. And that will likely take place sometime this fall,
and as a result of an accomplishment of the President's singular
initiative. Now it's important to focus anew on other
initiatives that the White House will undertake.
Q Can I follow up on
that? There's a new budgetary environment, in part because
of the tax cut and the weakening economy and the declining tax receipts
as a result. And the surplus that we heard so much about
during the campaign is rapidly dwindling, at least in the near
years. Should Americans be concerned about
that? What happened?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think people should be concerned about
lack of growth in the economy. Growth is the key to
revenues. And any time the economy softens it will have an
impact on growth. And to review the numbers, industrial
production, which is a key measure of the strength of the economy,
peaked in September of 2000 and has gone down since then. Growth of
the economy, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product, hit 5.4 percent
in the spring of 2000. But in the summer of 2000, the
slowdown began. And for the period of July, August,
September of 2000 -- so now we're talking almost one year ago -- growth
dropped precipitously, to 2.2 percent. And in the fall of
2000, growth dropped even more, to just over 1 percent.
And on Friday last week, we had new estimates
of first quarter -- January, February, March -- growth, which includes
20 days prior to this President taking office, where growth was revised
to 1.3 percent. So the decline in revenue that you are
accurately describing is caused by low growth in the economy.
The solution to low growth is to cut
taxes. Taxes have now been cut in an overwhelmingly
bipartisan fashion. And to listen to the private sector
economists tell the story, you hear that they believe that as a result
of the tax cut and the fact that it's only now starting to go into law,
it will give a boost to the economy, estimated anywhere from 1
percentage point to .7 percentage points. In other words, it
will help grow the economy and, therefore, bring in additional revenue
at a time of a weakness in the economy.
Q In the out-years, maybe. In the
near-term, revenue has declined because of the tax cut, as
well. And that will force changes in the budget --
MR.
FLEISCHER: (Laughter.) Wait a
minute. Wait. You just said that revenue has
declined as a result of the tax cut. The tax cut hasn't gone
into effect yet.
Q As
they prepare the budget for the next year and the following year,
they're going to have to take into account --
MR. FLEISCHER: The decline in revenues already exists, and
it exists as a result of the slowdown in the strength of the economy,
going back to last summer and last fall. That's beyond
dispute. The tax cut, for the first manifestation of it,
went into effect yesterday, on Sunday, as people will in their next
paychecks receive bigger salaries as a result of changes in
withholdings. After the $300 and $600 checks are delivered
to people, that, too, will have an impact on revenue.
But more importantly, according to private
sector economists, it will boost growth. And let me just
read to you from some of the things. This is one firm called
Macro Economic Advisors. These are the leading private
sector economists: The tax cuts just passed by Congress, at
about 1.2 percentage points to GDP growth at an annual rate.
Morgan Stanley: The tax bill
awaiting the President's signature delivers fiscal stimulus sooner than
we've been expecting and packs a punch. We estimate it will
boost second half growth by one and one-quarter percentage points.
And I could go on, Merril Lynch, Lehman
Brothers, all the financial accounting firms who make their living by
trying to be as accurate as possible have all said that the tax cut
will create more growth. The problem in revenues is a
problem caused by low growth. The tax cut is the cure to the
problem, because a tax cut leads to greater growth.
Q While waiting for
that cure to take, will the administration spend any of the Medicare
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund surplus on anything other than
hospitalizing the elderly?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me address that in two
parts. There's an issue dealing with Social Security and
there's an issue dealing with Medicare. The President has made it
unequivocal to all that Congress should not take any action that would
lead to any spending, at all, of Social Security money. That
money belongs to Social Security. Under the Bush budget,
even with these new numbers, Social Security need not be
touched. If there's any touching, it's as a result of too
much spending by the Congress.
So this is a
wake-up call to the Congress not to spend tax dollars, because if they
spend, and go back onto a spending spree, the Congress risks tapping
Social Security's money. And Congress should take no step
that will put Social Security within reach.
As for Medicare, it has long been the position of the Bush
administration that there is no surplus in Medicare. And the
reason for that is, there's a shell game in
Medicare. Medicare is divided into two parts that only
people in Washington understand. One is called part A,
hospitals, the other is called part B, doctors. The two
together represent a deficit, not a surplus. So it's --
Q One part of it
represents monies that are earmarked for hospitalizing the
elderly. You're willing to raid that money to pay for the
other part?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a
meaningless distinction. There's part A and part B adds up
to Medicare. It's like saying somebody has money in the left
pocket of their pants, and they have a big IOU in the right pocket of
their pants. And that IOU is much bigger than the amount of
money they have in the left pocket. By that description,
you're saying that person is awash in money because they've got some
money in their left pocket.
No. It
is one system. It is Medicare. It's one
person. And when you add up the amount of money that
Medicare spends for doctors, compared to the money it takes in; and
when you add up the amount it spends for hospitals, the Medicare system
is in deficit, not surplus. And the President believes that
every penny of money that comes in for Medicare should be earmarked to
Medicare.
Q But won't
that strategy accelerate the depletion of the Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. It means that every penny of
Medicare will be earmarked for Medicare.
Q Medicare will run out of money faster --
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. Because under any other way of
doing it, what people are saying is, don't use the money that comes in
for the hospital trust fund on Medicare, use it instead to pay off bond
holders, use it instead to pay down debts. That's taking
Medicare money and giving it to people who have nothing to do with
Medicare.
The President thinks it's much
sounder to take all the money that comes in for Medicare and spend it
on Medicare for both hospitals and doctors.
Q Ari, on the death penalty, two
questions. The district attorney in Houston will decide
within the month whether to seek the death penalty against Andrea Yates
-- she's the mother who drowned her five kids. Has the
President expressed an opinion on whether this woman should be put to
death for that crime?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, Russell, I have not heard him do so and he
doesn't engage in that type of speculation. That's not the
job of the President.
Q Second question. Last week, Sara
Lee plead guilty to crimes in connection with a 1998 outbreak of
listeriosis, which caused the death of 16 people, eight miscarriages
and 40 to 80 seriously injured people. The company plead
guilty to crime. Has the President expressed a view on the
death penalty for corporate criminals? That is, revoking the
charter of a corporation that has been convicted of a crime that has
resulted in death?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. As I indicated in your preface
question, the President does not weigh in, those are matters at Justice
and they should not be dictated by decisions made at the White House.
Q Wait a
second. Ari, wait a second. He's in favor of the
death penalty for individuals, generally. Is he in favor of
the death penalty for corporations convicted of crimes that result in
death?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell,
these are questions that are handled by officials of Justice, not by
people in the White House.
Q How can you say --
MR. FLEISCHER: You only get three, not four.
Q I have 18 questions,
also, but I'll whittle it down to one. (Laughter.) There
were four demonstrations in Arizona over the weekend, by Republicans
opposed to John McCain because of his stance on issues.
What is the White House's position on these
disgruntled Republicans and this ongoing effort to recall Mr. McCain?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is
working very closely with Senator McCain on a host of issues, and he
looks forward to continuing his works with Senator
McCain. There are many areas where the two of them have
forged a lot of consensus, and see room for a lot of good things to be
done for the American people. And that's the President's
ongoing approach.
John, I told you
I was going to call you before, and I missed you.
Q I don't know where
that went. (Laughter.) I was actually going to
enter into the frustrating pit Terry tried to get you
through. I'll yield on that one.
The Vice President is back at work and the President says he looks
great. Did we learn anything, though, new over the weekend
about the Vice President, in terms of, is he on any new medication, any
new findings, whether it's cholesterol level or any other heart
significant findings that we should know about?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, there is
nothing that I can offer, beyond what his doctors said at a lengthy --
Q Terry? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I think everybody
needs a sign today. (Laughter.)
Mr.
King, there is nothing I can offer beyond what his doctors said at the
news conference that they had on Saturday, which was a very lengthy
news conference where people had opportunities to ask all kinds of
questions.
I think if there is anything that
our nation has learned as a result of this, it is the marvelous
progress that is made in science and in medicine, so that millions of
people -- who don't have to be the Vice President of the United States
-- can have health problems, can have those health problems treated and
then return to work. And I think that that's a very
encouraging sign for Americans from all walks of life about the state
of technology, the state of science and the state of medicine.
And I think it's -- it's always interesting
for politicians to undergo any type of health
treatment. Because on the one level I think that every
politician wishes they could have a little more of their anonymity back
but, at the same time, I think every politician recognizes they're
lending to an awful lot of knowledge across the country, where other
people go out and get the health care they need as a result of the
coverage of what is typically a private matter for somebody.
And in that sense, I think Dick Cheney is
pleased, because there are probably people whose lives are being
changed and are being improved because they heard what he's been
through and they realize they can do the same thing, and they can enjoy
healthy, normal lives.
Q Ari, one follow-up back to the point Terry was
trying to make. I won't get into the Medicare A and B, since
he tried so diligently and didn't get you there.
But do you concede that if the President gets
his wishes through the Congress in the next year or so -- the increased
defense spending, a prescription drug benefit to his liking, gets the
compromise he wants on elementary and secondary education -- that if
you take aside Medicare and Social Security and you've got about a
trillion dollars over 10 years, there is at least $700 billion of it
right there, there really is no -- there is not much of a surplus left
anymore.
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, I
think there is no question --
Q Terry? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Be inconsistent, at
least. (Laughter.)
Q Why don't you call him
Helen? (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: Ron, I think there's no question -- (laughter.)
Q How about
Larry? (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: There is no question that if Congress lives
within the limits of the budget resolution that the House and the
Senate have already voted on and agreed to abide by, they will be able
to pass the budgets that honor the President's priorities without
tapping the Social Security trust fund, as the President has said.
Again, the key to having increased revenues
coming into the government is from growth. And the best way
to secure future growth is as a result of the tax cuts that were passed
and signed into law on a bipartisan basis.
Q Ari, on the confirmation gap, you acknowledge
that this happened in the previous Senate, controlled by
Republicans. But the fact that the President waited until
now, when the Senate has gone over to the Democrats seems to inevitably
raise the issue of partisanship here.
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think that if that was the case, the White
House would have spoken out a couple weeks ago. But the
White House wanted to wait for the Senate to have a chance to
reorganize. And now that a reorganization agreement has been
reached between the two parties, it's a matter of simple fairness to
filling the slots of government, which serve all the people, not just
the Democrats and not just the Republicans, but the entire nation.
So the remarks are aimed at being helpful to
the Senate, to remind the Senate that it is a bipartisan obligation to
help fill those posts.
Q To turn it around, if the Republicans had
control of the Senate for the first five months of the year, the
Democrats have been in control for one month, and if the administration
considers this a priority, what kind of communication went on to the
GOP --
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, it was
ongoing then, too. The holds were in place then,
too. And as you know, we started publishing the data on the
number of confirmations made and on the number of nominations made
during the Republican Senate, as well. This is not a
partisan issue. It should not be treated or seen as a
partisan issue. It should be seen as an issue of how to fill
an American government.
Q -- to perhaps build bipartisanship with
Senator Daschle, and to try to make sure that at least the folks on his
side aren't --
MR.
FLEISCHER: There's no question this is an opportunity for
the Senate to speak in a bipartisan voice. These are
nominations made by a Republican President that need to be approved by
a Democrat Senate. And it has been the tradition of the
Senate that regardless of who is in the White House, a President is
entitled to put his people in place. And that has been the
powerful tradition of a bipartisan way of Senates before, and the
President hopes that will be the tradition, too, of this
newly-constituted Senate.
Q On Friday, the White House said they were
worried about an oil deal with Iran that the Italian Energy Group, ENI,
was about to make. On Saturday -- and signed a $1 billion
oil deal with Iran. I'd like to know if this administration
plans to invoke ILSA or any sanctions against Italy?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take that
question and get back to you on that. I'll have to look at that.
Q Do you have anything
on a possible trip by President Bush to Kosovo?
MR. FLEISCHER: If we have any
announcements to be added to the trip the President is making in July,
we'll announce it at the appropriate time.
Q Kind of on the same subject. Is the
administration proposing today in the Federal Register new oil leases
for off-shore drilling in the Gulf off of Florida?
MR. FLEISCHER: I addressed that
earlier. There will be an announcement made by the Secretary
of Interior later, and I'm not going to delve into any of the specifics
on that matter.
Q Ari,
on tax relief, as you know, I guess in the third week of this month the
first tax rebates are supposed to go out. But funding for
that program is tied up in the defense supplemental. Is
there any deadline or drop-dead deadline that the President needs to
sign that bill into law in order for the checks to come out --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's probably a
question that needs to be addressed more at the Department of Treasury
than to the White House. They're much more familiar with
what their mechanical needs are for the distribution of
checks. That's not under the White House.
Q I also have a
follow-up on your answer to the question about the patients' bill of
rights. I just don't understand -- when the President was
governor, he allowed a portion of the patients' bill of rights to go
into law without his signature, dealing, I believe, with legal recourse
issues, which is one of the issues in question now. Why
couldn't the President do that if he so chooses to?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think if the
United States Senate were to send the President the same liability
provisions that are in place in Texas, that very well may be enacted
into law. But that's not what the Senate is
considering. The Senate is considering a provision that has
caps set at $5 million. In Texas they're set at
$750,000. It's a vast difference. So that might
be a constructive route now for the House of Representatives to take so
that a patients' bill of rights can, indeed, be signed into law.
Q There's no way that
he would ever consider allowing a bill to go into law without his
signature?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think
the President addressed that question last week.
Q Ari, the President of
Mexico has just gotten married this morning. Taking aside
that he's a very close friend of the President of the United States, I
wonder if the President has already called Fox to congratulate him?
MR. FLEISCHER: He has not called
him. And as you know, after phone calls are made, if there
is one, we'll let you know.
Q Is he sending a gift?
MR. FLEISCHER: Is he what?
Q Is he sending a
gift? (Laughter.)
Q How does the announcement that's being made at
the Interior Department square with the image and the message that the
President was trying to convey when he went to Florida a couple of
weeks ago?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I
indicated earlier, the President has heard the voices of the people of
Florida and he's done just what he said he'd do, which is work with the
governors of all the states on the Gulf of Mexico and come out with a
plan that is environmentally sensitive and balanced.
Q Aren't the very
people he was appealing to with that trip the same people who are going
to be not too happy, to say the least, with what's being announced at
Interior?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think
you should wait and hear what the Department of Interior has to
announce.
Q The
President approved it, though --
Q -- we did, too.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q This is an order from the President, right?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is from the
Secretary of Interior. The President is --
Q I mean, the President
signed off on it, didn't he?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President signed off. This is an
order from the Secretary of Interior.
Q The murderous Osama bin Laden has threatened
Israel and the United States in the next two weeks to, in his words,
hit them where it hurts the most. Since President Jefferson
sent the U.S. Navy to attack the Barbary pirates and President Wilson
sent the U.S. Army under General Pershing into Mexico in pursuit of a
mass murderer of Americans, named Pancho Villa, the President realizes
that these are two legitimate presidential precedents for his taking
military action, doesn't he, Ari? Or does he think that Jefferson and
Wilson were wrong? (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: I can't speak to the history, Les --
Q You know the history,
you went Middlebury College, they have a good history
Department. You know the history. Now, was that,
in the President's view, wrong what they did?
MR. FLEISCHER: They also teach foreign languages
there. Les, I don't discuss military options.
Q No, no, no, I just
want to know, does he think that these are not good presidential
precedents?
MR. FLEISCHER: The
President will take action that he deems appropriate in national
security interests.
Q The Washington Times reports that 40 members
of Congress are supporting the giving of the Congressional Gold Medal
to Mohammed Ali. Does the President support this and, if so, would he
support an amendment that the presentation of this medal be in front of
the Vietnam War Memorial wall?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's not something I've talked to him about.
Q Ari, given that you
said the President has sort of signed off on the Interior announcement
that's happening right now, can you shed any light on why the President
thought it was important to go forward with this at this time, given
that the House, including 70 Republicans, did recently voted to pose a
moratorium --
MR. FLEISCHER: I
think I've addressed the issue, and let's wait for the announcement to
be made.
Q The
confirmation situation, are all the gaps in the government making it
harder for you guys to push your agenda through?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it does
present challenges. It presents challenges again for the
government and for people, regardless of their party. It
presents challenges for the Congress to have witnesses come up and
testify. It presents challenges for the nation to have the
appropriate ministerial officials go abroad to represent the United
States in important meetings, and throughout the
government. At a time when only 132 people have been
confirmed by the United States Senate, it does suggest that the Senate
needs to, when they return, refocus on this as a priority.
Q What are the biggest
challenges, given all the openings you all have got?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's rather
logical. There are voids in places where there should not be
voids. There are people who are not able to serve in jobs
that the nation needs them to serve.
Q Do you have a breakdown on how many holds are
by Democrats and how many holds are by Republicans?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have not seen
any such breakdown.
Q Ari, on the oil leasing --
MR. FLEISCHER: And not all of it is
attributable to holds. Others are attributable to just that
action has not moved forward.
Q They're controversial, aren't they, like Otto
Reich and so forth -- Negroponte, all of these people involved in
Iran-Contra?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen,
there has never been a President who did not have some nominees that
brought up certain levels of controversy.
Q Deeply controversial.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we've heard
"deeply, deeply controversial" from other Senates, too.
Q They didn't get
reappointed to the White House.
MR.
FLEISCHER: We've heard other issues in other Senates, but no
Senate before has lagged this far behind.
Q Ari, on oil leasing, I was unsure from your
last response whether or not you were confirming or not whether
President Bush has actually conferred with his brother prior to today's
announcement on --
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I indicated I hadn't talked to the President
about if he talked to his brother.
Q Can you let me know if he does?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you
everybody.
END
2:10 P.M. EDT
|