For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 25, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
Listen to Briefing
-
Personnel announcements
-
Social Security interim report
-
President's meeting with House and Senate members
-
President's perception in Europe
-
Patients' bill of rights/meeting
-
Mexico/truck issue
-
Bosnia/troop deployment
-
Macedonia situation
-
ABM Treaty
-
Energy/trade
-
Stem cell research
-
Security issues/congressional members
-
President's agenda/success
-
Urban America/Attorney General Ashcroft
-
President Carter's remarks/reaction
12:49 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. For you travelers out there, welcome
back. I hope you got some rest last night. I have
some personnel announcements, and then one issue the President has
asked me to bring up this morning.
The President intends to nominate Gaddi
Vasquez to be Director of the Peace Corps. The President
intends to nominate Randall Kroszner to be a member of the Council of
Economic Advisors. The President intends to nominate
Kimberly Terese Nelson to be Assistant Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency for Environmental
Information. The President intends to nominate Hal Daub to
be a member of the board of directors of the Social Security Advisory
Board, and upon confirmation he would be designated as chairman.
And on that topic, the President noted and
thanks the efforts of the Social Security Commission for the interim
report which they came out with this week, which highlights the
important issues that Social Security is facing if younger Americans
are to have a solid retirement system that they can trust and rely
upon.
The President is particularly grateful to the
work of the -- the President particularly notes the bipartisanship of
the commission -- Senator Moynihan, Mr. Robert Johnson -- for their
efforts in producing the interim report that came out. The
President thinks it's very important for Congress to work on a
bipartisan fashion on Social Security reform.
He's very worried about making sure our
younger works -- people 50 and younger -- have an opportunity the have
a strong retirement system that they can depend on. He
thinks it's terribly important to protect Social Security for today's
retirees, to have a system in place that is reliable and dependable for
younger workers and thinks the bipartisan actions of this interim
report very helpful in moving Congress forward and in making progress
on saving Social Security.
Q You say it's
bipartisan, but it was all one-sided. I know you've
emphasized that word about three times, and the idea that there might
have been some dissenting opinion, but there wasn't. All of
these people were handpicked for one idea.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's an
example of how --
Q I don't think that's
a true study.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's one
example of how this approach is able to win bipartisan
support. And the fact that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
is powerfully pushing this idea; Robert Johnson, a very leading
Democratic --
Q They were picked
because they pushed the idea.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that there
is an interesting sense here that there are many people who are
committed to a new way of thinking in Washington and those people come
from all over the Republican Party, all over the Democratic
Party. But there is a liberal wing of the Democratic Party
that is not interested in any new thinking on Social
Security. They have saved Social Security in the past by
raising taxes, and they offer no new thinking about how to save Social
Security today.
Social Security is a system that presents
tremendous difficulties, particularly for younger Americans who have
Social Security taxes taken out of all their paychecks, and they worry
that they're never going to get it back. And this group,
which doesn't include Democrats or Republicans, are showing that people
can come together, the two parties, on new ways of thinking about
Social Security, and that's why the President is pleased with their
interim report.
Q Ari, when you say
members of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, are you referring
to Mr. Daschle and Mr. Gephardt, who had some very critical assessments
of the interim report and the entire work of the commission?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, if you take a
look at the landscape of Washington, there are people who are locked
into old thinking and there are people who are willing to think new
about problems. There aren't many Democrats who are willing
to think new about these problems. They're represented on
this commission, and they are found throughout the Congress. And the
President is pleased to continue to work for that.
The President respects the rights of others to
disagree, but that won't stop him from putting together a bipartisan
coalition. He understands there are going to be people who
will be partisan and will opposed any effort to save Social
Security. Many of those people raise taxes in the past to
save Social Security, and that might be their inclination to do so
again. The President will resist that.
The President thinks that personal accounts
are a strong way to go. They rely on trusting people to make decisions
for themselves, and the President believes that's in the interest of
all Americans.
Q What did he tell the
Congressmen today? Can you give us any report on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure. The
President just concluded a meeting with approximately a dozen or so
members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, to
report on his trip to Europe. He filled them in on the
details of the G7 and the G8 discussions, the efforts that the leaders
made to alleviate poverty through a new approach, particularly focused
on some new initiatives in Africa, a new approach to grants for the
World Bank, and a focus on the World Bank on grants aimed at improving
education and productivity.
The President discussed at length -- and this
was a big topic at the meeting -- his meeting with President Putin and
the success the President believes he had with President Putin in that
meeting and making new progress toward a new way of thinking, beyond
the Cold War. And that was the core of the discussion.
Q Ari, does the
President -- he's certainly someone who is a good judge of people and
how they perceive him. What's his view about how European
leaders perceived him, both substantively and personally, and how that
might be different from the second trip and the first?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I spent a
little bit of time talking to him about that. It doesn't
matter whether the leaders agree with him or disagree with him on the
issues -- he has a very good, warm and cordial relationship throughout,
and he's very pleased by that.
The President in six months in office is
forging very strong ties with individual leaders. And there
are many nations in Europe that are very strongly supportive on a
policy basis of the President's initiatives. Other nations have other
points that they bring up to the President.
But if you look throughout Europe, there's
very interesting developments in Eastern Europe and Spain and Italy,
other nations, the United Kingdom, that have a very strong shared
outlook with the President of the United States. There are
other nations that have different outlooks.
But Europe is diverse, and that message is
reflected in the messages that the President hears from their
leaders. Certainly, anybody who heard Prime Minister
Berlusconi's news conference with President Bush heard a powerful
affirmation of Italy's support for the United States and for President
Bush on substance, on initiatives, on policy, on missile defense, on a
new way of thinking. And that's reflected in several other
European nations, as well. And for the nations where there
are different approaches, for example, on global warming or on missile
defense, the President has hit it off with those leaders very well.
Q I just want to follow
on one point. What does he -- I mean, he was aware of
criticism of his -- the perception of him as a new leader and maybe --
just various levels of criticism. What has he done, what
does he feel like he's done to overcome some of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no
such criticism from his counterparts. I think there is the typical
welcoming that some in the media give to every new President, in terms
of saying they're going to be tested when they go abroad, leaders will
measure this new American leader and form judgments. And this is part
of the hazing that every new American President goes through in the
media -- whether it's European media or American media.
But in terms of the statements made by foreign
leaders -- in Quebec, trip to Europe in June, his trip to Europe in
July -- he has been greeted by nothing but positive sentiment, which I
think is a reflection of the strong relations and the shared values
that exist between the United States and Europe, even with the
governments of Europe that are left of center. And, of course, we have
a Republican administration in Washington, so European leaders who come
from a different political philosophy are getting used to a new
President, and they're getting used to him, I think, in a very
productive way. It's a different way of thinking in terms of
having left of center governments welcome somebody with the American
initiatives.
Q Has the President
heard from Condi Rice? Can you update us on her efforts?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have any
update for you on that. He had a series of domestic
briefings this morning and then he has a foreign meeting this
afternoon. Earlier this morning, right before this meeting,
on the European trip, that topic did not come up. So I
haven't heard him talk about that.
Q Ari, is there a
second meeting today with members of Congress on patients' bill of
rights?
MR. FLEISCHER: There will be a
meeting at 1:15 p.m. this afternoon in the Cabinet Room with Republican
members of Congress focused on patients' bill of rights. The
President's going to continue to work very hard with members of the
House of Representatives on getting a patients' bill of rights
agreement so he can sign a bill into law.
Q Will you put a list
of participants out?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes. After each of the congressional
meetings, we always publish a list. So the list should be
coming out on the basis of the meeting he just had as well.
Q Ari, can I get a
question in also on the meeting with foreign relations
people? The President, in his communique, expressed the
Mexican truck issue, which you did not bring out among the subjects of
main concern. What is the President
doing? Because it's not just the members of the Foreign
Relations Committee, you have the budget people, transportation people,
and it's still complicated. What is the President doing to
get the Mexican truck --
MR. FLEISCHER: Vice President
Cheney has met with members of Congress this week to talk about that
issue. The administration is very actively engaged in that
issue. The President has made his point of view very clear
about being fair to our neighbors to the south. As you heard
the President say, he believes we can have safe trucking on American
roads and to do so without being unfair to Mexico. And
that's the message that the administration has taken to the Hill, and
the President hopes that that message will be heard and well-received
in the United States Senate, where action will be taken shortly.
Q Well, since the free
trade agreement, NAFTA is the law of the land, and the President was
stressing that not allowing the trucks in violates the spirit of NAFTA
--
MR. FLEISCHER: You heard the
President say just there.
Q That's what I
mean. So if it's the law of the land, why can't Congress
just approve it? What's holding up Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a
great question for Congress. And this is an issue that the
President differs with Congress and differs with some people in his own
party. The President thinks it's terribly important to be
fair to our Mexican friends. the President thinks it's
important to adhere to the NAFTA agreement. The President
doesn't think that it's right to treat one NAFTA partner different from
another NAFTA partner.
And, at the core level, the President does
believe that you can have safe transportation on our roads, and that's
a priority for the President and his budget reflects additional money
to hire safety inspectors. And you can do so in a way that
is not unfair to one of our major trading partners and to our good
neighbor to the south, Mexico.
Q Ari, did the topic of
continued troop deployments in the Balkans come up? And was
there any discussion at all about the deteriorating situation in
Macedonia in the meeting with the members of the Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: I left about 10
minutes before the meeting ended, to prepare for you. It did
not come up prior to that time. A lot of the discussion was
focused on missile defense, President Putin.
Q Has the President
been briefed on the situation in Macedonia, specifically dealing with
the embassy and embassy personnel, and any latest thoughts from the
administration on what's happening there and what it is doing, if
anything, to assist the EU and others to keep the cease-fire?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has
been fully briefed on the situation in Macedonia, which is a very
sensitive situation involving events on the ground in Skopja and
throughout Macedonia. And the President believes that it's
time for leaders to show leadership, that it's time to focus anew and
to strengthen the initiatives, to secure peace in Macedonia, to make
certain that the cease-fire goes back into effect.
The President does not believe there is any
military solution to the problem in Macedonia, there is only a peaceful
solution. And that's reinforced as a result of the
President's visit to Kosovo. Kosovo was a reminder about the
dangers that can take place throughout the world as a result of ethnic
tension and ethnic strife. And that's why the President is
again urging the parties in Macedonia to come together, to honor the
cease-fire and to take the steps necessary to continue the political
dialogue. There is no alternative to a political dialogue in
Macedonia.
Q Are, at the stakeout
the senators said they urged the President to have a new framework in
place before abandoning the old framework. They're talking about the
ABM Treaty. Does the President agree with that assessment?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not sure
which senators you're referring to said that --
Q Biden and Warner.
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay.
Q Levin and Warner.
MR. FLEISCHER: Because I heard
other senators praise the President's approach on missile defense and
said they were heartened and encouraged to see not only the President
take the stand that he took, but also the fruitful progress that he and
President Putin are making in leading the world to new thinking on the
question of missile defense.
But the President stated privately what he has
said publicly, that the President does think it's time to move beyond
the antiballistic missile treaty. That was a treaty
negotiated in 1972 by then-President Nixon and President Brezhnev, and
it's a reflection of a very different world and a very different
time. And the President stressed that in his meeting with
the senators.
Q In that meeting, what
was the central message that the President wanted to deliver to these
members of Congress?
MR. FLEISCHER: The central message
--
Q On
Putin. Not all the other topics, but on Putin.
MR. FLEISCHER: The central message
that the President delivered to the members of Congress with whom he
met today was that he believes that Russia and President Putin can be
welcome in the West, that they look westward, that their future is in
the West, that their chances to even be a stronger nation rely on
openness to the West, which is dependent on the reforms that Russia is
working hard to make under President Putin.
Q Ari, what's the
President's plan for the rest of the week on patients' bill of
rights? Is he going to start talking to Democrats, as
well? Is he going to start making phone
calls? What's he going to be up to?
MR. FLEISCHER: He's already talked
to a number of Democrats, has met with Democrats. The
President is prepared to work this issue as hard as he has, and will
continue to work it even harder if necessary to make certain that
patients throughout this country can get a good patients' bill of
rights that gives them the protections they need in dealing with their
HMOs, and does so in a fashion that does not drive up people's premiums
in a way that makes people lose their health insurance. And
that's what this debate is coming down to. It's a debate of
patient protections versus higher premiums. And the
President comes down on the side of patient protections.
Q Also, my
understanding is that there have been fairly intensive discussions with
Charlie Norwood in recent days and weeks. Does that mean
that the President may be willing to abandon the Fletcher bill, even as
he tries to assemble support for it?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President
believes in the principles that he announced earlier. And as
you know, the Fletcher bill conforms to those principles, and that's a
bill the President would sign. The President's aides have
been meeting with Mr. Norwood, those meetings will continue, and the
President thinks it's important for all parties to work together so
that an agreement can be reached. And he's dedicated to it,
and he hopes the members of Congress will be as well, and it's
ongoing.
Q On the timing of the
vote in the House, it's been suggested now that the Republican
leadership is interested in delaying it until perhaps
September. Is that not a reflection of having to retreat a
bit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me say, as a
veteran of many such votes in the House of Representatives, you never
know what the data is going to be until the vote almost
begins. And so I think it's important to allow the leaders
of the House of Representatives to make their decisions as they see fit
for when the vote should take place, but I don't think anybody knows
reliably exactly when that vote will take place. This is a
typical walk-up to a major vote on something that, arguably, may be a
close vote. We'll see when the vote is.
Q Ari, what's the
President's assessment on what the landscape is like on patients' bill
of rights? I mean, is he on the ropes on this? Is
his approach on the ropes?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks
that the American people want to have a patients' bill of rights that
gets signed into law that doesn't make them lose their health
insurance. And that means the President is carrying the
American people's message to the Congress. The President
thinks that the worst thing you could do would be to pass any type of
health care provision that would make people lose their health
care. And if a bill is passed that has excessive attorney
fees, that encourages frivolous lawsuits, that drives up the cost of
health care in the form of higher premiums, fewer companies will be
able to offer health insurance to their workers, and fewer workers will
be able to afford health insurance. That's not patients'
bill of rights, that's a patients' bill of wrongs, and the President
wouldn't support that.
Q What I'm asking is, I
understand what his opinion is on this, but it appears that politically
at this point, that point of view is not winning in the House of
Representatives.
MR. FLEISCHER: I disagree with that
assessment, and I think that's what the vote --
Q Based on
what? I mean, that's what I'm trying to get at, is what's
his assessment of how likely his approach is of winning in the House?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is
plenty of evidence that the President's approach is making good
progress with members of the House, Democrat and Republican
alike. And the question was, when will we know, when will
the ultimate test come, which, of course, is a vote. And
you'll find out when the vote is, and that will be the ultimate answer
to your question.
Q And Ganske-Dingell
would still definitely be vetoed by the President, correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: Any bill that does
not conform to the President's principles would not be
supported. As you know, he said that about the
Kennedy-McCain approach in the Senate, and that would apply as well.
Q Ari, do you think
that the longer you wait until September, the more likely you're able
to use this time to twist arms to get more Republicans and maybe even
change Norwood's mind?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's hypothetical,
because, again, nobody knows when the vote will take place, and so the
President -- no matter when the vote is, whether it's tomorrow, whether
it's next week, or whether it's -- whenever the leadership of the House
schedules the vote, the President's position remains the same, and that
is, he will sign a bill that gives patients the protections they need
in dealing with their HMOs that doesn't make them lose their health
care coverage because of higher premiums. That's just a timing issue
for when the vote is. The timing is not the most important
thing to the President; the substance of the legislation is.
Q Ari, is it fair to
say that this is the President's number one priority right
now? There's a lot of other stuff on the table in the House,
and the recess --
MR. FLEISCHER: There are three
important priorities the President established in a speech he gave
approximately a month ago, where he urged Congress to take action, and
that is education reform. The second is patients' bill of
rights, and the third is his faith-based initiative.
Q Energy and trade can
wait then? The fast track can wait?
MR. FLEISCHER: That doesn't mean
anything else is exclusive of those priorities, but those are the three
the President identified. Energy remains an important
issue. Certainly with the important actions that OPEC is
considering taking, it's another reminder for why it's important for
Congress to act on the President's energy initiative, so that way we
don't have to be dependent on decisions made by foreign nations that
affect America's energy supplies and America's energy dependence.
Trade is also a very important issue to the
President, and it's one of the most powerful and positive results of
the G7 and G8 summit, is the strong statement by the industrial nations
to promote trade around the world, begin the next WTO round of trade
discussions in Qatar this fall.
Q Ari, OPEC has taken
action since the President spoke this morning. They have
agreed to cut daily crude output by four percent. So is
that, when you go back and consider what he said this morning -- is
that a move to stabilize the market, or is that a move to drive up
prices?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, you
heard the President. The President's remarks focused on the
importance of providing stability and pricing. It's worth
noting -- and this is not in the form of taking credit, because I think
these are issues best judged by outsiders -- but the price of oil had
declined from $32 a barrel to $26 a barrel since President Bush took
office. OPEC is responding to what it sees as market reasons
to not let the price drop further. That's an OPEC judgment.
The President's point is that we need to take
the power of setting prices out of the hands of foreign countries and
put them more in the hands of American consumers and
Americans. And that means to reduce our dependence on
foreign supplies of oil, whether it's from OPEC or other foreign
nations, and allow Americans to have more energy by conserving, and
also by increasing exploration at home.
Q Ari, to follow up,
that's the long-term. In the short-term, what effect does
the administration think this action is going to have on especially
wintertime fuel prices and supplies?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it remains to
be seen. I'm not an economist, I can't predict, but
obviously it's another reason to make certain that the American people
conserve at home and that we enhance exploration at home so that the
impact of these decisions is mitigated.
Q Ari, does the
President really believe that the American people would like stable
prices rather than lower prices?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks
it's important to have stability, and stability can come in the form of
lower prices; stability can come in the form of moderate
prices. But the President thinks it's important that the
nation doesn't go through giant price fluctuations as it has for the
last two or three years.
It's the gigantic price fluctuations that hurt
the American people, because they get used to driving and paying a
certain price for gas, and then the following summer, sure as they can
count on it, the price spikes up to $2.50. This has been
happening for the last two, three years in a row. It
happened in the Midwest as a result of particular local problems. Last
summer, if you remember, the problem of boutique fuels, infrastructure
problems. It's indicative of the problem the American people
have with the energy infrastructure that is old, with a country that is
too reliant on foreign supplies of oil. And that's why,
again, it comes down to is this country ready to have an energy policy,
or not.
The President thinks they are. The
American people want to have responsible decisions made by people in
Washington that don't fluctuate like weather vanes between various
price spikes and price drops. The American people want to
have long-term answers from the Congress to the energy
problems. They don't think we should rotate any longer
between denial and blame. And that's what Congress has done
too long. They blame somebody when prices are high, and they
deny that there's a problem when prices are low. The
President thinks in all times, whether prices are high, low, or
moderate and stable in the middle, that the nation will benefit from
the long-term comprehensive energy policy.
Q On patients' bill of
rights, when you said the President does not want a bill that can
result in insurance -- health insurance being dropped, specifically in
the area of punitive damages, is the President opposed in principle to
any level of punitive damages? I know it's $5 million, and
you think that's too much. But if there were something lower
-- does it have to be absolutely no punitive damages, whatsoever, for
it to be acceptable to the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you can take
a look at Texas and the Texas example, which is one of the nation's
most successful patients' bill of rights, and that's a good indication
of where the President does have an approach that recognizes that it is
people's right to sue if they have been wronged. If they go
through an independent review and the HMO denies care to a patient who
is entitled to the care that is determined by the review, that patient
is entitled to sue, in the President's opinion.
Q -- punitive damages.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I would refer
you to the Texas experience and the President is going to continue to
work with the Congress on these issues.
Q Ari, on the bill of
rights, I understand the President's principles and he intends to work
very hard, but how does he intend to do so? Is it the same
old argument or is he going to marshall some new arguments to overcome
the resistance that we've seen up until now?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's, as is
typical with the Congress on major issues, it's a question of being a
good listener and being a good presenter. And that's what
the President is seeking to do. In the meetings we'll have
this afternoon, he will make his case. He will look members
of Congress in the eye and explain that the only thing standing between
patients and a patients' bill of rights that gets signed into law are
these liability provisions that will drive up the cost of health care
and make Americans lose their health care insurance.
And he will continue to work with members of
Congress and listen to their concerns. As I mentioned, the
staff is meeting with members of Congress, as well. And this
is what you would expect when it comes to this stage of a legislative
process. And I think, frankly, it's been healthy so far, and
we'll see what the ultimate outcome is.
Q Can we expect to see
some horse trading going on, as with so much --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President
is going to stand for his principles, and he has made those principles
clear -- he will not bend on his principles. Any legislation
that fulfills his principles, as he said, he will be prepared to sign.
Q On stem cell
research, there's an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning,
researchers at Johns Hopkins were able to use stem cells to restore
movement to mice, paralyzed mice. They had a videotape of
this; they showed it to Secretary Thompson earlier this month and to
Senator Domenici earlier this month. Have either of those
two men talked to the President about this? Has the
President expressed any interest in seeing this tape? And
would the fact that this now appears to be reality rather than just
potential and prospect make any difference in his thinking?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all,
it's that very promise of science that the President, himself, brought
up and addressed in his remarks last week when he was asked about stem
cell research. The President is keenly aware of the promise
of science and saving lives as a result of stem cell
research. And that is one side of the issue, and the life
side of the issue, that the President is going to deliberate about as
he comes to his determination about this issue. So he's very
well aware about the promise of science.
I can't speak specifically on this,
John. I know the President has been talking with people,
will continue to talk with people. So he's --
Q -- are saying this is
more than promise, that this is reality, this is showing that it does
have an effect. Does that make any difference, make any --
in sort of that balance of things?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think with all
medical research it always does begin with promise. And
often it becomes in laboratories of promise. And that's
fully what the President understands.
Q Just on this point,
the President told us a couple of days ago that this is a really tough
decision for him. So that we know and he's not going to tell
us when he's going to make up his mind. What I'm curious
about is what all he's doing on this? I mean, clearly, he's
met with a wide range of people with disparate views, so he's heard a
lot about it.
So what is he doing? Is he simply studying compromise
options? Is he -- I'm not trying to be flip. I
mean, is he just sitting thinking about it or -- I mean, what's the
process now?
MR. FLEISCHER: He's listening and
he's thinking, and he's weighing the arguments that people have
presented to him, both proponents and the opponents. And
he's giving a very careful consideration. He's weighing the
moral implications of the issues that are presented to him from all
sides, the scientific implications and the powerful promise of science
implications, as well as the implications for what it means for someone
who respects a culture of life.
And many of these are conflicting pieces of
information that are brought to him. And he's carefully
weighing them and considering them and thinking about
them. And as you heard him say last week, he'll make up his
mind on his own timetable. And when he does, he will share
the reasons on how he arrived at the decision, what it was that he
weighed and how he came to the decision he'll ultimately come to.
Q Is the White House
now thinking and studying, or considering different ways so he can make
his case, both in terms of a venue and a mechanism for announcing this
decision? Are those -- is that being looked at?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's all going
to begin with the President informing the staff that he's made his
determination. And then we'll talk to the President about
what ways he would like to share that information with the American
people.
Q That hasn't happened
yet?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's nothing to
report, David.
Q Is he closer to a
decision? When you say, there's nothing to report, it sounds
like there's something going on.
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. Again, I'm restating what the
President said when he said that he'll make his decision on his own
timetable.
Q Ari, question on a
different matter. We've heard that due to security concerns,
that a particular Cabinet member has had to travel by
government-sponsored jet. My question to you is, does the
administration have any sort of existing policies right now on whether
or not Cabinet members should travel by government jet or by commercial
jet?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not familiar
with the instance in which you're asking about. So if you
want to ask me either here or separately, I'll be happy to try to look
into something for you.
Q Okay. Well, as a follow-up, are you
aware of any security concerns regarding any particular Cabinet
members?
MR. FLEISCHER: I, personally, am
not.
Q Can I just drag you
back to Putin for a second? The senators were clear that
they would prefer to have a framework in place before the U.S. moves,
in any way --
MR. FLEISCHER: Which senators?
Q Levin and Warner.
MR. FLEISCHER: Levin and Warner?
Q Biden.
Q No, Warner also said
having a framework in place is preferable to moving without one --
outside.
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. Go
ahead.
Q All
right. Well, my question is, when the President was in the
room what is his position on having the framework in
place? Does he feel that he -- what did he tell
them? Does he believe that he needs to have one in place, or
does he not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President
has put a framework in place, and that was his speech at the National
Defense University in May, in which the President outlined how he was
going to proceed on the question of missile defense. The
President also, as you know, going back to 2000, discussed the need to,
if necessary, unilaterally reduce the amount of the United States's
nuclear weapons in our arsenal. And that's the topic that he
discussed with considerable progress with President
Putin. So the President is creating a new framework around
how to protect America in the post-Cold War.
Q Did he use today's
meeting to try to convince those who feel a framework is necessary, did
he use today's meetings to argue his position that there is an outline
of the framework already, or that it really isn't necessary?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think
it gets down to the definition of framework here. The
President has announced a new framework for how to think about
protecting the United States in the post Cold War era. And
that involves a missile defense to protect against a launch from a
rogue state, not from Russia, because the President -- as he's told
President Putin, Russia is not the enemy.
But the real cause of concern, which requires
a missile defense for the country, in the President's opinion, is the
possibility of a launch by a rogue state, which does not share the
United States' ideals.
Q Right. What I'm trying to get at is
what happened today in the meeting.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's why I'm
trying to get at this word framework that you're using, Jean, because I
think it means different things to different people.
Q But what did he want
to do today in the meeting --
Q -- a negotiated
framework --
MR. FLEISCHER: Just what I
explained. That's what the President said. The
President discussed his reasons why he thought it was important to move
beyond the ABM Treaty, and also the importance of reducing,
unilaterally, if necessary, America's level of nuclear
weapons. And that's the framework that the President begins
with when it comes to protecting the United States from the possibility
of a missile launch.
Q What Biden was saying
is, why -- his opinion is, and he says he said this to the President --
essentially why rush on testing, why send signals that we'll pull out
of ABM unilaterally before we have a decent framework to replace
ABM? So his question is, why rush, when we're really so far
away on being able to deploy a missile defense?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the
President's answer to that would be, why delay? Why should
the United States spend years and years and take on greater and greater
risks for our nation in delaying the development of a way to keep the
peace and protect the United States from foreign nations that seek --
might seek to do us harm, that are increasingly acquiring the
technology to do so. So the President would turn that
question around. And when it comes --
Q Is that
today? Is that what he did in the meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: This framework
notion, unless it came up in the last 10 minutes, Jean, did not come
up. I was not in there for the last 10 minutes, but the
discussion was of a different nature, about missile
defense. And senators listening -- clearly some senators,
mostly in the other party, have concerns about the President's plan on
missile defense. That's nothing new.
Q And what was the
nature of that discussion?
MR. FLEISCHER: They listened to the
President make his presentation, and then I'm not going to speak for
other senators in the room, to share with you exactly what they
said. But I can just tell you what the President said, and
that's what I've done.
Q Is the President close to naming a Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's personnel,
and as you know, Scott, I'm not going to speculate on that.
Q Has he talked about
his process at all? Has he got candidates that he's closing
in on?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm just not
going to speculate or get into the possibility on the potentials on
personnel.
Q Ari, is the President
satisfied with the pace of progress in the Congress on his
agenda? Is he comfortable with them leaving for recess
without further action?
MR. FLEISCHER: Dana, the President
is very pleased with the progress that the Congress is making on his
agenda. That's particularly true, if you compare it to
progress made by previous Presidents in their first years in
office. I remember going back to President Reagan in 1981,
in the first six months of his administration, there was -- none of the
President's initiatives -- President Reagan's initiatives were acted
upon by the Congress in the first six months of President Reagan's
term. Same with President -- former President Bush's
term. President Clinton had to await until the last day of
August that Congress was in session for passage of his campaign
initiative on the budget, which included a variety of tax measures.
When you take a look at the narrowness of the
margin that the President holds in this Congress in the House of
Representatives and now the lost margin in the Senate, there is
remarkable progress on the President's agenda. The tax cut
enacted into law far before any other legislative initiative involving
taxes has been passed by a previous Congress.
As a result of that, the framework is now in
place to create an economic recovery on which so much else domestically
depends. And that framework is now in place, and the rebate
checks are now being received by consumers, which will help create
strength for the economy. And the education bill, of course,
passed by the House and the Senate -- the President has called on the
Congress to get their business done and finish it.
The faith-based initiative, of course, passed
with a nice vote in the House of Representatives. Statements
of support now from Senator Zell Miller, the statement of support from
Andy Young in regard to the power of the faith-based initiative --
there is increasing signs of strength on the faith-based
initiative. The President will continue to have meetings on
that now with members of the Senate.
And, of course, a patients' bill of rights --
we could have some information on that in the House of Representatives
before Congress recesses. And internationally, the President
has had tremendous success, and I think that begins with the tremendous
progress he and President Putin have been making on leading the world
to a new way of thinking about defense.
Q Ari, two
things. First, stem cell research. Is the
President weighing heavily what Pope John Paul II said about stem cell
research?
MR. FLEISCHER: April, the President
addressed that as his news conference with Prime Minister Berlusconi
the other day. And the President said that he will, of
course, take into consideration what the Pope said. And he will listen
to many people, on all sides of the issue, who have been kind enough to
share their time and advice with the President.
Q Is it equal weight,
though, with everyone he's met, or is it a little bit more because he
is a religious man?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I have not
heard the President delineate whose word ranks where. I
think, again, this is all something that when the President makes his
determination he will share with the nation how he approached it and
the reasons why.
Q Secondly, what does
the White House have to say to urban America, especially those living
in public housing whose funding for gun buy-back programs were taken
back now that John Ashcroft seems to be the cover boy for the NRA's
magazine.
MR. FLEISCHER: April, I have not
discussed that initiative with the President. So I think you
may want to address that to the Attorney General's office.
Q Ari, congressional
scheduling aside, does the President think it would be helpful to have
the month of August to continue to persuade members on patients' bill
of rights?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm just not going
to go there. Again, it's a hypothetical question about the
timing of the vote, and --
Q They could all come
to Crawford.
Q Ari, on the remarks
by former President Jimmy Carter, they were unusually strong and
broad-ranging in their criticism of a President who was only in office
for about six months. He said he was disappointed with
almost every single thing that President Bush has done. Was
President Bush disappointed in President Carter for his remarks?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you know the
President just returned from a successful trip to Europe, particularly
involving the very significant development with President Putin,
involving securing the peace. And the President is going to
focus on continuing in that positive manner. He's not
reflecting on that.
Q He's not even
considering the remarks of a former President then?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you may want
to address any follow-up questions to the previous
President. President Bush is busy focusing on his job.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END
1:15 P.M. EDT
|