For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 12, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
Listen to the
Briefing
-
Secret Service-statement
-
Incident on White House grounds
-
Senate vote on exploration in Gulf of Mexico
-
Salvation Army-Karl Rove
-
Medicare proposal
2:11 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. I have two announcements I would like to
make. And there's a rather lengthy personnel announcement,
so we will be putting that out in writing. I will not go
through it.
The Secret Service routinely conducts sweeps
and searches at the White House complex on a 24-hour
basis. At mid-morning today, a Secret Service dog reacted to
a vehicle that belonged to someone attending a White House
event. The dog reacted a second time to that
vehicle. At the time, the Uniformed Division of the Secret
Service contacted the Technical Security Division, which handled the
matter.
The Technical Security Division made a
determination of how many feet surrounding the vehicle needed to be
evacuated. And that area included portions of the West Wing,
the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the North Lawn, including
the press area here. The vehicle was inspected and it was
cleared, and all events resumed at normal pace and schedule at the
White House shortly before noon. The President and the Vice
President were never affected at any time by this incident.
That is my statement on the matter dealing
with the Secret Service this morning.
Let me make a second
announcement. The Senate just recently, this morning, also
in an important victory for Americans who believe in promoting
conservation and exploration of America's energy supplies, voted by an
overwhelmingly bipartisan 67-33 to secure an agreement for the proposal
President Bush made to develop America's energy resources in a
conservation-friendly way in the Gulf of Mexico.
Today's vote is a victory for all Americans
who want to see environmentally-responsible energy production to help
protect consumers from wild fluctuations in energy prices, and increase
America's energy independence on foreign supplies of oil and gas.
This vote shows that bipartisan consensus
can be reached on the plan to address America's energy
needs. The vote represents yet another example of how
President Bush is working, and will keep his word to balance the need
to address our energy needs with local concerns. The
President worked very hard with officials of all states in the Gulf of
Mexico in developing that plan. And the President is pleased
that an effort to overturn the compromise that he reached was not
agreed to, by a very overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate.
Q Ari, who did the
automobile in question belong to, and what was the nature of the
material that cause the dog to react?
MR. FLEISCHER: The automobile in
question belonged to a staffer of a member of Congress who was here for
a meeting with the President.
Q Who was that?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a matter for
the Secret Service. I'm not going to name whoever it was.
Q Do you know what it
was that the dog hit on?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's unclear,
Ron. I think the Secret Service might have more specific
information on it. Obviously, what the dog hit on did not
develop.
Q One more question,
and then if I can follow up real quickly. Have you been able to find
out if this is the first time that a portion of the West Wing has been
evacuated?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not
aware. I had not previously been asked that. I'll be happy
to try to find out.
Q The President was in
the Oval Office during the time? The entire period?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President
was on the patio behind the Oval Office, and then he had lunch with the
Vice President. They were initially out on the patio, and
they had their lunch in the routine office where they always do; the
small dining room just off the Oval.
Q But they didn't ask
him to leave the Oval Office?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q In addition to your
office, there was some suggestion that Condoleezza Rice's office,
because of its proximity to the vehicle, was also
evacuated. Can you confirm that?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the
areas that were evacuated included portions of the West
Wing. Those would be all the northern portions of the West
Wing. In other words, any portion of the West Wing that had
glass in the area where the vehicle was found, in the proximity, the
closest proximity to where the vehicle was found. The
vehicle was very close to the gate, so it was a lengthy distance from
the vehicle to the West Wing. Nevertheless, the entire northern
portion of the West Wing was evacuated. That would include the Offices
of the National Security Advisor.
Also, of course, the North Lawn, where many
reporters were. I'd like to thank the reporters for your
cooperation with the Secret Service in agreeing to leave as quickly as
you did. And the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, as
well, the northeastern portions of the Eisenhower Executive Office
Building were also evacuated.
Q Where did you go, and
where did the National Security Advisor go during this period of
evacuation?
MR. FLEISCHER: I went into the Vice
President's office and made some phone calls from there, and then I met
with the President out on his patio.
Q And do you know where
Condi went?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do not.
Q How do they calculate
this area that -- you were saying that they've calculated an
area. We have these things happen from time to time and --
MR. FLEISCHER: The Secret Service
are some of the nation's leading experts in this type of protection for
the people who are fortunate enough to work within these
gates. And they made the determination about how many feet
were necessary to evacuate from within the reach of that
vehicle. And that's the reason why they evacuated these
portions of the White House Complex.
Q What was different
about this incident from other -- we've had other incidents in the
driveway where the guy came out in the Michelin tire-looking outfit to
check things --
MR. FLEISCHER: It was the reaction
to the dogs which are trained in these matters.
Q Ari, that was the
follow-up. Was there another dog brought in for, in effect,
a second opinion, or is there just this one dog? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you should
double-check with the Secret Service. My understanding, it
was a solo canine opinion. (Laughter.)
Q Do you know how
experienced this dog was? Had the dog ever had a false
alarm?
MR. FLEISCHER: You should ask the
Secret Service that.
Q Was the mansion at
all affected by the evacuation?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it was not.
Q Has the car now been
returned, or is the Secret Service still going over it?
MR. FLEISCHER: My understanding is,
everything was cleared, and the owner took the vehicle back.
Q In general, the cars
which have congressional tags, are not checked at the gate; as a
courtesy, they're allowed to drive in. And does this
incident -- would that spark any reconsideration of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, I cannot get
into the manner in which the Secret Service acts for security purposes
at the White House gates. I would simply say, as with all
incidents, the Secret Service is always reviewing actions to make
certain that the White House, the President, the Vice President and all
the guests are safe as always. And so, they always conduct a
review, and -- Q Are
those cars exempt?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, you're asking
questions about specific security matters at the White House, and you
know those are not topics I can talk about.
Q Ari, because of the
scare, is there a thought that there might be a change in how cars, or
what cars are allowed in the Northwest Driveway area?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, the
Secret Service always reviews their activities to make certain that
they are taking all appropriate steps to protect people within the
gates of the White House and that will be something the Secret Service
if they decide to look at, will look at.
Q Will this have an
effect on the President's decision about reopening Pennsylvania Avenue
to traffic?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's too
soon to say if there will be any effect of this
whatsoever. I don't see a connection.
Q Yesterday, you said
in the gaggle on the Salvation Army story, that if people had checked
deeper, they would have seen that this did not reach the senior staff
of the White House. Did you know then that Karl Rove and the
number two person at the Faith-Based Office had some involvement in
this issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: Keep reading.
Q Okay, "if people had
checked deeper, they would have seen that this did not even reach the
senior staff level of the White House, that the words "firm commitment"
were obviously a misread of the White House." I know how
you're going to parse that sentence, but I would like you to ask me
when you -- answer -- when you gave us that sentence if Karl Rove was
involved.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll give you a
two-part answer. And it's not parsing. It is
literally the meaning of what I said, that the question of whether or
not there was a firm commitment from the White House to the Salvation
Army was an erroneous statement in that memo from the Salvation Army,
and the question of support for the action the Salvation Army sought
never rose up to the level of the senior staff following the review.
As for the question of whether or not Karl
Rove specifically had any contact with the Office of Management and
Budget to pass along the information about the review, I did not know
that at the time.
Q And have you been
able to answer in the brief time since our briefing in your office what
exactly Karl Rove's involvement was beyond the one call to OMB?
MR. FLEISCHER: No
changes. As I indicated to you, I took your question and
we're going to work to try to get you an answer.
Q You have said that
under the civil rights laws that these charities, religious
organizations can discriminate on hiring. Am I wrong there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, under the
civil rights laws, religious institutions --
Q There's an exemption
-- exemption.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- are not made to
discriminate on the basis of hiring. In other words, if the
Catholic Church decides that priests cannot be married, that is, under
our laws of freedom of religion in this nation, that is a right of the
Catholic Church to decide who can be a priest. And it is the
right, under the Civil Rights Act, as affirmed by a 9-0 Supreme Court
decision, to allow hiring decisions by ministries to be made in
accordance with civil rights laws.
Q I want to know, can
these federally-funded religious charities, which, under the
President's proposed program, can they deny assistance to non-believers
or atheists --
MR. FLEISCHER: As I told you a half
an hour ago, I do not have an answer for that question yet.
Q Well, why don't you
have an answer?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because you asked a
half an hour ago. I didn't --
Q No, I asked you
yesterday.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, yesterday, you
asked -- Helen, as always, I work very diligently to get you those
answers. I do not have it today.
Q I think that's a very
significant thing, don't you?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll try to get you
that answer.
Q And the question
here, that the Salvation Army wanted, was not whether their ministry
had to abide by local anti-discrimination laws, but whether their
federally-funded social service activities had to abide by local
anti-discrimination laws. And the White House was
considering some kind of action to allow them to discriminate against
gays and lesbians in hiring in these federally-funded social service
programs, correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House, as
we indicated yesterday, reviewed the request from the Salvation Army.
Q And it -- so the
administration was entertaining the possibility of allowing the
Salvation Army to discriminate against gays and lesbians, while at the
same time, taking federal money.
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House was
reviewing the question, whether in this instance a private organization
could hire as a matter which it saw fit. In this instance,
the White House made a decision, as you know, not to proceed with the
Salvation Army request.
Q But in HR-7, the
charitable choice provision, in the current bill that's making its way
toward the House floor, doesn't it also seek to provide dissimilar
shelter from state and local ordinances on this question of religious
institutions, and whether or not they are required to adhere to those
state and federal -- state and local ordinances on the question of
hiring homosexuals?
MR. FLEISCHER: HR-7, passed by the
House Judiciary Committee, affirms the nation's civil rights laws and
the charitable choice laws which have been signed into law by President
Clinton. And that affords religious institutions the
opportunity to hire on the basis of who they believe should be hired,
in accordance with their faith.
Q In accordance with
their religious perspectives?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Which -- and since
1996, since President Clinton signed that, states and localities have
stepped in with their own interpretation of what has happened.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q HR-7 would shield
these religious organizations from these new ordinances and state laws,
would it not?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not clear,
Major. I think that's a question that Paula asked
yesterday. There are state and local governments that have
taken into their own hands their right to pass ordinances that are
contrary to the federal measure. And wherever there is a
federal statute in conflict with a state conflict -- a state statute,
it often ends up in the courts.
Q Whatever happened to
local control? Whatever happened to municipalities who
believe that people provide social services in their jurisdiction
shouldn't discriminate in hiring this way. Why wouldn't the
administration, as they do on other issues, say, this is up to
localities?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because there's a
federal statute. And what the Salvation Army was asking for
was for the administration to overrule local control. The
administration took no such action. So local control remains
in place. There's a federal statute on the
books. There are state statutes on the books. And
as is typical in our society, sometimes they're in
conflict. In certain cities they're in conflict.
Q Ari, the request from
the Salvation Army to the Office of Management and Budget was in the
pipeline as of mid-April.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q The Office of
Faith-based Initiatives was aware of it, the White House was aware of
it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q What was the purpose
for the President's senior political advisor getting involved in this
issue a month later, in the middle of May?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the
Salvation Army met with him and asked him to.
Q But if it was already
in the pipeline, why would there be cause to contact another White
House official, more senior than the first one?
MR. FLEISCHER: It happens all the
time. It happens all the time. If you think that
organizations that represent causes in America stop with one White
House aide, you don't understand -- and I know you do -- how
organizations work. They come and they petition their
government for a redress as they see fit. Sierra Club does
it, the Cancer Society does it, the Salvation Army does
it. AARP was here today. Welcome to America.
This is the business of the American people contacting the
representatives in the White House to state their
claims. The White House will always review these
requests. Sometimes they'll agree with these groups,
sometimes they won't.
Q But it has the
appearance of, we're not hearing what we want to hear, let's kick it up
the ladder a little bit.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, groups
constantly reach out to talk to as many people in the White House as
they can find. For example, today, a representative of CBS
News called several officials in the White House to get comments on
questions. It's not uncommon for everybody to call multiple
people in the White House to try to get action.
Q Are you tracking my
phone calls? (Laughter.) But if I could just
follow one more time --
MR. FLEISCHER: But that's your job,
and that's the right of the American people, including the press, to
contact a variety of people in the White House to try to get answers to
their questions.
Q You have said
repeatedly that there's nothing wrong with listening to people on
various issues. And that may be true, as long as there is no
conflict of interest or any suggestion of a quid pro
quo. Can you say here and now that throughout this entire
issue with the Salvation Army there was not even the suggestion by
anyone at this White House of a quid pro quo, that we will try to get
you this waiver if you support us on faith-based initiatives?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not only can I tell
you that there was never a suggestion of a quid pro quo; in this case,
the Salvation Army asked for something that they did not get -- and the
Salvation Army is supporting the President's faith-based
initiative. That's rather proof positive that there couldn't
have been a quid pro quo. Otherwise, why is the Salvation
Army supporting the President's initiative?
Q Ari, who here in the
White House went back to the Salvation Army with the conclusion that
there would be no action?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was somebody in
the Faith-based Office. I don't know if it was John DiIulio
or somebody who works for him.
Q Ari, on the subject
of Karl Rove's involvement, one of the things that's attracted
attention and criticism is the fact that Karl is the senior political
strategist for the President and, yet, he's also deeply involved, and
has been deeply involved in some policy issues. Some people
say that's inappropriate. This, again, illustrates that
nexus of politics and policy in Karl's portfolio. How would
you respond to the criticisms that your senior political strategist --
MR. FLEISCHER: I dismiss it as
utter nonsense from people who know how good and valued a worker Karl
is for the President and for all of us here in the White
House. Karl performs his job in a superb fashion, and Karl
is in charge of inter-governmental affairs and people should bring
business to Karl Rove if they want to have an issue considered, and
Karl will exercise his discretion and judgment.
It's the right of the American people to bring
their matters to the government, to everybody who works here in the
White House, including Karl. Karl does his job.
Q The question is, is
it appropriate, or is it, in fact, a conflict of interest to have Karl
handling intergovernmental affairs and also serving as the chief
political strategist for the President. Is that an
inappropriate mixture of --
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course not.
Q Why isn't it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Why is it?
Q Because it's mixing
policy and politics.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think all the
decisions that the President has made -- the President makes are based
on the merits. And those include a variety of
considerations.
Q Ari, as the
President's spokesperson, would you have liked to have known, should
you have known the full involvement of Karl, and any other senior
officials, yesterday morning when you were asked these questions?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, if your
question is, is there any White House Press Secretary who is ever able
to keep track of every single phone call made by every single White
House employee and every meeting that every single White House employee
engages in, that's an impossibility. What I said yesterday
was in regard to the question of the firm commitment, and properly so.
Q Do you disagree that
you left, at the very least, a perception that there was no senior
level official involved in this case, at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's a
reminder -- I think it's a reminder that stories can be wrong and
perceptions that stories create can be wrong. And in this case, the
suggestion that senior administration official -- when I said, no
senior administration officials made any such statement about a firm
commitment, it's perfectly clear from what you just read that my
statement was in the context of firm commitments. And that's
exactly right.
Q Can I try one more on
substance? Does the President believe that taxpayer money
should go to any organization -- religious or otherwise -- that
discriminates on the basis of race?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's against the
law.
Q Does the President
believe that taxpayer money should go to any organization -- religious
or otherwise -- that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is not part of
the civil rights laws.
Q What does the
President believe on that question?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has --
consistent with all civil rights laws, the President supports the right
of private organizations to hire.
Q So it would be okay?
Q On the issue of
Medicare that the President was talking about this morning, where do
you go from here? If the President offered some guidelines,
would you try to shape a bill -- would you submit legislation, do you
have a time frame? Also, on prescription drugs, will that
have to be wrapped in an overall Medicare reform packet, or would you
do a prescription drug benefit separately and then do Medicare reform
as time goes on?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President made
two proposals today pertaining to Medicare. One is to bring
the fastest way possible of reducing the prices of prescription drugs
to seniors. And given the fact that Congress has not been
able to take any action on Medicare in recent years, it's a good thing
that the administration can act on behalf of seniors without
congressional approval. That way, seniors can get their
discount cards. HHS is working on a plan to get them the
discount cards next year, and I think seniors are going to be very
gratified to receive them.
The President believes that beyond that, it is
absolutely essential for Congress to put partisan politics aside and
come together. That way, a fundamental reform of Medicare
can be made that strengthens the program that includes a prescription
drug benefit for all seniors within the Medicare program.
Q Do you have a time
frame for this, though? I mean, because --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President would
like to see Congress act on this matter in the fall.
Q Will you submit
legislation to Congress, or will you simply say these are our
guidelines, we'll look for a bill that either comes out of the House or
the Senate that meets our guidelines?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's
approach is reflected in the package that he sent to Capitol Hill
today. The President thinks it's best to bring people
together on this issue. The recent history of Medicare has
suggested that people will prefer to fight over it rather than to solve
it, and by sending up the principles that the President outlined today,
it creates a more inclusive environment so Democrats and Republicans
can work together to support substantive reforms to strengthen and
protect Medicare.
Q Ari, the President
today proposed merging A and B.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q As you are aware, the
deductibles for A and B differ. One is about $700, one is
about $400. If you merge these programs, does that
necessarily mean and does the President support a deductible that would
be somewhat higher than $400 and somewhat less than $700, and therefore
would be somewhere in the middle and because more Medicare
beneficiaries use doctor visits as opposed to hospitalization, some
might be exposed to higher deductible costs under this reform.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President is
committed to working with Congress on a structure with the deductibles
and the copayments that makes the most sense for
seniors. Currently, the current system presents a very big
burden for seniors. As you put it, Major, there is a program
in place right now where seniors under what's called Part A are their
hospital coverage are required to pay $800 every time they go into the
hospital. And that's one of the reasons that more than 10 million
seniors who are on Medicare have had to reach deep in their own pockets
to pay for Medigap insurance is exactly because they are not satisfied
with the premiums and the deductibles and the copayments under the
current Medicare structure. So they have to pay often more than $1,000
a year for additional coverage that can get them additional benefits
and lower copays and deductibles. It's an illustration of the fact
that a lot of seniors would like to see a more modernized structure in
Medicare.
Q Many others just use
-- tend to use Part B more than Part A.
MR. FLEISCHER: Unless, God forbid,
they have to go to the hospital.
Q That's right.
MR. FLEISCHER: And no senior knows
when they're going to have to go to the hospital.
Q That's
right. But those deductibles are lower, and if everyone is
exposed to a higher deductible, a good number of Medicare recipients
could be --
MR. FLEISCHER: But no one says that
everybody will be exposed to a higher deductible.
Q To follow up on the
medical, I know a lot of the family doctors and general practitioners
are very concerned about the President's support of specialty
doctors. Does the President see any merit in referring
patients first to the general practitioners or the family doctors who
can often do the same job as effectively at a less cost?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is exactly why
the President believes that seniors deserves choices in health care
plans. There are some seniors that would prefer to go right
to their general practitioner. There are others that don't
want to be bothered with a general practitioner and they would rather
go to see their specialist. They've worked with these
specialists for many years. They don't want anybody in
between them and their specialist. It should not be the role
of the government to dictate what they do. They should have
choices, so they can best make their own health care plans, as they see
fit.
Q The President does
support the choice?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President -- the
Medicare proposals the President announced today promote choice in
health care for senior citizens.
Q The perception is
that the President is really pushing the specialty doctors.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President -- I
just don't share that perception. I don't see it.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 2:33
P.M. EDT
|