MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon, and a happy Friday.
The President this morning spoke to President Arroyo of the
Philippines. He expressed his appreciation for President
Arroyo's continued leadership in support of the war against
terrorism. And he specifically noted how President Arroyo
has made every effort to secure the safe release of two Americans who
have been held hostage in the southern Philippines. The
President also emphasized his determination to see our current training
mission to a successful conclusion.
Following that, the President had his usual intelligence briefings,
convened a meeting of the National Security Council, and he also taped
his radio address, which will play tomorrow, about his upcoming trip to
Asia.
And earlier this morning, the White House opened it to
tours. Mrs. Bush was on hand to greet a group of
schoolchildren who are now coming to the White House. The
President and Mrs. Bush are delighted that a limited reopening has
taken place for schoolchildren. And on behalf of the
President and Mrs. Bush, I would simply like to urge school groups
across America to come visit Washington this spring, make the White
House one of the stops along the way. And they can contact
their congressional offices to come get tickets to see the White
House.
And following that, the President had a meeting with the President
of Uruguay, Jorge Batlle, where they discussed the war on terror and
other regional issues. And later this afternoon, the
President will swear in the new Director of the Peace Corps, Gaddi
Vasquez. And the President will then make remarks about the
importance of the Peace Corps to America's role in the world, and
harken back to the message that he gave in the State of the Union
address about the USA Freedom Corps and a goal of doubling the number
of Americans who serve in the Peace Corps.
A couple of other announcements I'd like to make, and then I'll be
happy to take questions. The Senate will be heading off into
recess, and as they do, there are currently 95 judicial vacancies,
which is over 11 percent of the federal judiciary. The 12
regional circuit courts of appeals have 30 vacancies, an extraordinary
18-percent vacancy rate. The Chief Justice, speaking on
behalf of the judiciary, recently called on the Senate to act promptly
on judicial nominations, in light of what he called "alarming numbers
of judicial vacancies."
The President has submitted 90 judicial nominations, but the Senate
has voted on only 37. The Senate has thus far failed to vote
on 53 of the President's 90 nominees, including the very distinguished
jurist, Charles Pickering, to the Circuit Court. And the
President believes in and will fight for the nomination of Mr.
Pickering.
Despite the very high vacancy rate in the Circuit Court of Appeals,
the Senate has voted on only seven of the President's 29 Circuit Court
nominees. There appears to be a Circuit Court stall
underway, and that does not serve the cause of justice. The
Senate Judiciary Committee still has not afforded a hearing to eight of
the President's first 11 nominees, who were nominated back in May, over
nine months ago.
There is no justification for the Senate's delay of these highly
qualified and widely respected nominees. The Senate should
not be a roadblock to justice; the Senate needs to take
action. They lag far behind the pace of previous Senates,
and it is not in keeping with a court system that is well functioning
and efficient.
A couple other announcements: One, the Vice President
is, as we speak, giving a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations,
where he is releasing a white paper which is a study about the effect
the President's tax cut has had on the economy. And the
white paper shows that the results of the tax cut are that the
recession will be shorter and less severe, thanks to the tax cut.
In fact, the study concludes that growth, which declined by 1.3
percent in the third quarter, would have declined 2.5 percent; and
growth in the fourth quarter, which was a very modest 0.2 percent
increase, would have actually been a 1.0 percent decline without the
tax cut. So the study clearly shows that the recession will
be shorter and less difficult as a result of the tax
cut. And the President is very gratified at the bipartisan
members of Congress who helped make the tax cut possible.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Q Ari, does the President believe that the
science on Yucca Mountain is complete enough to make an informed
decision on its future?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on January 10th the Secretary of
Energy informed Nevada officials that he was going to recommend to the
President that the facility at Yucca be opened on a permanent
basis. That recommendation then has been pending for some 30
days, a little bit more. And since that time, the
President's team has taken a very careful look at it.
The Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality
has analyzed it. The President's Science Advisor has
analyzed it. The report was formally presented to the
President last night.
The President will be having something to say about
that. And when he does, we will inform you. It's
under review, and then the President will inform people of what
decision he has made. But it has received extensive review
along the way. The President has also met with officials
from Nevada from the government -- Governor of Nevada, the Senators of
Nevada, as well as met with the Secretary of Energy to discuss it
fully.
Q Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you
will, didn't the President say during the campaign that he would not
make a decision on Yucca Mountain until all the science was
in? Does he believe the science is all in now?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President said he would make the
decision based on sound science. And what the Department of
Energy has done, in preparation for the review that has been received
here, they have reviewed more than 17,000 documents, had more than 100
public hearings. This has been over a 20-year period, that
was based on a scientific and technological investigation.
Q The point of my question at the beginning,
does he believe the science is in now? Does he believe the
science is sound enough to make an informed decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: As a result of what the President has
received, the President does have sufficient scientific basis to make a
decision.
Q Are the American troops in the Philippines
under Philippine command?
MR. FLEISCHER: They are under American command, if I
recall. And they are working with Philippines as a host
government.
Q So the reports that they might be under
Philippine command are wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I'm not aware of those reports,
Helen. If there's any clarification to that, I will advise
you. But my understanding is they are under American
command, and they are working side-by-side, in close collaboration with
the Philippine government.
Q Ari, can I just follow up on Secretary
Powell's comments yesterday, because some conservative groups, hearing
what you told us earlier today at the gaggle, saying that there's no
daylight between the President and the Secretary on this, are saying
that you're -- they still view it as a contradiction. They
say you're undermining the President's promotion of
abstinence. The Secretary did not mention
abstinence. He was talking about encouraging condom
use. What's your response to that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the Secretary made it
perfectly plain, and so did the questioner. The question was
in the context of for people who practice sex. It was not a
question about everybody in our society; it was a question of just
those who are sexually active. And so, obviously, if someone
is sexually active, they have already made a decision not to practice
abstinence.
But let me say this -- Colon Powell takes a backseat to no one when
it comes to abstinence and abstinence education. Colon
Powell has -- through his wife -- as a founder of a group called Best
Friends, along with Bill Bennett and Alma Powell, and that is a group
that focuses on abstinence education as a way of reaching out to young
people around the world.
Q Well, conservatives feel like they're
sending, by comments you said today and here, that you're sending a
mixed message. And they're upset. They feel like
this is a shift in some way by this White House. Should it not be
viewed in --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, during the campaign, the President
pledged that he would, if elected, increase the amount of funding in
the budget so that abstinence education and other forms of health and
sex education received equal funding. And that is the
commitment the President made, and that's the commitment that's been
honored in his budget.
Q Can I follow up on that? When
Secretary Powell says that the world should be very candid about this
kind of education, forget the taboos, forget the conservative idea of
what is right and wrong -- is that sense the same thing that President
Bush can embrace?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, Ann, after the gaggle this
morning, I saw the Secretary and I asked him about that, and what he
said is he is also referring to the fact that in Africa, particularly,
there are tens of millions of children who are orphaned as a result of
AIDS. And one of the reasons is because the nations there
are so conservative in terms of their approach to teaching sex
education -- that is a topic that is taboo, that it cannot even be
discussed. And that's part of the barriers that the
Secretary is seeking to break down when it comes both to abstinence and
to health and sex education. And it's a way to prevent
sexual diseases, it's a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Q What do you say to groups then that are
very avid supporters of President Bush -- what does President Bush tell
them to calm their concern and those who say that they want the
President to repudiate what Secretary said?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President and the Secretary are
shoulder to shoulder on abstinence education, as well as health
education and sex education, as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies
and as a way to prevent ** sexually transmitted
diseases. What the President has done, and Secretary Powell
has long been involved in, is highlight for the first time the
importance of abstinence education.
Q He supports sex education for
international groups who are trying to spread the word?
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, it is part of the President's
budget, Helen.
Q On hostages, you mentioned the two
American missionary hostages in the Philippines. Do you have
any update on their status, whether there's any chance of getting them
released? And also on Daniel Pearl? And what does the
President's trip say to the whole issue of terrorism of this kind?
MR. FLEISCHER: There are no updates or anything new on
the status of Mr. Pearl or the hostages in the
Philippines. And one of the purposes of the trip is to
discuss our combined efforts to fight terrorism. That's one
of the reasons he's going.
But it's also a reflection of a trip -- this was a trip that was
originally scheduled to take place in October last year, just a little
over one month after the attack. The President went as part
of the APEC Summit in Shanghai. He was going to, at that
time, visit Tokyo, Seoul, and Beijing, but he had to cancel that
portion of it because he did not want to spend that much time out of
the country. So this is also a question of a trip that's a
reflection of promises made and promises kept. The President
did assure our allies that he wanted to visit, and he's keeping his
word.
Q Is he concerned about terrorism --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is always concerned about
terrorism. But if the question is terrorism vis-a-vis the safety of
the President traveling, the President has no concerns about
that. The Secret Service always does a superb job.
Q Ari, the House passed yet another stimulus
bill. Nobody really thinks that the Senate is going to take
that up. Is the President at all concerned that maybe that's
just really a political move, and it might be delaying unemployment
benefits for people who have suffered, and -- basically delaying that
and putting a political issue on the table?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that's perfectly consistent
with what the President said when the Senate passed the 13-week
extension of unemployment. The President made it clear that
that was the least that the Congress could do. And obviously
it's important not only to help people to get an unemployment check,
it's important to let people keep their paychecks, so they don't have
to rely on unemployment. So the President continues to look
at this as a matter of importance to both stimulate the economy and get
help to displaced workers.
Q Well, does he support a stand-alone bill
for unemployment benefits? Would he like the House to do
that on its own?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I said, the President thought it
was the least that the Congress should do. And now you have
a chance where the House has passed something, the Senate has passed
something. The President thinks it's important for the
Congress to get together and come out with a final product.
Q Ari, Egypt has announced that CIA Director
Tenet would meet Cairo on Saturday. Can you give us the
context of that visit, and tell us whether or not --
MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to CIA. I
don't speak for his travels.
Q Ari, if the President does make a decision today on
Yucca Mountain, would you expect him to make that
announcement, or would you expect it to come in a written statement?
MR. FLEISCHER: Whenever the President has something to
say, one way or another, it will be communicated to the press.
Q You're still not ruling out today, right?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not ruled that out.
Q On another matter, you have -- does the
White House have any standing objections to the state of play on
campaign finance reform, including among other things, the fact that
some outside groups were involved in writing parts of the legislation?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the first part of your question, no,
there are no updates from what I said yesterday on campaign
finance. On the second, I think you are referring to a story
that we have now all read and seen, was confirmed true, that Common
Cause wrote a section of the campaign finance bill.
I think if you reverse the roles, and if Common Cause ever heard
that the National Rifle Association or the Right to Life or any other
outside groups wrote a piece of legislation, they would be the first to
complain, and complain loudly, that Congress should not allow people
who are not congressmen and senators to write
legislation. They'd be the first to decry the practice of
lobbyists writing legislation. Yet they themselves have
engaged in the very act that they decry. That does seem to
me to be the height of hypocrisy for Common Cause to have written a
section of a bill that obviously was so controversial it was pulled at
the last minute, if they decry that practice for others.
Q Is your objection to the fact that they
were involved? I mean, obviously a lot of groups who have
an interest in campaign finance reform would be involved in the
process.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, my point is that it's the
hypocrisy. I think it's a time-honored part of Congress for
them to reach out to people who share their views, or who are expert in
certain fields, to ask what they think about pieces of legislation or
to be involved in the drafting. But I think it's very
notable that Common Cause, which decries that practice when others do
it, engages in it themselves. I just think it's a reflection
of Common Cause, not a broader reflection about Washington.
Q Does that change the President's interest
in signing this bill?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's, I think, a side issue,
involving the consistency of Common Cause's message.
Q Is this the section that was pulled,
though, that you talked about the other day?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. What this is, this is a
section that would have allowed hard money debts to be paid for with
soft money. It became instantly controversial when it was
brought to the attention of the sponsors of
Shays-Meehan. And to their credit, and after the President
highlighted it, the sponsors of Shays-Meehan removed it at 2:45
a.m. I think it's fair to say that there were many sponsors
who weren't even aware that that was in there. And I think
they weren't even aware that the provision was in there because it
wasn't written by any member of Congress, it was written by Common
Cause.
My only point is, it's important to be consistent in a
message. And if Common Cause thinks that it's appropriate
for them to write legislation, are they being consistent when they
criticize others for doing the same thing?
Q Would the President be upset with, or
would he condone if an outside group wanted to contribute to the
drafting of legislation coming out of --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I already addressed
that. I said that is part of the legislative drafting
process. My point is the consistency of the
message. It's not the fact that somebody may or may not have
written legislation who is not a member of Congress. As I
said, Congress often does reach out to experts, reach out to people who
share a point of view. My message is focused uniquely on and isolated
on consistency of a group that decries the practice engaging in it
themselves.
Q On a related point, do you have any
further information to share on how the President feels about Senator
McConnell's efforts to potentially filibuster this bill when it gets to
the Senate?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I was asked that yesterday, and
there's no change in what I said.
Q Several people, such as Chairman Bob Ney
of Ohio, have written to the President about steel imports and about
tariffs. What is the President's position? Has he
illuminated a position, and is he going to?
MR. FLEISCHER: Under what's called Section 201, the
President has until March 6th to make a decision about ITC and the
International Trade Commission ruling regarding steel. And
that process is underway. The President is listening to
varying points of views, but he has until March 6th to make a
decision. He has not made one.
Q Ari, does the President support free
elections in Pakistan, democratic elections in Pakistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: During the meeting with President
Musharraf, that had been a topic of important discussion between the
United States and Pakistan. And President Musharraf has
committed Pakistan to holding elections at a definable
date. I don't remember the date off the top of my head, but
the answer is, of course, yes.
Q How about having former Prime Minister
Bhutto --
Q You mentioned the delay again in judicial
nominees. You have brought this up every few weeks before
Congress goes on a recess. Has the White House learned, or
been told at all by Senator Leahy's committee, any reason for the
delay?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not really. The Senate makes
-- has appointed some people, but clearly, they're lagging behind the
pace of previous Senates. And again, in the words of the Supreme Court
Chief Justice, there is a problem in the judiciary in terms of the
number of vacancies. And it's the Senate's responsibility to
make sure that justice does not get bogged down. Especially, it's the
Senate's responsibility to make sure that justice does not get bogged
down for partisan reasons. And Senator Leahy chairs the
committee that is responsible for the pace of nominations, and the
President simply hopes that Senator Leahy will not take any actions
that bog down justice.
Q Is there any concern here that political
reasons are at play, here?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated, there seems to be an
enhanced lag when it comes to the Circuit Court. And the
President just, again, urges the Senate to take action, so that justice
is not delayed and, therefore, denied to many people who depend on our
federal courts for speedy and prompt justice.
Q Just one more on that. Has
there been any personal contact between the President and Senator
Leahy?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's regular contact between the
Congressional Affairs Office, the Legal Counsel's Office, and Senator
Leahy. The President and Senator Leahy may have spoken to
each other or seen each other at various events. I couldn't
speak more specifically than that.
Q A recent study shows that after 9/11,
Hispanics in America are really suffering economically. As
the President tries to get the U.S. economy going again, is he going
to address this problem?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that, as a result
of September 11th, that all Americans in our entire economy, which
effects one and all, has been hit hard. And that's another
reason why the President has called on the Congress to pass an economic
stimulus bill which makes no distinctions among Americans; it helps one
and all Americans.
Q Ari, I recall -- and I know you'll correct
me if I'm incorrect -- but I recall a report that Tom Coburn, the new
Chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on AIDS, reportedly said
that condoms can break or slip off. Now, how does that
relate to the Secretary of State urging condoms? What is the specific
Bush administration condom position? I mean, what about
this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I addressed that,
Lester. In the President's budget, the President when he
ran, ran on a platform for the first time as a candidate -- the
President, as the first time as a candidate, said that abstinence
education should receive its proper role in helping to obtain a goal
that I think everybody in society agrees with, which is to reduce
out-of-wedlock births and to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted
diseases.
Q But he does not say that no one should use
condoms, or does he agree with Coburn who says that they break or slip
off?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President has never said that.
Q Second, as a proud citizen of Texas and a
national role model, is the President proud of Texas Congresswoman
Sheila Jackson Lee using a taxpayer-supplied car and one of her staff
to be chauffeured every morning for the one block between her apartment
and her office in Cannon Office Building?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a matter between the
Congresswoman and the taxpayers, and she shall explain it.
Q What does the President
think? It's Texas. He knows her, does he not?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not talked to him directly about
that topic. But I think any issue involving taxpayer money and its
proper use by government officials is a matter that those officials
will deal with before their taxpayers.
Q Ari, I believe Sunday is the time when
airline security shifts to the federal government. So the
question is, will the traveling public notice any difference beginning
Sunday with the federal government now controlling airline security,
especially because most of the jobs will be by the same workers?
MR. FLEISCHER: Many of the changes are management
changes, behind-the-scenes changes that are continuing to meet the
congressionally-mandated 30-, 60-, and 90-day standards about enhancing
and then having a federal role take over security at the
airports. And those changes remain underway. The
President received a briefing about that this week and Department of
Transportation is on track to meet the congressionally-mandated
standards. And those changes will result in baggage
screeners, security screeners at the airports who are better paid,
better trained and, therefore, more stable in terms of the turnover,
and that will enhance security for all travelers.
Q But right now many of the same jobs will
be by the same workers right now. So will the traveling
public notice any difference at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I indicated that in the 90-day
period, it's essentially a series of management changes. The
reason Congress made it a one-year period of change is they did not
want to disrupt the traveling public by forcing such a precipitous,
immediate change in the takeover by the federal government of safety at
the airports that would harm the traveling public.
Q On these judicial nominees, are any of
those vacancies in areas that have been designated as judicial
emergencies, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: There are. Let me post the
answer on the judicial emergencies; I don't have that on the
documentation in front of me. But there have been a number
of courts that have been declared as judicial emergencies that the
President has named justices -- or judges to fill those emergencies.
Q Ari, the Washington Times is reporting
today that President Bush is putting pressure on the Congress in order
to reactivate the possible -- of Mexican workers. Can you
tell us something about it? He's really working with the
Congress to get something in regards with immigration and maybe bring
it to Monterrey when he meets with President Fox?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President, as you know, has
committed to President Fox and to the United States Congress that his
support for the extension of what's called the 245I program involving
workers. And he remains committed to that, and Congress did
not in the end send him legislation on it. He still calls
for Congress to do that, so that remains an important priority for the
President.
Q On the issue that has captivated the
nation, does the First Sports Fan have an opinion on the awarding of a
second gold medal in the pairs figure skating?
MR. FLEISCHER: I was asked that yesterday and I have not
discussed it with the President, so I really can't --
Q But, apparently, they're going to get a
second gold medal.
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't talked to him about it, so I
can't shed any light on that topic for you.
Q That was a Canadian
question. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: John is now an American
citizen. He has taken the oath.
Q Has he been watching this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't asked him
specifically. Knowing him, I can't imagine he hasn't.
Q Ari, back on the Pakistani issue, is the
President supportive of former Prime Minister Bhutto going back there
without being arrested, for the elections in Pakistan?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take that and see -- I'll try to
get back to you.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:07
P.M. EST
#139-02/15