For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 19, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
Listen to the Briefing
12:43 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give
you an update ont President's day, and then we have several visits of
leaders to announce.
The President this morning began his day with a call to President
Putin. I'll return to that in just a
moment. Following the call, the President had his usual
round of intelligence briefings, one with the Central Intelligence
Agency, the second with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; then he
convened a meeting with the National Security Council.
The President also returned just a little over an hour or so ago
from a visit to Capitol Hill in which the President met with and
addressed a group of Democratic House lawmakers, and he met with a
group of bipartisan congressional leaders of both sides, the Senate and
the House, in announcing an agreement on a bipartisan stimulus
package. The votes are clearly there to pass the stimulus
package in the House, as well as in the Senate. More than 50
votes are in the Senate, thanks to the bipartisan nature of the
agreement that has been reached by a centrist group of members of both
parties, with Republican leaders and with the President.
The President then addressed the House Republican Conference, as
well as the Senate Republican Conference, to congratulate them on a
year of accomplishment.
Later this afternoon, the President will view and inspect the
"Spirit of Louisiana," which is a fire truck which is going to be
donated to the City of New York from the people of
Louisiana. And those are the events for the President for
the day.
As I mentioned earlier, the President phoned President Putin this
morning to extend holiday best wishes, and to affirm the positive
course of U.S.-Russia relations. The two leaders affirmed
their agreement to move forward to codify a new strategic framework
between the United States and Russia, including lower numbers of
nuclear weapons and greater transparency and mutual cooperation on
defenses, if possible. President Bush and President Putin also noted
the economic relations between Russia and the United States are
developing very well.
In announcements, the President will welcome to the White House
Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus on January 23rd. And the
President will also welcome Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit to the
White House on January 16th.
And finally, tomorrow will mark the 100th day of the war against
terrorism, and the Coalition of Information Center tomorrow will be
releasing a report documenting the progress made in the war on a
variety of fronts, including the diplomatic front, the financial front,
the military front, the law enforcement front, and the humanitarian
front. So I highlight that for you today. That
will be available tomorrow.
With that, I'm happy to take questions.
Q Ari, has Tom Daschle signed on to this
agreement?
MR. FLEISCHER: This agreement was reached by the
President, the Republican congressional leaders, and the centrists in
both the House and in the Senate. The President will be
delighted if Senator Daschle would sign on. The President
will be delighted if Senator Daschle would even just allow it to come
to a vote. But I cannot speak for Senator Daschle. The
President and the White House will continue to work with Senate leaders
as well throughout this process.
Q After weeks of working, essentially
quietly behind the scenes, with meetings on the Hill at night or the
breakfasts here with the leaders, this is really an "in-your-face, Tom
Daschle" move, isn't it?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, this is an achievement, an agreement
with the key people on the Hill who can deliver the votes in the
center. This is the center speaking out. And this
is an agreement that the American people, particularly those who worry
about whether they're going to keep their jobs, can be proud of.
You know, the fact of the matter is, time is running out on the
Congress. They're only here for another day or
two. They need to get the job done. There's not
much time left to talk.
Q Well, why shouldn't the American people
see this as a return to the partisan wrangling over the nation's
business, a return to very sharp-edged, in-your-face politics?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that when you hear
Democrats and Republicans alike sitting in a room at a common table
saying, we have an agreement, that's the definition of
bipartisanship. Senator Breaux, Senator Nelson, Senator
Miller, Congressman Lucas were all in the meeting. This is
bipartisanship.
The fact of the matter is there is only one proposal that has
bipartisan support, and it's the proposal that's been made by President
Bush. The other proposal that has been made does not even
have any Republicans who support it. So when it comes to
bipartisanship and when it comes to the center speaking out, trying to
get something done for the American people, this plan represents the
best plan, plus this plan is the only plan that has enough votes to get
passed.
Q But, Ari, with all due respect, it does
not have -- it has only the support of a handful of Democrats in the
Senate and in the House. So I guess two things -- number
one, if the President wants a bill and he doesn't want lawmakers to
leave, why doesn't he bring Daschle and others together in a room,
their main sticking point is health care, why don't they just stay
together until they can work it out and get a bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if you recall, Kelly, they were in
a room yesterday, and the President did meet with Senator Daschle
yesterday, and the White House is still open to talking and still open
to listening. But time is running out, and talking and
talking and talking at some point has to result in concrete action if
the unemployed are to get their extended benefits, and if people who
currently have jobs are going to get the stimulus the economy needs so
they don't lose the jobs they currently have.
People who are unemployed don't want more talk, they want
action. The White House will go the extra mile, the White
House will continue to talk, but the time has come for
action. And that's why this is an achievement. It is
bipartisan. And at the end of a day, in order to get
something done in the Congress, you have to have a majority to
vote. The majority is there behind this
package. It's a bipartisan one, and that's why the President
was pleased to go up to Capitol Hill today to meet with the Democrats,
to meet with the Republicans and announce an agreement.
Q Ari, if the President didn't have the
leader of the Senate on board, how could he come out this morning and
say he's got a deal that will pass both Houses?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what the President said is we have
an agreement, speaking for the people at the table, which were the
centrist Democrats. The President, of course, isn't speaking for every
Democrat. Clearly, there are going to be some liberal
Democrats who will not support any agreement. But the
centrist Democrats do, and now --
Q But that's hardly having a deal that would
pass both Houses.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President said that this --
there were clearly more than 50 votes in the Senate, clearly more than
50 votes in the House, so --
Q -- won't pass --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the only way it would not pass the
Senate is if somebody were to employ parliamentary tactics to block
it. That is their prerogative. The Senate has
that right. But why block progress? Why block
bipartisanship when an agreement is at hand and can be achieved?
Q Well, why say you have enough votes to
pass when you don't have enough votes to pass?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there are clearly more than 50
votes to pass.
Q That's not enough to pass --
MR. FLEISCHER: If the vote was scheduled, the vote would
proceed. And unless somebody made what's called a budget act point of
order, the vote would pass. It's their right to do so.
Listen, it's always the right of a senator to block
progress. That's the way the Senate is
built. (Laughter.) It's the President's job to
put together the bipartisan coalitions to achieve progress.
Q I just -- whether you like the approach
Daschle is taking or not, as you just said, he certainly has the right
to take that approach.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q So why aren't you sort of dealing with the
reality of the situation, instead of standing there and insisting that
there is a deal?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because at some point, even cordial and
productive talk has to turn into action. Congress is about
to leave. Congress is about to go home. The
President wants to keep the pressure on to make certain that an
agreement can be reached that's bipartisan; that gets an unemployment
extension of 13 weeks to everybody in all states who are unemployed;
that provides money in health insurance with a new compromise that was
announced in this agreement on the health insurance front; that allows
people to get health care insurance through either COBRA coverage, or
through private insurance, or through individual
means. That's another compromise.
What's important to recognize here is the President has yet again
today taken another step in the direction of compromise. And
in doing so, he's brought about bipartisan support. The
question is, will there be people who seek to block bipartisan action,
or will they join with the bipartisan majority in getting something
done for the country and the unemployed.
Q So why not bring Daschle over here and
convey that to him face to face, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, he was here
yesterday. But the President also has the right to talk to
other members. There are 100 senators. It takes
50 to pass, unless a senator exercises his right to object and to
block.
Q Specifically, in order to get something
that actually will pass -- because there are always procedural hurdles
in the Senate, it's routine -- why is the President sticking to his
insistence on having tax credits for health care for the
unemployed? Why does that have to be part of it? Isn't that
the deal-breaker that the President is insisting on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because in order to help people who have
lost their jobs, they want health benefits. If the only way
they can get the health benefits is through the Democratic proposal,
which administers health benefits through the corporations -- if you
work for a corporation that just went bankrupt, you no longer have a
corporation to give a health credit to. If you work for a
.com that's gone out of business, they can no longer give you a
government-administered health benefit that runs through the
corporation.
So it requires flexibility to help people who are in
need. And that's what the President's newest compromise
achieves. It allows benefits to be done through the COBRA
system, which is administered by corporations that are not defunct; it
allows individuals to take credits; and it allows for COBRA
coverage. So it provides the unemployed with the health care
flexibility they need to get coverage and to get insurance.
The Democrat formula doesn't help people who work for companies
that went bankrupt unless it's administered through
Medicaid. And if it's administered through Medicaid, then
many states, including Democratic governors, would object, because,
one, they don't have the resources to do it at this time; and two, they
would have to pass laws in their own legislatures to expand Medicaid.
In many states, legislatures have gone home. In Texas,
for example, the legislature won't even meet until 2003. So
the best health plan, which is why it's attracted bipartisan support,
is the one that was announced today.
Q Can I just follow up on
that? You say it may be the best plan. But what the
Democrats are essentially arguing is to stick with what currently
exists. If you insist on your plan, you're going to end up
getting nothing. Would that be better?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there comes a certain point in
dealing with the Congress, that if all you do is talk you also get
nothing. Now, the President is going to continue talking;
the staff is continuing to meet and is continuing to
listen. But at the end of the day, it's important to move
forward.
And I remind you again, just like on the previous tax cut, you have
people up on Capitol Hill who are just dedicated to keeping taxes high
and will not join a bipartisan coalition. On the previous
tax cut, of course, 12 Democrats split with the Democrat majority and
voted to provide tax relief which still has given the economy a
necessary stimulus.
At the end of the day, the President will work to build the
bipartisan coalition wherever bipartisanship can be
achieved. That's what took place today on the
Hill. There very well may be some who just cannot go that
extra mile to achieve bipartisanship. That, too, is their
right. Now, there remains a little while longer for Congress
to meet and to consider, and hopefully to act. The President
is hopeful that as a result of the agreement today, and as a result of
the fact that the House is voting on this today, the Senate will
somehow find a way to take care of the nation's unemployed and to give
the economy a boost, so people who currently cling to their jobs don't
lose them.
And it's too important for the Senate not to act. So the
President hopes, as a result of his meeting today, as a result of the
House action today, and as a result of his willingness to compromise,
the Senate will reciprocate and at the end of this session, which is
now 24, 48 hours away, the Senate will find a way to match.
Q You said that liberal Democrats won't sign
it. Are you implying that liberal Democrats are just being
obstructionist? I mean, perhaps they have a very different
viewpoint about what would help the American people. I mean, that
statement was awfully broad.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's absolutely correct, there are
philosophical differences, which is why, under our constitutional
system, it takes 50 votes to pass legislation in the
Senate. Senators have the prerogative to raise that to 60
votes, if they so choose. In doing so, though, it makes it
awfully hard for bipartisan coalitions to hold because it gives a more
partisan minority a veto over a bipartisan majority. That is
the way the Senate is constituted; that is the Senate's
prerogative. The President hopes that as a result of this,
the Senate will find a different way to get the people's business
done.
Q Ari, at this point, you said the White
House is willing to go the extra mile. Does that mean that
you're still working on some sort of compromise over health
care? Or at this point, are both sides --
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question that after the House
passes this today, then it has to go to the Senate. And so
the Senate still has its due time and its fair right to
consider. And the Senate can still work a
compromise. The President hopes that this will propel the
Senate toward that compromise, as opposed to further talk that does not
lead to any type of tangible result. This can get talked to
death if votes don't start to take place. And the President
wants to continue to keep the doors open to talk, but he wants to make
sure that, at the end of the day, action is taken.
Q Your sense is, then, that the White House
has compromised all it can on the health care issue and we're now down
to the point where, essentially, we're just trying to shame the
Democrats in the Senate to letting it pass?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, obviously, there's enough Democrats
in the Senate who joined this to give it a bipartisan
majority. And, again, that's the way our government
works. If you can achieve a majority, then take it to a vote
and let it happen.
I think that this is a type of day people should look at Washington
and say, this shows that the system can work, that the Republicans and
the Democrats can work together. That was what took place in
the room when the President met with these leaders. There
may be others who have a different interest. But the
President hopes that they won't prevail.
Q That may be the way a democracy works, but
it's not the way the Senate works. As you know, you need 60
votes, and you actually even need more than that in order to keep
people from putting amendments on whatever package comes up and going
way past the deadline for Congress to leave here. So how do
you get past all of that? Are you asking members of the
Senate to cast -- to set aside all of their
differences over this and just go along with the White House, for the
sake of getting a stimulus?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Jim, it's not go along with the
White House, it's go along with a bipartisan majority that is supported
by the White House, because this is one route to getting things done.
Now, the Senate has the right to amend, the Senate has the right to
consider, and the President hopes that they will do
that. But, again, how much time is left? It's
important for the Senate to decide whether they will act or
not. And the White House will continue to talk to Senator
Daschle and continue to talk to senators to help make that happen.
Q But, Ari, I still want you to answer this
question. Has the White House and this bipartisan majority,
as you call it, compromised all it can compromise?
MR. FLEISCHER: Conversations can
continue. Again, this will be the House that votes it
today. And as a result of now having a core group of
Democrat senators who have an interest in making progress, they will
likely talk to their colleagues. So I think you should allow
the process to move forward on the Hill. But what's taking
place today as a result of this agreement, a new way has been found for
the process to move forward.
It is an achievement that the Republicans and a small group of
Senate Democrats were able to get together and agree on the
language. After all, this is the only package that has the
support of the other party. Nothing that has been proposed
by the Democrats has been able to earn support of
Republicans. This proposal offered by Republicans has earned
support of the Democrats. And that's a helpful way to get
progress made.
Q But, Ari, after the President made his
announcement this morning, Senator Daschle said he has no plans to
bring this to the Senate floor for a vote. So isn't the
talking and the maneuvering now more about who the public should blame
for inaction, which now seems inevitable?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think this shows again that the
President is going the extra mile to get an agreement. The
President could have said, let's just talk, and then watch Congress go
home. The President chose, instead, to work closely with the
leaders of the Senate -- remember, Congressman Gephardt and Senator
Daschle were here yesterday -- and then to work very closely with the
centrists, who often do contain the swing votes.
Let me walk you through what is in this agreement, because I think
the facts also speak powerfully to what the American people can receive
if the Senate takes action. In order to give the economy a
boost, the plan would cut taxes from 27 percent to 25 percent for the
people in that bracket. That means for individuals who make as little
as a taxable income of $27,950 a year, they receive a tax cut up to
$795. For couples that make as little as $46,700 in taxable
income a year, they receive a tax cut of up to $1,300.
That extra money in their pockets can create a boost to the economy
as a result of the extra purchasing power they'll have. The
more they purchase products, the more businesses will be able to keep
their employers -- keep their workers employed. There are
many people, who particularly work in the manufacturing community and
in the high-tech community, who worry that they're going to lose their
jobs, that they'll be next. By giving tax cuts, it creates a
stimulative effect on the economy so these people may not lose their
jobs.
There is alternative minimum tax relief in the package not only for
corporations, but for individuals. The Democrats, for a good
period of time, properly brought up the fact that there needs to be AMT
for individuals. That is now in this package, out of
recognition of the Democrat concerns. There is expensing to
help businesses to grow and invest. There is a welfare-to-
work tax credit to help people keep jobs. There's a work opportunity
tax credit to help people keep jobs.
There is money in here for New York. This package
authorizes up to $15 billion in tax-exempt liberty bonds for New York,
to help revitalize and reconstruct New York City. Governor
Pataki and Mayor Giuliani support these provisions. There is
money for unemployment insurance, a 13-week extension, that covers all
50 states. And, as well, there is a new compromise on the
health insurance provisions that would provide refundable tax credits
that could be used for COBRA coverage, private sector coverage or
individual coverage.
Q How many Senate Democrats have signed on?
MR. FLEISCHER: There were three at the
meeting. And I think you have to talk to
additional. That's not necessarily all there will
be. These three Democrats were going to go back and talk to
their colleagues to try to build even more support.
Q Can I change the subject?
Q Can I follow on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let's stay on this and we can come back.
Q On financial matters, will the President
continue to sign continuing resolutions, is he permitted to do so, to
keep the government functioning? Or is he about to play
hardball --
MR. FLEISCHER: There's been substantial progress on the
appropriations front. I don't know that it's going to be a
relevant issue. It looks like the Congress is going to complete its
appropriations work this week, so all 13 appropriations bills can be
signed into law.
Q With the tax cuts, is there enough money
left in the budget to fund all the obligations -- anti-terrorism war
and everything else?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, there's sufficient support for
passing this, that the majority in a bipartisan way believes yes, the
President believes yes. And again, the President thinks the
best way to make certain the budget returns to a surplus is to give the
economy a boost. It's the growth in the economy that creates
revenues.
Q Is it fair to say that what we're seeing
today is a significant shift in the approach of the administration,
that you've essentially, although you're continuing to talk you don't
consider that a productive avenue -- you're blowing off the
negotiations in favor of using these cameras and --
MR. FLEISCHER: This is probably the first time I --
Q -- this podium and the trip to Capitol
Hill to, as Jim said, shame the Democrats into doing what the President
wants.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President today joined with the
Democrats. The President today put together a bipartisan
coalition that can pass this bill in the Senate. And I just
find it a curious line of thought that suggests when the President of
the United States, a Republican, enters into agreement with several key
Democrat centrists, that that is anything other than
bipartisan. It is the definition of bipartisan.
Q He's stiffing the Democratic leader.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, it's important for the
Democrat leader to work with his -- listen, this is not easy for the
Democrat leader. The fact of the matter is there is a split
in the Democratic Caucus. There are a good number, a
sufficient number to pass a stimulus, of Democrats who want to work
with the Republicans and work with the White House in a cooperative and
bipartisan fashion. There may be others that are pushing
pressure on the Senate leadership not to accept a bipartisan
agreement. It's a recognition of how difficult it is to be Majority
Leader.
Nevertheless, the President will continue to work closely with the
Majority Leader, and the staff will continue to do so, to help him
through a very difficult job. But just because a caucus is
split is no reason to stop progress from being made, particularly when
bipartisan progress is now at hand.
Q Ari, I think it does bode the question,
the President could have gone up this morning and laid out many of the
things that you've laid out -- look, there are Democrats in this room,
here are all the things that we agree on, we just need Tom Daschle to
come our way, let's get this done. Instead he said, we have an
agreement. So everybody goes running out of the room to find
Tom Daschle, and no, you don't have an agreement. And
everybody knows you need the leadership. Why did he choose
to do it that way, rather than to use that same forum to say, look at
everybody in the room, look at what we can get done, let's get
something done? He sort of undercut his own story.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President announced exactly what
took place. He met with enough Democrats in that room to put together
a bipartisan majority. And I think that the American people
are heartened to know that there is a bipartisan majority that can be
assembled. I think the American people have seen for years
out of Washington, it's easy to assemble a blocking minority; it's
harder to assemble a bipartisan majority. And that's exactly
what the President did.
Q What went so well at the meeting
yesterday, if this is happening today? You said that Daschle
was here and the meeting was very productive --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, this is one of these cases where
the differences really are small, but it's the willingness of leaders
to step across that small divide to say, that's correct, we now can get
an agreement.
And again, I think it -- the reason that it is so difficult for the
Senate is because Republicans in the Senate are unified, the Democrats
in the Senate on this area are not. And that makes for a
very difficult job for the leaders. And the President is
sympathetic to that. And that's why the President will
continue to listen to the leadership of the Senate. But
there is a sufficient split in the Democrat ranks in the Senate that a
bipartisan majority has been assembled.
Q But Senator Daschle has made it clear that
he's not going the bring this compromise up. But Senator
Baucus does appear to want to get more of an agreement, and he's
talking with Secretary O'Neill. He described their
discussions as very, very close to an agreement. And
Democratic senators have said that O'Neill is actually willing to drop
the tax credit, but a lot of Democrats are worried that he doesn't
actually have the authority to do that.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, there are talks that are
underway, and there are many individual Democratic senators who would
like to be very helpful. And, ultimately, this does come
down to a decision about whether a vote will be scheduled or
not. It's, again, a reflection of the difficulty -- and
Republicans had the same difficulty when the Senate was in Republican
majority control -- of dealing with divided caucuses.
But on this case, when it comes to how to help the unemployed and
give the economy a boost, the Republicans are unified and there are
sufficient number of Democrats who can provide a bipartisan
majority. Nobody expects 100-0 votes. But at the
end of the day, it's important to schedule the vote and let the Senate
be heard.
Q Does Secretary O'Neill have the authority
to cut that deal?
Q Ari, can you explain where the President
is in his thinking about charges against John Walker? There
was a report today that he was nearing some decision.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is continuing to receive
information from the Department of Justice and from the Department of
Defense in regard to Mr. Walker. The appropriate agencies
are still reviewing the facts, and as soon as that is completed at the
agency level, information will be shared with the President, with his
security team. And then I think you can anticipate some type
of announcement from the appropriate agency.
Q This week or --
MR. FLEISCHER: The timing -- it could be this
week. I'm not going to commit to any firm time, but I don't
rule that out.
Q Will he make the ultimate decision on
this, or will the agencies make it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's style on something like
this is to listen to the recommendations of his staff and to see if
there's a unified recommendation, if there are different
recommendations, and then to work it out in a collegial matter with
all.
Q Is Walker considered a prisoner of
war? Is he considered a prisoner of war?
MR. FLEISCHER: He is considered, under the Geneva
Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, a battlefield
detainee.
Q And how is that different?
MR. FLEISCHER: That affords him the protections of the
Geneva Convention.
Q My question falls in line with
that. Are we so primitive that we would ship this man in a
box, deny him legal rights, deny him the right to see a lawyer, deny
him the right to see his parents? I mean, is that America?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, under the Geneva Convention
regarding treatment of prisoners of war, the military and intelligence
agencies may question prisoners for information -- that's a military
value -- in the conduct of war without the presence of a
lawyer. That is what the Geneva Convention calls for --
Q You ship him in a box?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- and the Geneva Convention is being
followed in this case.
Q So it trumps his constitutional right to
--
MR. FLEISCHER: No, this is done consistent with the
Constitution.
Q How so?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because what you're referring to, Terry,
deals with custodial interrogation --
Q Right.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- and that only comes into play --
Q -- he's being interrogated --
MR. FLEISCHER: That only comes in as a matter of statute
when he is in the custody of law enforcement personnel. He
is covered under the Geneva Convention by military personnel, which
triggers a different set of statutory requirements.
Q He can't see his parents? He's
not allowed to see his parents?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, Helen, I think that they are
moving forward with a review of the facts in this
matter. But he is being treated under the Geneva
Convention. He is being protected. He has been
given medical care -- which he was not receiving under the
Taliban. And he has received the protection of the United
States Armed Forces in a very dangerous battlefield was not receiving
under the Taliban. And he has received the protection of the
United States Armed Forces in a very dangerous battlefield condition.
Q And he's being interrogated without a
lawyer. Is that fair?
MR. FLEISCHER: He is being given all his rights, which
are far more than the rights the Taliban or the al Qaeda extended to
anybody living there.
Q Well, we're not comparing ourselves, are
we?
MR. FLEISCHER: He has been given all his rights under
the Geneva Convention. But as a matter of law, under the
Geneva Convention, when the questioning deals with military matters or
matters of intelligence, the
Geneva Convention does not require the presence of a
lawyer. He is being treated as someone who fought against
the United States in an armed conflict. And that's why he is
classified, properly, as a battlefield detainee. And he is
being treated well.
Q Can I just explore that classification
again? So under the Geneva Convention, he's called a
battlefield detainee. Would he qualify as a prisoner of war
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you need to talk to the
Department of Defense lawyers if you're interested in any more precise
definitions. I am not a lawyer. I can share with
you the information that's provided to me by our lawyers.
Q And just one more question on that same
topic. You just said that he is being treated as a person
who is fighting against the United States. Does that then
give you grounds for a charge of treason?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, any charges will be reviewed and
will be discussed by the appropriate authorities.
Q -- you said the President is receiving
information from the Departments of Justice and Defense. Is
that fair to say he has not yet received a formal recommendation from
either department?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q No recommendation yet?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q A strong consensus has been building up in
India to strike terrorist camps in Pakistan, in the occupied
Kashmir. Not on Pakistan -- attack on Pakistan, but on the
terrorists in Pakistan. Also here, Indian Americans held a
conference yesterday. My question is here that if the
President is asking General Musharraf like he asked Yasser Arafat to
shut down and close down all the terrorist camps in
Pakistan. Because -- and there was a delegation from Israeli
lawmakers in Delhi. And what they said is, time has come for
the United States, India and Israel to get together and fight
terrorism, because there's not a single one democracy between New Delhi
and Jerusalem.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it plain that he
and the United States, we oppose terrorism everywhere. There
are no good terrorists, there are no bad terrorists. And
that's why the President has been in communication with the government
of Pakistan at the highest levels, to urge them to make certain that
militant groups are not able to engage in terrorist acts.
Q Does the President support the bill passed
in the House last week that includes $6 billion in tax incentives for
New York? It's related to the stimulus.
MR. FLEISCHER: This is the victims compensation
bill? I would note that in the stimulus package that is
moving through the House of Representatives today, that bill also
contains a variety of tax measures to help the victims in New
York. Let me get back to you on the specific language of
that proposal that passed last week. I want to be precise in
my language, so let me take that afterwards.
Q Ari, if Senator Daschle is supposed to get
out of the way of this bill because there is a bipartisan compromise on
it, why won't the President sign bipartisan bills that passed the
Senate, such as, I think, patients' bill of rights, I think campaign
finance reform? Why does he hold himself to a different
standard than Daschle?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President would be delighted to sign
a patients' bill of rights agreement.
Q -- he'll sign the Senate patients' bill of
rights?
MR. FLEISCHER: There have been two patients' bill of
rights bills passed, both with bipartisan support -- one in the House,
one in the Senate. And they're currently in
conference. The President would be delighted to do that.
Q But you won't say that he'll sign the
Senate patients' bill of rights?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, if it comes to a conference,
then they have to conference. But that's the regular order,
and in the case of the stimulus, the House of Representatives has
already passed the stimulus, the Senate hasn't passed
anything. In the case of the patients' bill of rights, they
both have passed and it goes to a conference. Now, even with
a stimulus, it still goes to --
Q You said it's within Daschle's right not
to move this if he doesn't want this.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q But why is he held to a different standard
when the President threatens not to sign bills that come out of the
Senate with bipartisan majorities? Why -- isn't that a
different standard for the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will sign a patients' bill
of rights; he looks forward to doing so.
Q But you know what we're talking
about. He both signed those -- (laughter) -- bills that come
out of the Senate.
MR. FLEISCHER: He would be pleased to sign bills that
come out of the Senate, and wants to make sure that the House has its
say and that the House and the Senate work together.
Q So he will sign the Senate patients' bill
of rights -- he would sign that bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've said that we're waiting for a
conference agreement to be reached between the House and the Senate.
Q Ari, has the President seen the
recommendations from the International Trade Commission asking for the
petition of the domestic steel industry? We know that he's a
free trader, but is he willing to protect the U.S. steel workers by
basically closing the U.S. market?
MR. FLEISCHER: The International Trade Commission has
been or will shortly send to the President its formal report detailing
the recommended remedies that were previously discussed by the ITC on
December 7th. That report was scheduled to arrive here at
some point today. It will be reviewed carefully by the
administration. It's important that the process for making
decisions on what's called 201 cases is an inclusive one, and the
administration will continue to solicit the views of the steel
producers, the workers, consuming industries and our trading partners
and other interested parties in this matter.
The President, under the law, has up to 75 days to make a decision
on what actions to take, if any, and we'll keep you posted.
Q When do you expect a decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: Within 75 days.
Q Closer to 74?
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:12
P.M. EST
#124-12/19
|