For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 16, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:35 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. My apologies for running behind
today. The scheduled half-hour meeting with the Prime Minister of
Norway turned into an hour of meetings, they were enjoying each other's
company so much. So let us begin.
The President began his day with a phone call with President Putin
of Russia. The Presidents underscored their commitment to building a
strong U.S.-Russia partnership. They stressed the importance of
cooperating on post-conflict Iraq. And they expressed condolences over
the terrorist attacks in Chechnya and Saudi Arabia, and noted the
United States and Russia face a common threat from terrorism and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They look forward to
seeing one another in St. Petersburg at the end of the month.
The President also had his intelligence briefing, FBI briefing. He
has the meeting with the Prime Minister of Norway, where they talked
about reconstruction in Iraq. They talked about bringing peace to the
Middle East, and they discussed other areas around the world.
The President is scheduled to have lunch with the Vice President,
and then he will also have the presentation of the Commander-in-Chief's
Trophy this afternoon.
Two items I want to inform you of -- one is, in addition to the
week-ahead that I provided to you earlier this morning, I do want to
let you know I'm pleased to announce that the 2003 White House tee-ball
season will begin on June 22nd. The first tee-ball game will honor the
men and women of our Armed Forces and their families, who have made so
many sacrifices to defend our nation.
The game will feature tee-ball teams from military bases, and the
teams will largely be comprised of children from military families.
The teams are both from Virginia for this June 22nd game -- the Fort
Belvoir Little League Braves, and the Naval Base Norfolk Little League
-- very proud to say -- Yankees. The game will be the tee-ball
version of the famous Army-Navy game, and members of all branches of
the Armed Forces will be included in the audience and in other aspects
of the event. We'll have further details as we get closer to the
date.
Finally, before I take your questions, the President would just
like to note what a week of accomplishment it's been in the United
States Congress. The Senate last night was able to pass the jobs and
growth plan that the President has proposed, and the President also
noted the passage of the emergency funding bill to fight AIDS in Africa
and the Caribbean. The President is very pleased that the Senate has
now taken action on both measures; the House has acted on both
measures. It is just a short time before both arrive on the
President's desk so he can sign them in whatever final shape they are
in.
And the President is very pleased with the strong work the Senate
did last night. He commends the leadership of the Senate and all
members of the Senate for their good work. It's been a real week of
accomplishment in Washington.
With that, I'm happy to take your questions.
Q Ari, about an hour ago, the President filed papers with the
FEC to kind of formally launch his reelection effort. Will this change
anything in terms of his status as he goes around the country? And
will he accept federal funds before the general election?
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. Today, as you accurately point out, the
legal structure for a reelection campaign was put in place as a result
of the filing of what's called FEC Form One, and FEC Form Two. These
are the legal forms necessary so that the structure around which a
campaign will eventually be built can begin to take place. We've also
announced today that Ken Mehlman will be the campaign manager of the
presidential campaign, as well as announcing Mercer Reynolds as the
Finance Chairman, and Jack Oliver as a Deputy Finance Chairman.
On the question of funds, it is not anticipated, no, there will not
be matching funds received for the primary campaign.
Q Will the President actually make an announcement that he's
running for reelection? Or does this serve as that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, this does not serve as that. This is the legal
structure that is required so that grassroots activities can begin, and
fundraising can begin. This is the required legal step that must be
taken for other events to follow on. Now, in terms of any statement by
the President, that's a follow-on event that would happen some time
substantially down the road -- no time soon.
Q You said no matching funds for the primary?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Will the billing practices for his trips, Air Force One time,
will that change in any way now since he's --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that will follow the longstanding procedures
that are in place, and that is guided not by the creation of this
entity, but based on what type of events the President participates
in. So if the President participates in anything political, of course,
it would be paid for by non-taxpayer funds.
Q The rules of engagement for U.S. forces have changed in Iraq
with new orders allowing the use of deadly force against looters. Has
the President signed off on this? Is this something the White House
encouraged, given what many citizens of Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq
thought was chaos on the streets?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, the President's focus is on bringing
security to the people of Iraq. And that's an area of marked progress
in much of Iraq. There are still pockets inside Iraq, inside Baghdad,
for example, where there is more room for more progress. And the
President leaves it up to the, still, commanders in the field to
determine the exact tactics to employ to preserve security. And that
way the Iraqi people know they can go about living their lives with as
great a resumption of freedom as is possible. And this continues to
increase on a day- by-day basis.
Q So, as far as he's concerned, this new policy of use of
deadly force against looters is a good thing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President believes that it's best to
leave these matters up to the people on the ground who are in the
life-and-death situations where they know what level of force must be
used to protect the security of people there. And I remind you that as
we are working with the Iraqis on a new Iraqi police department, police
offices throughout Baghdad and elsewhere, much of the patrolling,
wherever possible, is done with Americans and Iraqis
shoulder-to-shoulder.
Q We went over this a little bit yesterday with Scott, but I
wanted to ask you about it, as well. The use -- or abuse, I suppose
-- of the Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center, now under
the Department of Homeland Security, for partisan political purposes
-- does the President support an investigation as to how, at a time of
war, the Department of Homeland Security's resources could be abused
like this by Republicans in Texas?
MR. FLEISCHER: Without accepting the premise on which you laid
this out -- because I think the facts and the circumstances are all
what need to be looked into -- I think you will find that the
Department of Homeland Security does intend to look into the facts and
circumstances of the request that they received.
Q Is the President troubled at all that members of his own
political party, at a time of war, days after Americans were killed in
a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, would have the gall to use federal
resources designed to protect the country against terrorists in order
to pursue partisan political objectives?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think that the facts and the
circumstances involving any contacts that took place will be explored
by the appropriate agency, in which this case is the Department of
Homeland Security. They are doing that.
Q He has no reaction to this?
MR. FLEISCHER: His reaction is, learn the facts and
circumstances. And that's what the Department of Homeland Security is
doing.
Q Ari, if the President is as enthusiastic about signing an
extension of the assault weapons ban as you've been up here at the
podium saying he is, why don't we see him traveling the country, as he
did promoting his tax cut, urging members of Congress not to let the
bill die in the House?
MR. FLEISCHER: You remember in the State of the Union, the
President stated that he had two top priorities, and they are economic
security and national security. And in the principal actions the
President takes that's exactly what you're seeing. As you know, the
President's position on this goes back to the 2000 campaign where the
President was on the record then -- his position remains identical to
it now. And we'll continue to work with Congress and see what the will
of Congress is.
Q But why -- can you tell the American people why he is not
actively promoting extension of the assault weapons ban and why he's
not using his bully pulpit to encourage Congress to pass this, as
well?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't share your characterization of this. I
think when the President speaks out and says what he is for, that sends
a rather powerful signal to the Congress. Sometimes the Congress
listens, sometimes they don't.
Q But in other moments, though, he feels like he has to travel
the country to keep hammering Congress over the head with certain
issues.
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question the two top priorities the
President --
Q Here's a bill that's going to die in the House. Is the
President not concerned about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I was saying, the two top priorities the
President has are economic security and national security, and will
continue to travel the country, making his case on those issues.
Q So this isn't a top priority for him?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President has made his position very
clear, consistently, from 2000 forward.
Q Prime Minister Sharon has so far ruled out curbing
settlements. There's daily violence. Is Sharon doing enough to comply
with the road map?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President looks forward to his meeting
with Prime Minister Sharon next week. There will be much to discuss.
This is an important moment in the Middle East and it's a moment that
the President is going to urge the Prime Minister, as well as the
Palestinians and the Arab neighbors, to seize. The history in this
region is one of statements that are typically made at the beginning of
a difficult process that outwardly do seem to make it appear that
there's a lot of room to go in reaching agreements, and in the Middle
East there's always a lot of room to go on reaching agreements. But
the President is determined to work very closely with the Israelis as a
friend, as an ally, and as a nation that cares deeply and is prepared
to act to protect the security of Israel, to help Israel so Israel can
help itself.
Similarly, with the Palestinians, it's important the Palestinians
continue their efforts at reform so that Israel knows that it has
faithful interlocutors with whom to discuss peace and security, and
real changes on the ground that allow Israelis to go to bed at night
knowing that they will be able to wake up in the morning safe and
protected. And then, the Arab neighbors, as well, have a role to
play. And they have, indeed, been playing a productive role,
particularly Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
And so this is a hopeful moment in the Middle East. Hopeful
moments in the Middle East are often beset by question marks. It will
be a good meeting next week. The President looks forward to it.
Q Has Sharon done enough leading up to this meeting? Have you
seen any positive signs from Sharon at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think, certainly, you've seen the Israelis
have, per their obligations -- and they honor them -- released
money to the Palestinian Authority that was money that properly
belonged to the Palestinian Authority. This was tax money that came
through Israel to be given to the Palestinians. They have taken those
steps. We have urged Israel to continue to act in a way that says that
people who come across need to be treated humanely; to remember the
economic conditions of the Palestinian people. Israel, certainly, when
Secretary Powell was there, released prisoners.
So this is a moment that the President wants to step back from,
urge each party to focus on what it is that they need to do to advance
the cause of peace, and not to worry so much about what the other party
may not be doing, but to focus on what they, individually, need to do
to advance peace.
Q Do you see Sharon's initial comments on settlement as sort of
an opening gambit, he wasn't serious?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I just -- I think the President is not going
to get drawn in to the minute-by-minute, play-by-play description of
the latest words that anybody on any side of any issue utters here.
That is a way to not achieve success in the Middle East. The way to
achieve success in the Middle East, history has shown, is for the
United States President to work diligently with the parties to continue
to push them to help themselves. And that's what this President will
do.
Q If I could go back to the campaign for a moment. Can you
give us an idea of how soon the President and the Vice President will
begin to go out raising money for the campaign? And secondly, on the
same topic, if there's an emerging Democratic theme as far as attacking
the President, it's that he's presided over the loss of two million
jobs, an explosion of budget and trade deficits, and a very bad economy
in general, as well as having failed to adequately fund homeland
security. How would he respond to those attacks in the context of the
campaign?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, it certainly seems from here that the
emerging Democratic theme is to snipe at each other. There are nine
Democratic presidential candidates running, and they seem to spend to
be spending a lot of time dealing with each other, while this President
is focusing on economic security and national security. And he will
continue to govern. That is what he was elected to do. The Democrats
have a lot of time and a lot of internal party politics that they have
to sort out first before this even becomes a race with the President.
That will happen, of course. But until then, this President does not
have to deal with the politic side of the business.
There will be fundraising. And that is one of the reasons why this
FEC Form One and Form Two was filed now. Historically, this is about
the time that incumbent Presidents file these forms. I think if you
look back, you'll see that this was done after President Clinton filed
his forms, just shortly before President Reagan filed his forms, in
their corresponding years in their presidencies. So this is about the
time that this is begun by a historical basis.
So I think you can anticipate very shortly that a fundraising
letter would go out to begin the effort to raise money required for a
reelection, and there may be a presidential event to raise money not
this month, but next month.
Q If I can turn to a foreign policy question for a moment. You
mentioned the phone conversation with President Putin this morning.
Did President Bush bring up the question of Iran and its nuclear
program, and Russian sales of technology to Iran for that purpose?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a topic that the President has brought up
often with President Putin, and is frequently brought up with aides to
President Putin. It did not come up in today's conversation.
Q Ari, first of all, the President proposed $726 billion in tax
cuts. He only got half of it, less than half of it from the Senate.
The Senate is putting a sunset provision on the dividend tax cut. How
can you be pleased with this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, changes were made to the President's
proposal. But all the elements of the President's proposal are still
included in the Senate proposal -- in the Senate plan that passed
last night. And the President is pleased by that, because progress is
being made. The House version and the Senate version are now coming
together and will be decided in a conference committee. And the
President believes that what will come out of that conference committee
is going to be good for the economy, good for workers, and good for the
unemployed.
And so, therefore, the President looks at what is happening and he
does see discernable progress on every element of what he proposed.
And I can go right down the line and talk about how the marriage
penalty is now going to be reduced, retroactive to January 1st of 2003;
marginal income tax rate reductions, including taking the rate of the
lowest tax payers from 15 percent down to 10 percent, retroactive to
January 1st, 2003. For parents who have children, the child credit
will be increased from $600 to $1,000 retroactive to January 1st,
2003.
On the dividend exclusion, there is a difference between how the
House did it and how the Senate did it. Nevertheless, progress has
been made. We still have issues we need to work out in the conference
on that. And, of course, one way to help small business, which is one
of the largest employers in our society, the expensing limits --
which are currently capped at $25,000, which means if a small business
expends more than that they can't deduct it -- will be increased to
different levels, depending on the House version or the Senate version,
but between $75,000 and $100,000. So all of that is what the President
proposed. Much of that is what is in both versions.
Q On filing today, isn't there a danger in filing too early?
The President makes himself vulnerable to attacks from all sides.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, considering the fact that the Democrats loved
to attack him even before he filed, I don't know that there makes any
difference in when he filed. They attacked before, they attack during
and they'll attack after. So I don't really see any connection there.
Q Ari, when did the President make this decision, if such a
decision ever had to be made? And how was that decision conveyed down
the line, leading to the filing?
MR. FLEISCHER: The decision to work for the jobs and growth plan?
Q To run for reelection.
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, I'm sorry.
Q Nice try. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, you have to keep in mind -- and FEC
forms are available -- but this is the legal paperwork required in
order to form the candidacy. And again, putting it in historical
perspective, this is about the time that incumbents do file their
papers. And the raising of money is a part and parcel of American
democratic elections. And this President will raise money to take his
case to the people.
But that's where we are now. The follow-on events, additional
staffing, this is down the road. There will be additional
announcements at some point, but it's not today. And in terms of the
President actually declaring candidacy, making a speech, that's
significantly down the road.
Q Did he have some conversations with certain staff, you know,
let's go do this next week?
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure, sure. You can imagine the President has
talked to staff about this. And there are ideas, there are plans, and
this, of course, led to the filing today.
Q How far back do these discussions go?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the discussion specifically about
filing these papers took place last week.
Q Ari, I'd like to turn to the warnings that Steven Hadley
delivered to the Crown Prince. Because about an hour ago AdI'll
al-Jubeir, the advisor to the Crown Prince, said that Mr. Hadley
specifically warned of an attack against the Jedawal compound, and the
Saudis did not do anything about it, which he acknowledged. Was that a
warning that Mr. Hadley did deliver?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me say that I'm not going to discuss any
individual's specific communications with Saudi authorities. But I
will say that in this matter, as we continue to see Saudi cooperation,
broadly speaking, in the war on terror, this attack does serve as a
reminder to the Saudi authorities and to the Saudi government of the
importance of taking on terrorism within their own country, because
this terrorism presents a threat not only to the United States and to
Westerners living in Saudi Arabia, but to the Saudi government.
And the reaction of the Saudi government has been good. I think
they understand this. They understand the very real threat that this
type of terrorism poses. And the Saudi government has been working
well with the United States. They have an interest in rounding up
these terrorists; we have an interest in rounding up these terrorists.
And we will work our mutual interest together in a spirit of
cooperation. We will continue to work with the Saudis to encourage
them to do more, to find ways to be effective against terrorism, just
as we do with all our allies around the globe.
Q Just out of curiosity, why do you feel restrained from
discussing a specific warning? Is there a reason that you could give
us?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, typically, as a matter of diplomacy, whether
it's with Saudi Arabia or any nation around the world, we do have
communications that I don't often get into when it comes to specific
individual communications. And you can be assured that messages are
given to multiple governments around the world, not just Saudis.
Q Back to the conversation with the Russian President Putin.
Did the topic come up about the plan to control the oil production of
Iraq by Britain and the United States? And if so, has the President
convinced President Putin to withdraw his opposition? And has any
progress been made on the same subject with France and Germany?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, if I recall, they spoke generally about
the resolution that is still being discussed at the United Nations.
That will come up for a vote sometime very shortly. And the United
States continues to be optimistic about its ultimate outcome. We do
see a different environment at the United Nations, particularly
involving some of the nations that you mention, a will of the Security
Council to work together this time. And that will be manifest in this
resolution. We'll work together with our friends on it.
Q Just a follow-up. Any hint from Russia or the other two
countries of a possible veto on this resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: You'd have to talk to them about it. It's not my
place to say if that -- if even that were the case.
Q Coming back to the tax cut issue, the President went on
record saying that we need at least $550 billion to try to stimulate
the economy. We've got a range now of $350 billion, $550 billion.
One, how much pressure is the White House going to bring to bear on
this process next week? And two, can we expect to see any more tax cut
legislation this year, not in 2004?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, here's what's guiding the President on this.
His view is that the economy needs a boost, the economy needs a
stimulus because we're not creating enough jobs. We are in a period of
low growth in our economy. We're coming out of a recession, but we're
coming out of a recession in an uneven fashion.
You can find quarters not too far ago where growth actually did
grow above 5 percentage points. But there are too many quarters where
growth grew only at about 1 percentage point, or just above 1
percentage point. That type of uneven growth does not lead to
businesses, to manufacturers, to factories hiring workers.
The purpose of the tax plan is to create a permanent boost to the
economy so the economy grows at a more sustainable rate. From the
President's school of thinking, the higher the number, the bigger the
boost. The smaller the number, the less the boost. The higher the
number, the more jobs. The lower the number, fewer jobs.
So, yes, the President will push for the greatest amount of boost
to the economy, therefore, the most jobs get created. We will work
with the House and the Senate. There are certain constraints that each
of those institutions is working under. And now they face the
difficult work of working together to get the agreement. And we will
be there to help them with that.
Q But assuming that figure comes in closer to $350 billion than
to $550 billion, what other actions could we see the President propose
this year?
MR. FLEISCHER: Okay, and, one, I also need to point out, it gets a
little bit into the technicalities of how tax legislation works, but
you've got a net number and a gross number. So, of course, you can
have a higher tax cut than $350 billion, depending on the offsets that
are including. So you can have a gross number that's a higher tax cut
number that has a stimulative effect, and assuming that the offsets are
benign, then you can deal with that difference as a result of having
proper offsets.
I'm not prepared to make any guesses about any other tax
legislation down the road. Congress has some ideas that it wants to
work on. Of course, there is an issue that's not necessarily --
depending on how you want to review it -- it's tax legislation that
deals with our obligations to the World Treaty Organization involving
foreign sales corporations, the FSCs legislation. That's tax
legislation that does -- that the Congress is taking a look at
working on this year. That's an important matter.
Q Is the President's reelection committee, or campaign
committee have a target, fundraising target, for the total amount of
money that it wants to raise?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we'll see what the targets need to be. And
I've seen media reports of $200 million. I have no earthly clue where
those guesses or numbers came from. I can only assume that somebody
outside of the White House, or the RNC, or anybody who might know what
we're thinking, just took a look at how much the Bush campaign raised
in the primary phase in 2000. And because campaign limits have been
doubled, they doubled what we got in 2000 and said, therefore, it's
$200 million. That's faulty. I would not go with that. It will be
lower than that --
Q But you don't -- lower than --
MR. FLEISCHER: Lower than $200 million.
Q But more than it was last --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I think that's a fair statement.
Q So somewhere between $100 million and $200 million?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a fair statement.
Q Do you have a name --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it goes under the very fancy name of
Bush/Cheney 2004. Let me see what the papers actually said. Let me
amend that. It is Bush/Cheney '04, Inc. And that's Inc. It's
actually not spelled out, incorporated.
Q How soon can we expect to see political spots on behalf of
the President's reelection --
MR. FLEISCHER: I won't even begin to speculate. Right now, this
is the building block phase, the legal phase, the fundraising phase.
Q And at some point, will Karl Rove leave the White House
payroll and go on to the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I would not anticipate that.
Q Does that mean he won't be playing a role in the reelection
campaign?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that, as is traditional, there's areas
in which people who, in performance of their White House duties, are
able to play roles in campaigns, per the rules, per the laws as set out
by the Congress.
Q -- is on time and is not working for the government?
MR. FLEISCHER: Per the rules and per the laws established by the
Congress.
Q Is that you're understanding of the rules?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not the lawyer, so I couldn't tell you
specifically.
Q Ari, yes, I have two questions, Ari. The President, you
said, is satisfied with his tax cut or job creation program. Is he
totally satisfied with what Congress has given him as far as the AIDS
initiative, help, you know, $15 billion? How is the campaign to get
Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada, to get their vote? How is that
going?
MR. FLEISCHER: That, clearly is a priority for the President. He
will continue to push it, as you've seen in numerous events that the
President has held, to make the case for the importance of confirming
these judges. He thinks that they are well-qualified; the American Bar
Association thinks that they are well-qualified; and the President will
continue, continue, continue to make the case.
Q Ari, there's word that the President, once again, -- a
situation that looks like the University of Michigan case. There's
some that are saying that the President does not approve of a provision
in the energy policy act of 2003 that allows for under-served persons,
particularly at historically black colleges or universities, tribal
colleges, and Hispanically-served universities, to be able to work with
the Department of Energy to learn science and technology. And there's
an understanding that President Bush is against that.
How is President Bush meshing that with the fact that before he
came into office, he said civil rights would be a cornerstone of his
administration? And also, how is he meshing that with saying that
everyone -- that he wants everyone to have a fair chance in life and
at schools and different things, when affirmative action was meant to
level the playing field to correct a wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: If I'm not mistaken what you're referring to in
this energy legislation is a statement of administrative principle --
administrative policy, or the SAP, that was issued in regard to this
energy bill. And this deals specifically in this energy bill, unlike
the President's position on higher -- funding for higher --
historically
black colleges and universities. And the energy bill, it deals
specifically with set-asides and racial preferences.
And on this question, the President's views are very, very
well-known. He supports aggressive efforts to reach out to minorities,
to be inclusive of people of all races, provide equal opportunity. But
he does not support quotas, preferences, or set-asides. He strongly
supports increase the funding for historically black universities. And
that is the difference. The SAP addresses technical issues in the
energy bill that deal with set-asides.
Q But isn't that a contradiction?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's a distinction, and an important one.
Q Okay, but isn't it a contradiction that he would push forward
to promote hundreds of millions of dollars for black universities, and
also Hispanically-served universities, as well as some tribal colleges,
and then not allow kids to go to the University of Michigan because of
their admissions policy, as well as the SAP in the energy act?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think if you take a look at the statement
that the President made in the Roosevelt Room when he announced his
position on the University of Michigan case you'll find this is
perfectly consistent with what he said, where he supports aggressive
affirmative action outreach, affirmative access outreach, as he calls
it, where he wants to make certain that universities are doing all they
can to attract a diverse student body without engaging in quotas or
preferences.
Q -- last statement -- or the last question. Does the
President feel that his arms of compassion, his conservative compassion
has reached out to the nation's 36 million African Americans and other
minorities? Does he feel satisfied with his work that he's done thus
far, after saying that civil rights will be the cornerstone of his
administration?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I think that those are determinations
that others will make. Clearly, I think, from the President's point of
view, he has run an inclusive administration, in terms of its policies
and the message to the American people. He will continue to do that.
I think you will see that represented in the actions that have been
taken through the Department of Justice in dealing with racial matters,
in dealing with some of the most sensitive civil rights issues that
have come up, in dealing with some of the issues in our cities that
have come up involving police departments, the riots in Cincinnati, for
example, and the successful way that was handled by the federal
government. So the answer from this administration is emphatically,
yes, and I think you will see that.
Q I have two questions on taxes. The first is, a few minutes
ago you said -- you declined to speculate on future tax cuts. But
earlier today, you suggested that future budget submissions from this
administration would contain tax cuts. Given the fact that only about
-- of the President's budget this year, over a trillion dollars still
hasn't even been considered by the Congress, will future budgets
contain new starters of tax cuts, of will they just be --
MR. FLEISCHER: Thanks for raising that again. I want you to go
back to exactly what I said this morning. When I talked about the
budgets, I said the last three that the President proposed all
contained tax cuts. And I said the President continues to talk about
making certain that the tax cuts are permanent. I did not describe
whether there would be or would not be additional future tax cuts. So
to be precise, that's what I said this morning. And I can't speculate
about tax cuts down the road other than making tax cuts permanent.
Q And my second question has to do specifically with the bill
that was just passed last night in the Senate. On Wednesday --
Tuesday, rather -- the President in Indiana reiterated his insistence
that corporate profits -- that it's fair to tax corporate profits at
least once. The dividend proposal that the Senate passed last night
will create a scenario where a company that's not paying taxes to the
government, but issuing dividends, would still be able to issue those
dividends tax-free to shareholders. Is the President committed to the
idea that corporate profits should be at least taxed one time before
their dividends are passed on to shareholders?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in terms of the specific way that the tax
legislation and the tax code interacts with dividends, in terms of the
corporate profitability, this is a technical question that the
Department of Treasury can better address when it applies to the
dividend provision. Generally, of course, that's what the President
believes. He continues to believe that. But there is a specific
interactability among different provisions in the tax code that deal
with profits and dividend exclusions. And you would need to talk to
Treasury, because they're more expert than I am on that.
Q But, more generally speaking, since the President has argued
against this dividend -- double-taxation of dividends as a matter of
principle for the last several months, if he gets a bill that doesn't
-- that may actually eliminate the single taxation of dividends, that's
something he can accept.
MR. FLEISCHER: You just rephrased your same question, but my
answer remains the same.
Q Just double-check, Ari. The Senate tax cut bill that was
passed last night, the President called it a "little bitty tax cut"
very recently. Does he still think that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we'll see what actually comes out of the
House conference. And this is why I indicated there's a difference
between the net number and the gross number, and you have to see how
that comes out, as well. We're not done yet.
Q But the level that passed last night is still "little bitty,"
right?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the level that was passed last night looks
like it's in the mid 400s as a gross matter.
Q If you factor in the tax hikes that --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's why I said, as a gross matter. And so we're
not done yet. We still have some issues to work out both on the offset
side and on the actual tax cut side.
Q Ari, the President is the most famous person on the globe
today. And of course, no doubt about it --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think some people would say Bono is more
recognized globally.
Q -- when I was in India.
MR. FLEISCHER: What's your question, Goyle.
Q My question is that, of course, the credit goes to him for
winning the war in Iraq and also standing against terrorism around the
globe. Even though he has some idea of where Osama bin Laden and
Saddam Hussein, but we still don't have them. And he is like a
maharajah of this world today. So how does he feel?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President thinks that we are in
the thick of a battle against terrorism. It's a battle that we're
winning. But like all wars, there are days that we win battles, and
there are other days when our enemy is able to strike back. And our
enemy obviously struck in Saudi Arabia. And we still are at risk in
the United States; we still are at risk overseas. And that's why the
President looks at this as an ongoing fight against terror to which he
is committed personally, presidentially, and as Commander-in-Chief to
achieving victory every day. It is not over, and we do have many risks
that remain.
Q Also on terror -- does the President or do you see an
increased risk of terror this week, especially with the Sharon visit
and Memorial Day? Do you expect the terrorism threat to be elevated?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I would never speculate about the color
code. That is evaluated every day by the professionals on the basis of
the information that they receive every day. And they're the
analysts. But just as I said, risks remain.
Q Ari, to this point the President has blamed the sluggish
economy on an inherited recession and the war. Since it's apparent now
that he's going to get at least some tax cuts, and as you've said, it
contains his proposals, if the sluggish economy continues and it
doesn't improve, will the President then take responsibility for that
and stop blaming it on other factors?
MR. FLEISCHER: I saw a story last week that said that with this
tax cut this means the President has responsibility for the economy.
This President accepted a responsibility for the country on January 20,
2001. He accepted responsibility for it in all forms, whatever form it
was in. And that is what happens when you're the President. And so I
think it's a nonissue. The American people know who the President is.
They'll make their judgments about factors at the appropriate time.
But when you take a look at what happened in the economy, talk to
private sector economists, and they'll tell you that for a rare time
the tax cut in 2001 was actually perfectly timed. It did help us
emerge that fall from the recession that we were in. It did give a
boost to the economy. And clearly, the first quarter of 2002, right
after the tax cuts were received, was one of those quarters where the
economy in greater than 5 percentage points for that first quarter.
Now, the economy has been uneven since then, meaning that this, too,
could be a perfectly timed tax cut to give that boost to the economy to
help it to get going in a sustainable period of higher growth.
Q So he anticipates that whatever comes out of Congress is
going to be a boost to the economy. Now, if it fails to do that, what
other thing can he attribute it to other than his policies aren't
working?
MR. FLEISCHER: You're asking a hypothetical. I'm sure that if the
economy is not strong a year from now you'll be asking questions about
it.
Q Ari, there are analysts -- back on the campaign -- there
are analysts who say that before this President came to office, that
the presidency has become a sort of permanent campaign, and that at
least so far as the public events that the President undertakes, there
is always at least a political element to that. How does the President
think about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think that you've got an abundance of
historians and analysts who can share their perspective with you on
this. But as any number of scholars -- as de Tocqueville has pointed
out -- I mean, America is a very open democracy, and part of that
open democracy is a government that does its business in front of the
people, and the people make judgments. That's how it should work.
What's the alternative? The alternative is not democratic.
So, yes, this President is going to do everything he can as the
elected President of the country to implement good policy. And the
American people will form judgments about what he does -- both in the
war on terror, in the conduct of foreign policy, and in matters
domestically, including the economy.
Q And on a second subject, there were reports in the British
press this weekend alleging that the Jessica Lynch affair was used by
this administration, was manipulated in some ways, and that even,
perhaps, the conduct of the rescue of Jessica Lynch was manipulated in
some way for public consumption.
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen those reports. And I don't comment
on things I haven't seen, especially -- there's all kinds of
different tabloids.
Q In a couple of weeks, the President will be at the G8 summit
with some of the stauncher opponents of the Iraq war. How important is
it to the President to get the issues at the U.N., the current
resolution out of the way with a minimum amount of argument or fight
before he goes off to that summit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the timing, of course, is to help the
Iraqi people. That's what this is about. This is not about the timing
of the G8. This is about how to help the Iraqi people as quickly as
possible so they can assume control over their own future and their own
lives. And there is no reason to impose sanctions on the Iraqi people
anymore. Sanctions should only have been imposed against the Iraqi
regime, which is no longer with us. And that's the President's
approach to this.
So the President looks at this as -- the oil-for-food program
expires at the United States on June 3rd, so that the United Nations
knows it is up against a June 3rd deadline to get their business done.
And the faster it is done, the quicker, the better, the more relief for
the Iraqi people.
Q What was the process that resulted in breaking Germany away
from the axis of opposition to get them to support lifting sanctions
against Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: I did see a story on the wire this morning that
said, quoted the German leader as saying that they would oppose
sanctions -- or they would support the lifting of sanctions in Iraq.
And I do not speak and I do not try to guess the motives of other
countries. But as the President said, we are operating now in a
different environment at the United Nations Security Council, and he's
appreciative of that.
Q Until recently the President called for a tax cut package of
at least $550 billion. Lately you're just calling for a package as
robust as possible without giving a price tag. I'm wondering why the
administration is no longer setting a figure, and whether the $450
billion that you mentioned a moment ago would be adequate, whether or
not it's a gross number, or a net number?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I said mid-400s. And the President sets a
standard that he hopes that the Congress will live up to. The
President sets that standard because he thinks it is the best policy
for the country. In our constitutional system, the Senate and the
House are also qualified to discuss what they think is the best for the
country. And at the end of the day, the President wants to get
something done for the country.
Now, you can say a President -- after how he takes a stand,
should never change from that stand, should only adhere to that stand,
and, therefore, not get compromises reached in order to make progress.
If the President came to the conclusion that there was insufficient
progress, he would say so. He see progress being made on the tax
legislation on Capitol Hill and he's grateful for it. He thinks it's
good for the country and good for the economy.
Q Does the President foresee the Iraqi oil fields and industry
being controlled by the new Iraqi government or by private entities?
MR. FLEISCHER: These will be decisions that the Iraqis will make
for themselves as they work toward their future. And obviously,
different countries have different experiences with private ownership
of means of production. And these will be matters that the Iraqi
people eventually take final decision-making for.
Q Is the President considering inviting Abu Mazen, the
Palestinian Prime Minister, to Washington?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the President said publicly, oh, a couple
weeks ago, that he would be inviting Abu Mazen to Washington to meet
with him at the appropriate time.
Q When is that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, as with many visits with foreign leaders,
these are things that get thought through and worked out in concert
with the foreign leaders.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:19 P.M. EDT
|