For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 23, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
Listen to the Briefing
- President's daily schedule
- Surplus, budget, stimulus
- President's meeting w/ bipartisan leaders
- War update
- John Walker Lindh
- Enron
- Detainees
- India
- U.N. Summit on Global Poverty
- Homeland security funding
- Libya
- Middle East
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:23 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President
this morning had his usual intelligence briefing followed by a briefing
with the FBI and then convened a meeting of the National Security
Council.
Following that, he convened a meeting with the bipartisan House and
Senate leaders to come down and talk about the upcoming agenda for the
year. During that meeting, the President urged the members
of Congress to take action on a wide variety of issues on the domestic
agenda, including trade promotion authority, energy
legislation. The President referred to both of those as job
creators. The President called for action on prescription
drugs and Medicare. He talked about the need for a farm bill
and covered many other domestic issues, as well as gave them an update
on the war.
I will be happy to return to that. I've got a little
more information for you on that when you want.
Then the President had another meeting with members of Congress to
discuss several of the military issues that are pending up on the
Hill. The timing of that could not have been better.
The President will shortly depart the White House to give a speech
this afternoon to the Reserve Officers Association Luncheon, in which
the President is going to make the case to the American people about
the need to increase defense spending in the upcoming budget.
The President will provide the specifics about how much money he is
seeking to increase defense spending by. The President
thinks it is absolutely essential to win the war on terrorism, to
protect the country, that Congress take action to give the defense
budget the boost that it needs and deserves. And the
President will address that himself. His remarks will begin
at 1:20 p.m.
The President will return to the White House, where he will sign
legislation to help with victims of terrorism, not only from 9/11 but
those who have died from the anthrax attacks as well as those who died
at Oklahoma City, by providing them tax relief to help the families
deal with the consequences of the death of their loved ones.
And then the President will have a private meeting with members of
Congress who recently visited the Middle East to listen to them and to
hear their thoughts about the situation in the Middle East.
With that, I am happy to take questions.
Q The Congressional Budget Office is
testifying today and saying that the 10-year projected surplus has
collapsed by $4 trillion, of which they say the tax cut is responsible
for $1.3 trillion of that reduction, about a third. Does the
President think that's wise fiscal policy, given the nation's needs?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks that tax relief is
absolutely essential to get the economy growing again and to help the
economy recover from the recession that began in March. But
I also wanted to say that on the dollar amount, the President always
called for a $1.3 trillion tax cut, that should surprise nobody that
the size of the surplus has been diminished by the size of the tax cut,
as advertised.
That the purpose of federal governments are not to run surpluses
that are gargantuan, taking more money away from American people, as
you point out, the Congressional Budget Office also says that over the
next five years and 10 years, the government will still have a
surplus. So taxes have been cut, the economy is going to
come back, the President believes, thanks to the stimulus provided by a
tax relief. And the government will still have a surplus.
Q But the surplus has collapsed,
essentially, given the new needs post-September 11th, that the nation
faces, there's just going to be a lot less money to deal with those
needs. And the President still wants a prescription benefit,
drug benefit for the elderly. And there's increasing calls
that too much of that tax cut, especially in the out years, goes to the
rich. There's no second thoughts about the fiscal impact --
not the economic policy, but what this has done to the federal budget?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, I think the President understands,
and most people at home in America understand that with all that money
coming into Washington, it was going to be spent by the politicians
anyway in both parties. And at the end of the day, the
government, instead of having a gargantuan surplus, will now have a
very large surplus.
But the purpose of government is not to keep taxes high on American
people so the government can run gargantuan surpluses which get spent
anyway. The purpose of the government is to keep taxes as
low as possible while funding the government's vital priorities, such
as Social Security, such as Medicare, such as education, such as
defense. And that's the purpose of the President's budget.
Q One more. It sounds like you're
saying we can still have it all, that despite this collapse in the
surplus, of which the tax cut is a major part, we an still have it all
-- you just rattled off a list of Social Security, Medicare, homeland
security, defense -- there are hard choices before the --
MR. FLEISCHER: Especially in the early years, right now,
as a result of the recession, as a result of the war, as a result of
the war, as a result of the extra spending that was done to respond to
September 11th, there is a need now particularly, watch the
budget. Because there will be a deficit -- as the President
has said, as the White House has been saying for months -- in the
current year and in the next year.
That is not caused by the tax cut, that was caused by the slow-down
in the economy, the recession, as well as the need as a nation to
respond to war. As I said, the President today is going to
make the case to the American people why we need to have a big increase
in funding for defense.
Part of the President's priorities are to protect the country by
providing the defense of the United States; to protect the homeland,
which, incidentally, the President believes that the single most thing
that our country or our government can do to help the economy grow is
to prevent another terrorist attack; and also then, to fund vital
programs of the government.
Q What did the President tell the leaders
about the war, status of the war? And did he defend putting
prisoners in cages?
MR. FLEISCHER: Your characterization, of course, Helen,
not the President's.
Q No, Rumsfeld said, we put them in cages.
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of the meeting the
President had, he met with the bipartisan leaders for just a little bit
over half an hour, I think the meeting lasted. The President
spent about half the meeting talking about the domestic agenda and
about half talking about the war.
On the domestic agenda, I jotted this down, one thing the President
said was, "I look forward to a healthy domestic agenda. We
can get a lot done. 2001 was a good year, I thank
you. I think we can improve on it." The President believes
there's a lot more that can be done working with the Congress on the
domestic agenda, including getting a patient bill of rights, which has
been passed by the House and Senate, enacted into law; a stimulus plan
to help the economy to recover; I mentioned a couple of the
other items that the President mentioned earlier.
On the war --
Q Did have a priority list for the agenda?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President didn't rank them in
order. The President believes that there is a lot that can
be done.
On the war, the President gave an update on the war and much of
that you're going to hear shortly in the President's
remarks. But the President believes that things have gone
very, very well in achieving our missions in
Afghanistan. And the President looks forward to his State of
the Union, where the President is also going to explain to the American
people how this is a war against terrorism and that Afghanistan is the
focus for now, but the mission is a war against terrorism; that Osama
bin Laden will be caught, but Osama bin Laden is not the focus of what
we're doing, he's an objective of this war on terrorism, but the focus
is much larger -- which is to help win a war against terrorism,
wherever terrorism has global reach.
Q Ari, on the subject of detainees and
prisoners, why is there so much secrecy surrounding the transfer of
John Walker back to this country? And what does the President believe
Americans should think about his return to the United States to face
trial?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that what
Americans think about John Walker's return to the United States is he
will now get the justice he deserves; that he has been charged with
something extraordinarily serious, conspiracy to murder Americans; that
he was found in Afghanistan as a member of al Qaeda, as a member of the
Taliban, which were waging a war against our men and women.
But the President also knows the great strength of America is he
will now have his day in court and he will be judged impartially and
fairly. And that's one of the reasons the United States wins wars,
because people like John Walker deserve and receive the judgment that
they get from their fellow citizens.
Q And the reason for the secrecy surrounding
his transfer?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't speak to that, John. I
think it is probably pretty common sense. You need to check
with the Department of Defense and the Attorney General's office who
will be in charge with any of the operational details of his transfer.
Q Ari, three or four Democratic senators are
backing the GAO's drive to give more details about the Enron
contacts here in the White House. Is your position still the
same? And would it be any different if another branch of the
government asked for those records, a congressional committee or
lawmakers themselves?
MR. FLEISCHER: There has been no change in the White
House position at all and that includes my statement, oh, probably
about 10 days ago when I said there was no change in the White House
position. And I also indicated that I cannot make a
predication about any future and every future circumstance that may or
may not come up.
Q Right now, the sticking point is that the
GAO, according to the Vice President, doesn't have the statutory
authority to request these documents.
MR. FLEISCHER: That is part of the case with the GAO, as
well as the principle that you heard articulated here many times
before, about the rights of Americans to come and talk to their
government, people -- all kinds of meetings and all variety of settings
from all types of different backgrounds, and have a right to have a
meeting where anything they say is not turned into a news release.
Q That may be a problem even if the GAO were
to stand down and a congressional committee were to come forward which
didn't have that statutory authority?
MR. FLEISCHER: What I have always indicated is the
administration will always work with Congress and continue to do so in
a vein that is cooperative.
Q I want to get back to the deficits in a
minute, but I want to talk about the Majority Leader's letter to the
President yesterday, on the stimulus package.
Scott understandably danced around that a little bit this
morning. I want to try to get from you what is the White
House assessment of what needs to be in a stimulus package that passes
the Senate.
Does acceleration of the Bush tax cut need to be in
there? Do the health care tax credits need to be in
there? And if they're not, is this just an exercise in
letter passing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President was very pleased to
receive a letter last night from both Senator Daschle and Senator
Lott. Obviously, there's a lot of letter writing going
on. The President is hopeful that the Senate this year will
be able to work together and be able to send to him -- or at least send
to the conference committee, so it can be sent to him -- legislation
that creates jobs, gives a stimulus to the economy and helps workers
who have lost their jobs.
The President believes that a comprehensive package is the best
package to be sent to him. But the President welcomes
progress on this issue. He understands how difficult it is
in the United States Senate. And before the United States Senate can
do anything that gets enacted into law, they have to reach an agreement
within themselves -- that way, they can send it to the conference.
The House of Representatives has an equal role to play in this
matter. And so all the focus now has been on the Senate because the
House did its work. It's now important for the Senate to
complete its work, and that's a very difficult charge for Leader
Daschle, but the President has confidence in his ability that if he
wants to get it done, he'll be able to get it done and he welcomed the
letter.
Q Will the President sign a stimulus bill
that does not include an acceleration of his tax cut and health care
tax credits?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to speculate on any given
circumstance. Again, the President wants to see Congress make
progress, but the President believes that we need to have a
comprehensive package that focuses on job creation as well as help for
people who have lost their jobs.
Q The CBO numbers, of course, do not reflect
future legislative action.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q That being said, we've been led to believe
by Mitch Daniels that the Bush 2003 budget will not really cut a lot of
programs significantly. We may expect a 7 to 8 percent growth in
discretionary spending, almost twice what the President originally
recommended a year before.
Are we now seeing a Bush White House that has essentially raised
the white flag, as trying to hold and restrain spending, as far as
Congress is concerned? And, if so, can't we expect more
pressure on deficits because Congress typically trumps whatever an
administration puts before it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's a very good
question. It's a reminder that deficits are affected not
only -- or surpluses and deficits are affected not only by the economy
and how much revenue comes in by the strength of the economy, by the
attack on our country, which hurt the economy as well as led to a lot
of spending; tax cuts, which, again, the President believes are
stimulative -- but spending, of course.
Spending has a dollar for dollar affect on the bottom
line. For every dollar you spent, you can increase the
deficit a dollar. Having said that, here are the President's
priorities. The President's priorities in the budget he
proposes will be to increase defense spending so that our nation can
win the war on terrorism and so that our men and women have the tools
they need to finish the job.
Two, to protect the homeland -- homeland security, because the
President believes the best way to protect the economy is to prevent
another attack on our country.
And, thirdly, to take care of vital domestic needs. And
to do so, there will be a need to limit the growth, to increase
spending more slowly, if you will, on many of the issues on the
domestic home front -- recognizing that for the last several years
there have been major increases in many of these domestic accounts.
And so when you take a look at the proposals over a two or three
year period, you'll see the budget is growing at a rate that is healthy
and appropriate. But the President is still dedicated to
making certain that the spending habits of Washington are restrained
within those priorities.
Q Ari, despite the explanations given by
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, this morning Speaker Hastert, when asked
about it, said that the treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo --
Taliban and al Qaeda -- is humane and severe. He used the
word "severe."
The critics, in Europe, especially --
MR. FLEISCHER: You said the Speaker said it was humane?
Q And severe, right. The critics,
especially Europe, continue to not accept the explanations given by
American authorities. What do you think the U.S. should do
to prove its point, that they have given them humane treatment in
accordance with the Geneva Convention?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I would refer you to the briefing
that Secretary Rumsfeld had on this topic yesterday. There's
not a new question here. Secretary Rumsfeld took all these
questions. Secretary Rumsfeld has been in touch with the
people who are in charge of Guantanamo and he understands
this. So, too, does the President. And the
President is perfectly satisfied that the traditions of the United
States, which are to treat people well, to treat people with dignity
and to treat people humanely are being kept at our base in Guantanamo.
The President also understands that the people who are detained
there are detained because, for the most part they're all al Qaeda, and
if they were free they would engage in murder once
again. These are not mere innocents. These are
among the worst of the worst who are being detained because of what
they have done, because of the suicidal nature of the actions that they
have taken -- their willingness, their training to go out and kill and
destroy and engage in suicide if they can take others with them.
And the President is also concerned that as they are treated
humanely and fairly and consistent with the Geneva Convention, that the
young men and women of the United States military who are guarding them
are not subject to harm and subject to danger, as was done in the
prison uprising in Mazar-e-Sharif. Those are also the brothers and
sisters and the sons and daughters of Americans, who are in harm's way
by guarding those prisoners. And it's not easy duty.
And the President is very well satisfied that they're doing it in
the traditions of the American military, which sets a standard around
the world for people treating well, treating people humanely while
doing a tough job.
Q Most of the international organizations
say they are not being treated properly under the Geneva Convention and
they are not being treated humanely. Why do you have this
world outcry if they're being treated humanely?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, Helen, there's been a reaction
to a photo that is not befitting the facts.
Q Photos put out by the Pentagon.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Two questions, one domestic, one
international. International, again, U.S. interests was --
India, if President is concerned about it and if he has spoken to
anybody. And Indian authorities are saying this is also an
act of terrorism. And if President claims victory in
Afghanistan --
MR. FLEISCHER: Ask me the second part of your question
again.
Q If President claims victory Afghanistan.
MR. FLEISCHER: President plans what on Afghanistan?
Q If he claims victory.
Q Does he claim victory.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. On the
attack in Calcutta, number one, the perpetrators of that have not yet
been identified. And the President is looking forward to
finding out if that is going to be information that's
obtainable. The President is very concerned about the
violence that took place in Calcutta and the innocents who were
affected in the attack.
As far as Afghanistan goes, no, the President is not claiming
victory. The President is very pleased with the progress of the
campaign in Afghanistan to rid Afghanistan of terrorism, to move the
Taliban from power because they've harbored terrorists, and of the
ability of the United States to destroy the al Qaeda's ability to harm
anybody else.
There's an important reconstruction process that is also underway
simultaneously with a war that still is a fighting war and a shooting
war in many pockets in Afghanistan. And in that endeavor, as
you know, there was a conference in Tokyo over the weekend in which the
United States played a lead role. The United States has
committed $300 million toward the rebuilding of
Afghanistan. I believe that the total funding for the effort
in Afghanistan by the various nations that are involved is a little bit
in excess of $1 billion -- it's $1.8 billion, from 61 participating
countries.
You know, it's another sign of what happens when the United States
gets involved in the world and does things because the President
commits the United States to a path that he believes will result in
justice.
The United States engaged in a war -- at the same time engaged in a
war to protect the citizens of this country, it dropped bombs and it
dropped food at the same time. And at the same time the war
was being fought, plans were being made to help Afghanistan rebuild so
they could go beyond what was done to them during the Taliban regime,
and help improve the lives there. And you've seen how many
women and children are now in the streets, liberated.
Q Back on the Daschle proposal for a slimmed
down stimulus, or at least an agreement on just those things the two
sides don't disagree over. Is the President asking his allies on the
Hill to work on such a package, to continue talks on such a package?
MR. FLEISCHER: During the meeting it was discussed, and
both Senator Daschle and Senator Lott have indicated they've already
talked to each other, they will continue to talk to each
other. And that's exactly what the President thinks that the
leaders of the Senate should be doing. They have a difficult
job ahead of them, it's never easy in the United States Senate.
But one way or another, it needs to be done, in the President's
opinion, so that the country can have laws passed.
Q But you already know the that Democrats
agree with you on a body of things, such as extending unemployment
benefits and rebates to people who didn't get tax
cuts. Those things are already agreed the by both
sides. What is the purpose of continuing discussions on that
and cutting out the things that the President is insisting upon as a
real economic stimulus?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's again why the President
believes that a comprehensive package is the best package in order to
help the most Americans. And that's why when the President
received the letters last night he talked about how pleased he was that
the senators are saying that they want to work with each other and get
the job done. But at the end of the day, the President
believes a comprehensive package is best.
Q I understand what he thinks is
best. How does he think this process of working on a slimmed
down version will actually get to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you just never know with the United
States Congress. It is not unusual for the United States
Congress to proceed slowly, quickly, slowly, quickly. That's
our legislative process. And that's why again I say it's not
easy.
And with just one quick look at the numbers, you can see the
margins are very narrow on both the House and the
Senate. But when you consider the fact that the House of
Representatives has about four-and-a-half times as many people as the
Senate, really the margins in the House and the margins in the Senate
are the same. It's one vote in the Senate, six votes in the
House, and the House is four-and-a-half times the size of the Senate.
The House of Representatives has been able to get it done, not only
on a stimulus package, but on energy legislation, on faith-based
legislation, on a ban on cloning. The House of
Representatives has been able to take action on many of these different
issues -- trade promotion authority.
And the President believes that the Senate can do it as well, and
it's important for the Senate to do it as well, because if they can't,
nothing gets sent to the President.
Q Ari, on the subject of aid, the U.N.
Summit on Global Poverty is in less than two months. And the
draft declaration for that calls for wealthy nations to increase
spending on foreign aid to .7 percent of their national
income. That's something that's supported by, amongst
others, the British. We currently spend about .1 percent of
our budget. What is the President's stance on that draft
declaration and are we actively seeking to alter it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you indicated, that summit is
several months away and so it's too soon to say what the position will
be on the drafts that are in the process of formulation prior to
that. You'll be able to see more of the specific budget
numbers in the budget that the President releases on February 4th.
Q Ari, the President plans this huge
increase in homeland security funding -- Governor Ridge was talking
about it to the mayors a little while ago. What kind of
guidelines does the administration have in mind to make sure that that
money goes to the right place and that it's used for the right
purpose?
MR. FLEISCHER: The homeland security increases that the
President will be seeking will be very specific in most
categories. For example, there will be a big focus on
first-responders. What happens very often, as you can see in
New York or at the Pentagon, when the attacks took place, the first
people on the scene typically are your local fire department, your
local police department. Those are what the lexicon calls
first-responders. It's logical, it's common sense, they're
the ones who are on the ground, they're trained to respond and respond
immediately.
Part of homeland security is making certain that they have the
resources around the nation, because if we don't know exactly where the
enemy will hit us next -- if they're able to hit us
next. And so the funds will be earmarked for specific
purposes. There will be funds earmarked, for example, we
learned a lot in the anthrax scares. There will be funds
earmarked for public health. There will be funds earmarked
for stockpiling of medicines. There will be funds earmarked
for the distribution of medicines. That will be all part of
the homeland security package.
So there will be increases in spending for homeland security in a
variety of specific categories.
Q So there will be restrictions, there will
be rules that make sure that these funds are not -- that local
governments don't redefine these funds and squander them on something
else?
MR. FLEISCHER: There will be specifically defined
purposes. Now, there may be -- and I'd have to take a look
carefully -- some programs which could be block granted. I
haven't looked at every area of the homeland funding. But
the majority, the overwhelming majority of the funds will be earmarked
for specific purposes like I mentioned.
Q Do you think that the Daschle plan is an
acceptable vehicle for being voted on by the Senate? It's
solely for the purpose of hammering out a broader, more comprehensive
package once it's in conference.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks the Daschle plan is
an appropriate vehicle for Senator Lott and Senator Daschle to discuss,
so the Senate can get something done. But, again, the House
of Representatives is an equal part of our democracy and it's important
for the Senate to do as the House did and pass a bill that can get to
conference so that something can be sent to the President.
Q Ari, a follow up on Peter's
questions. Some of the mayors have said that it all looks
good, this money that's going out to the local cities -- I mean, to the
cities, to give to the first responders -- the fire, the
police. But they're saying that, you know, they feel that
it's not enough, the proposed increase in homeland security
first-responder money that they've heard.
And they're saying basically what they're doing is just telling
their people in the cities, we can fight it, but knowing in their
hearts it's just not enough. What does the administration
say about their gripe that it's not enough to really effectively fight
terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, I'm not certain that
sentiment is widespread. You will always be able to find
people in both parties who like to push the spending envelope to get
more. Everybody knows how that works. You ask for
a figure much higher than you need and then you are very satisfied with
the amount you actually get. That's an age-old issue when it
comes to budgeting and everybody engages in it.
But the President is very well satisfied that the review that was
done by Governor Ridge, working with the officials on the state and
local level to determine how much we could spend on homeland security,
effectively and efficiently and fully give resources to state and local
governments is the right amount. But he'll be satisfied to
send that program up to the Congress and the Congress will take a
careful look at it, as well.
Q And to follow up. How can you
determine what cities get what? Let's say a New York, let's say a
Chicago, let's say Walla Walla, Washington -- okay, yes, Walla Walla --
(laughter) and cities in Florida -- I mean, how can you determine which
city gets what?
MR. FLEISCHER: Much of it is, of course, done by the
size. That, obviously, a city with a budget that is 10 times
the size of a city of another budget has often 10 times the
need. New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, towns that are
much smaller don't have the same needs. But they all need to
have increased funds.
The President believes one of the best ways is to get the money
into the hands of the legislators and the governors. They
can make decisions, too, as they pass the money down to their local
entities, because they have a lot of knowledge of it, too.
Q Ari, does the President plan to sign off
on the reported settlement between Libya and the families from Pan Am
103? And how close is the administration to taking Libya off
the list of rogue nations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you for asking that, I'm glad you
did, that gives me a chance to clarify something that was out there
this morning.
There are discussions that have been underway involving several of
the parties with Libya. But the report this morning that
there is any type of agreement is substantially, widely off the
mark. There is no such
agreement. There have been conversations, but Libya
knows what it needs to do, and that is to follow the United Nations'
policies about paying reparations to the victims of the attack at
Lockerbie, as well as to apologize for the attack. And that
has not yet taken place.
And that's a separate matter from de-listing Libya as a terrorist
state that sponsors terrorism. That's a matter that's with
the State Department and is separate and apart from Libya simply
conforming to the actions that they are supposed to conform to in
accordance with the U.N. obligations.
Q Would the President want to hear from the
Pan Am 103 families before he took action?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there's no action about to
be taken.
Q Ari, the Senate plan from Senator Daschle,
could you just clarify that you support everything in that Daschle
plan, and then clarify why you think it's not a good vehicle for it to
go to conference? Because everything works in conference
anyway, so why not just send it to conference?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the President is pleased
with the fact that the senators are doing what they should do, which is
beginning the year sounding as if they want to work together to get it
done. The President believes that that is the case with the
Senate and he hopes that they will now manifest that in action.
But always, on any of these proposals, the devil is in the details
and people talk about bonus expensing, I think were the words that
Senator Daschle used. You know, he has one definition for
it, the administration has had another definition for it. So
even if you were to assume that in and of itself -- and I'm not
assuming that -- but that letter alone was agreeable, you'd have to ask
the substantive questions, well, how do you define and how do you
define it.
And, of course, there is still a legislative process that would
have to move forward as they put the details down in writing.
Q So you agree with the concepts, but not
necessarily everything in --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the concept is that the Senate
needs to do its job. The senators still have to pass
legislation and get it to a conference committee. And to do
that, the Democrats and Republicans have to work well together to get
it done.
The President believes we need a comprehensive
package. That's something that Senator Lott has talked about
that would create jobs.
Q Ari, top aids to Yasser Arafat has been
visiting -- the last few days, and there have been talks about
mediation efforts to narrow the gap between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. We understand that the Foreign Minister of
Qatar this morning met with the Vice President Cheney. He
also met before that with General Anthony Zinni. Could you
fill us in on the meeting with the Vice President and if there are some
developments and mediations to narrow the gap between the --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm afraid you'll have to talk to the
Vice President's office about that, I was in different meetings with
the President all morning and so I don't have any information on those
meetings.
Let me go back to the Libya question for a second. I
want to give you some very specific language on that, just to help you
clarify that. I was looking for this
earlier. There have been positive discussions with Libya,
but Libya still has not fully complied with its United Nations Security
Council resolutions. The United States government is not --
not -- negotiating a compensation settlement with the
Libyans. As we've said before, we are committed to
preserving the right of the families of Pan Am 103 victims and will not
undercut their pending claims.
Q Since yesterday's Defense Department's
dropping of its requirement that our female Armed Forces personnel in
Saudi Arabia have to wear head-to-toe gowns when leaving their base was
surely done with the consent of the Commander-in-Chief. Why
does the President believe that Colonel Martha McSally (phonetic)
should still be unable to drive a car off base in Saudi Arabia when she
can pilot a fighter plane above Saudi Arabia?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, Les, those decisions are made
properly by the Department of Defense under the authority --
Q He approved this, didn't he, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- it's done under the authority that the
President has granted the Secretary to make these type of judgments.
Q He thinks it's a good thing, doesn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has faith that the
Department of Defense executes its mission well and that's their call.
Q Does the President, in his dedication to
equal justice under law, believe it's right for the U.S. Department of
Justice to have gone to court to force the Virginia Military Institute
to accept women with no such action to make 59 women-only colleges --
running from Hood in Maryland, to Mills in California -- accept males?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not comment on court
cases.
Q What do you think he thinks, are?
MR. FLEISCHER: He thinks he thinks he doesn't comment on
court cases. (Laughter.)
Q Ari, are any other members of the Bush
family, including his parents or his brother and sister, have
investments in Enron and have they sustained the same kind of losses
that they did, as his mother in law?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know. Anybody who is
covered under financial disclosure laws, you'll be able to take a look
at. But I don't know the answer to that question.
Q Well, not all of them.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know the answer to the
question. I can tell you that the fastest way to find out
I'm sure is to take a look at what is publicly known. But I
don't know the answer; I haven't spoken to his brothers or
sisters. I know what the President said, of course, about
his mother in law, because the President said it. But you
can ask directly, I don't know the answers.
Q Can you take the question?
Q On Monday we understand the President
talked over the phone with the President of Mexico. Can you
give us a readout of their conversation?
MR. FLEISCHER: I know they spoke briefly yesterday or
the day before yesterday.
Q I think --
MR. FLEISCHER: Pardon me? Yes, I think the
day before yesterday. Let me see if we can't get you something after
the briefing, because I don't have anything with me; I haven't talked
with the President about that particular phone call.
Q Two questions. First of all,
could you take Ben's question, at least insofar as the family members
who are not covered by the financial disclosure --
MR. FLEISCHER: I take questions for the President; I
don't take questions for his whole family.
Q But he opened the door to this yesterday.
MR. FLEISCHER: I understand. I'll see if
there's anything I can help you with. The point is the
same. Whether somebody owned stock, sold stock or they owned
stock and held stock -- they all lost. And they lost because
of the accounting and the manner in which Enron handled its finances,
that put tens of thousands of investors and pensioners in a spot that
none of them deserve to be in.
Q But some of them cashed-out
beforehand. I mean, some of them were able to cash-out
before the stock fell.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. You had a
second question?
Q When the House was dealing with economic
stimulus, the President -- the House passed things, included things in
its package that the President did not agree with, did not
support. The President supported that bill to keep the
process moving, to get it to conference. Why would the
President not adopt the same approach to the Senate vehicle, a Daschle
vehicle, for example, that may contain things that he wouldn't agree
with or not contain things he did support for the same reason?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure. And you learned that
those were the President's reflections about what was in the House bill
the day the House passed it. And if we can arrive at the beautiful day
where the Senate passes it, you'll be able to know definitively what
the President thinks about the various provisions in it.
Up until that point, it's speculation about what may or may not be
in the Senate bill. So if the Senate were able to pursue
that same successful path of the House, then I think we could all learn
the answer to that question. And the only way for that to
happen is the Senate to get together to do it and that's where the
President still is hopeful and, based on today's meeting, perhaps it
will be done.
Q On the stimulus. Just if you
looked at the details of the scaled back plan that Daschle is proposing
and you saw the details of the common elements, do you completely rule
out using that as a vehicle to go to conference with the House, to get
a --
MR. FLEISCHER: I really have nothing new to
add. I've answered that question a variety of ways as often
as I can.
Q Ari, just one back on the
budget. You said that prior to this that if we had the
projected surplus of $5.6 trillion it would have been spent
anyway. Does the President regard surpluses fundamentally as
an indication of over taxation that needs to be avoided? Or
does he regard it as an essential condition to paying back the debt?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President views surpluses as a sign
of economic growth, which is why he's cut taxes, so they can be put
back on an upward path by creating growth, which creates
surpluses. The President views surpluses as a very helpful
way to pay down the debt. But the President's fear has
always been that in the town of Washington, D.C., if the politicians
get their hands on the money, they're going to spend it. And
that applies to politicians in both parties.
And if you take a look at what's happened over the last many years,
there's a lot of proof in both parties to support that contention that
the President has. So surpluses, if they were able to be
used for the purpose of debt reduction would be very economically
beneficial to the nation. Surpluses that would be used to spend on
creating a permanent bigger government will lead to increased deficits
and to more pressure on politicians to spend more money.
Q Ari, you spoke somewhat enthusiastically a
moment ago about the good things that happen when the United States
gets involved. The evidence of that is
Afghanistan. I'm curious what the United States involvement
will be in the next couple of days in the Middle East. We
had a temporary cease-fire that now, by all accounts, has completely
collapsed. Violence has again taken over -- Anthony Zinni
doesn't appear to be heading to the region anytime
soon. What new ideas, what new efforts, what anything at all
does the administration intend to do to prove, perhaps, to that Middle
East that U.S. involvement directly can achieve some beneficial
results?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States is going to remain
deeply involved in events in the Middle East. The events in
the Middle East are unique; they are not like any events anywhere else
in the world. The complications are unique. The
history is unique. And the President has made it abundantly
clear that he will remain engaged. Secretary Powell
continues at the President's direction to have conversations with
officials in the Middle East. And the President will
continue in that vein himself.
But you put your finger on something very important. A
lot of progress was being made. It was being made, thanks in
good part to a speech that Secretary Powell gave where he laid out a
vision of a more comprehensive peace in the Middle East; President
Bush's speech at the United Nations where he talked about the need for
Israel to be able to live in a secure border; and then the President
saying to the United Nations that the Palestinian people should have a
Palestinian state.
General Zinni was then dispatched to the region. And all
the good work and all that good effort was then derailed as a result of
the arms shipment that was received and paid for by the Palestinian
Authority, which has immensely complicated the prospects for getting a
return to the peace in the Middle East.
Q Where do the Israelis get their arms?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's a difference, Helen, and that is
--
Q What is the difference?
MR. FLEISCHER: The targeting of innocents through the
use of terror, which is a common enemy for Yasser Arafat and for the
people of Israel, as well as --
Q -- Palestinian people are fighting for
their land --
MR. FLEISCHER: -- I think killing of innocents is a
category entirely different. Justifying killing of innocents
for land is an argument in support of terrorism.
Q Ari, finish making the point you were
making about the result of the discovery of the shipment and what it
has done to this process. Please continue that thought.
MR. FLEISCHER: And as a result of the arms shipment, it
has made it immensely more difficult to pursue the path of
peace. It has made it much more difficult for all parties
concerned, because the common enemy has got to be terrorism, in the
President's opinion. And if weapons are going to be bought
for -- paid for so they can be used to pursue terrorism, then it makes
it very hard to have a peace process that's a realistic one or a
meaningful one.
Having said that, the President will continue to work with the
parties to explore ways that it can be done, but I'm not making any
explanations about how uncomplicated it is because it is a complicated
one.
Q Ari, can I just follow on your Libyan
statement that you came back to? Is there any evidence
whatsoever that the Libyans have taken the proper steps in order to
possibly be taken off of the list of rogue nations?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a separate issue and that has to
be resolved bilaterally. And it cannot even be resolved
bilaterally until Libya has fulfilled the Security Council
requirements. And the discussions with Libya into fulfilling
its Security Council requirements need to be had with the families
involved of the Pan Am Flight 103. So it's a very separate
measure from what you saw this morning.
Thank you.
END 1:03
P.M. EST
|