For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2003
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:50 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me update you on the
President's day today. He had a breakfast meeting this morning with
the bipartisan congressional leadership to talk about many of the items
pending on the congressional agenda, as well as to fill them in on his
recent trip to Europe and to the Middle East.
The President, later in the morning, after his intelligence
briefing and FBI briefing and the National Security Council meeting,
had a meeting and a roundtable on prison fellowship ministries as a way
to bring help to those of our fellow citizens who are in prison, and
help their families. This is an initiative that the President believes
very deeply in to help reduce recidivism in our federal prisons and
prisons everywhere.
Later this afternoon, the President will welcome to the White House
a group of bipartisan senators to discuss the action that is pending on
legislation to get prescription drugs to our nation's seniors. And
then, this evening, weather permitting, the President will welcome
members of Congress down to the White House for the annual
congressional picnic. And with that, I'm happy to take questions.
Q The apprehension of Mahmud al-Tikriti, do you see that as
being a potential boon in your so-far fruitless hunt for weapons of
mass destruction?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, on the interesting twist to your
question at the end there, I do want to remind you about the capture of
the biological weapons laboratories, which is not an insignificant
finding, and fact about the capture of the biological labs. Two,
CentCom has issued a statement confirming the capture of the Ace of
Diamonds. This is a significant capture. And I refer you to CentCom
for any other details.
Q Are you suggesting then that there is irrefutable evidence
that the mobile labs that you claim were designed to produce biological
weapons are, in fact, those laboratories?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, but I know you were saying that really as a
throw-away line, but when you say "fruitless," I just want to make
certain that people understand that this has been a very careful
search, and a search that has turned up things that we have previously
talked about applying to the weapons of mass destruction program that
the Iraqis had.
Q Understood, but unless it's absolutely confirmed that those
were bio weapons labs, was my characterization not correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think your characterization does not apply to the
weapons labs which we know have no other purpose other than for the
production of biological weapons.
Q So you're saying that there's no chance that they do produce
hydrogen for weather balloons used in artillery?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that theory is full of hot air.
Q Or hydrogen, one of the two.
Q Could you walk us through the meeting this morning with the
congressional leaders a little bit? Apparently, the Democrats said
that -- Daschle said that he and, I guess, Congresswoman Pelosi urged
the President to kind of support the Senate bill on the child care
because it was simple and not bogged down like the House version, and
that Congressman DeLay made the opposite argument. Where did the
President come down between those two sides?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in the meeting the President focused --
most of the meeting was spent talking about foreign policy, the effort
to bring peace to the Middle East. That was the largest part of the
focus of the meeting. Energy legislation came up, with the President
calling on the Congress to pass a comprehensive energy plan so that
United States will, indeed, be less dependent on foreign sources of
energy.
They talked about Medicare at length, too, and the progress being
made on the Medicare legislation. They did talk about taxes, and in
the context of the child credit the issue was raised, and the President
urged the House and the Senate to name conferees and to reconcile this
matter quickly so it does not get bogged down. The President made his
case, stressed the importance of getting it done.
They also talked about appropriations and the need to keep moving.
They have just begun the process in the House subcommittees on the
appropriation process. And that took up the meeting.
Q Does the President have a preference between the fairly
straightforward Senate version on the child credit and the House bill,
which contains a whole lot of other new tax cuts?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's message is that he wants to sign
the child credit for low-income workers into law. He wants to get it
done. He wants the House and Senate to reconcile their differences so
it can be done. He's pushing for it to be done and he wants the House
and the Senate to quickly resolve their differences.
Q Are they talking about getting it done before July 4th?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't remember -- I couldn't tell you if any
dates were attached to it, or not.
Q Ari, the President has said two things recently. Last night
in his remarks, he said that he's not the kind of leader who's going to
leave problems to future administrations or future generations. He
also made the point that on the economy, and in terms of the deficit,
that these are extraordinary times, after a terror attack and war and
recession, and whatnot. So, given those two statements, why does the
President think now is the time for a sweeping prescription drug
benefit that is going to add in the deficit in a way under the best of
scenarios that, indeed, leaves a very real problem to future
generations? So why not, if he wants to do this -- obviously he
does -- more narrowly focus such a program and make it a little bit
more --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's approach to this issue is exactly,
in keeping with what you said, about focusing on future problems and
solving them before they become acute. And one of the most important
future problems is as the baby boomers retire, as the baby boomers
become more increasingly dependant on Medicare, a federal program, for
the system to be modernized to take care of future needs. And one of
the greatest weaknesses in the current Medicare system is a lack of
prescription drugs.
As the President does this -- and this stands in contrast to the
approach of some on Capitol Hill -- the President wants to do this as
part of a modernized Medicare program, which also includes more
choices, more options, more competition, so that Medicare can have many
of the benefits that people currently have in their private health care
plans. And so, the President's call for prescription drugs within
Medicare is also accompanied by a desire to strengthen the existing
program, to put modernization into the existing program.
Now, you talked about the price tag of it. An interesting
development took place yesterday at the House Ways and Means Committee
as the Medicare legislation was debated, and we heard much talk from
members of Congress about opposition to the President's tax cuts and
they say that tax cuts take money out of the -- increase the
deficit. It's worth noting that almost -- almost -- every single
Democrat on the committee yesterday voted for a $900-billion Medicare
program -- half a trillion dollars more than the President's. The
point being many of these people who have said they want to raise taxes
have used that money for more government spending, not to apply to
deficit reduction.
So the President's program of $400 billion is actually a
well-thought-out, properly-sized program that gets the benefits to the
seniors and does so in a way that helps with their health care needs.
Q But it doesn't change the fact that we can't afford it right
now.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks that we can't afford not to
give seniors prescription drugs, and do so as part of a modernized
program. I think that's going to be one of the interesting things that
develops as you watch the congressional debate, is how much
modernization makes it into the final bill. And this is something that
the President is going to work hard on in conference to make sure
there's modernization in there.
Q Is the President convinced that Iran wants to join the
nuclear club? And are we having a hard time pushing the International
Atomic Energy Agency to -- on inspections, pushing them harder to get
the agency to force Iran into more intrusive inspections?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States, as well as many nations around
the world, including Russia, do have deep concerns about Iran's
development of nuclear weapons and their attempts to develop nuclear
weapons --
Q Are you sure they're going to?
MR. FLEISCHER: We have grave concerns when a nation that is as
awash in natural resources, such as Iran's oil and gas, why they would
want to develop -- as they claim, for peaceful civilian purposes --
nuclear energy when they have abundance of oil and gas and don't need
nuclear energy. We have concerns about some of the reports that have
come out of Iran from the International Atomic Energy Administration.
And let me read to you from their latest June report -- and this
summarizes what is happening now in Iran.
The report points out that "Iran has failed to report certain
nuclear materials and activities, and that corrective actions are being
taken in cooperation with the Iranian authorities." The report also
explains that "work is still ongoing with regard to the correctness and
completeness of Iran's declaration to ensure that all nuclear material
in Iran has been declared and is under safeguards."
There are issues that remain unanswered with Iranian failure to
comply with the IAEA, providing access and providing assurances that
the safeguards have been met. That, coupled with Iranian attempts to
develop nuclear energy in a country that doesn't need nuclear energy,
does give cause for a great concern.
Q They are saying -- I'm not holding a briefing, but they are
saying it's for the future. But why are the other nations reluctant to
join our push on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: They're not reluctant. This is why the
International Atomic Energy Administration has issued this report, has
said what they've said. And this is why I think Iran is finding itself
coming under increased international scrutiny as a result of their not
answering these questions that the international community has asked of
them. And that includes, now, Russia.
Q Can I follow on David's question? You said we can't afford
-- the President believes we can't afford not to have prescription
drugs for the elderly; we can't afford not to wage an aggressive war on
terrorism; we can't afford not to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan; we
can't afford not to have tax cuts to the tune of upwards, now, $2
trillion in this administration. Is there anything the President
believes we just can't afford?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, frankly, one of the reasons that the
President is able to make these commitments to our nation's seniors is
because of the fiscal discipline that he has presided over for the last
year or two on the domestic appropriations account. As you know, in
the budget the President submitted for fiscal year '04, which the
Congress is working on now, growth in domestic discretionary spending
is capped at 4 percent. Last year, as a result of the President
working with Congress, we were able to adhere to the budget resolution
that the President submitted to the Hill. The President has turned
back other efforts by Congress to spend more money on domestic spending
programs.
And so this is a question of the President taking action on the tax
front because he believes it will be good for growth, and will create
more growth in the economy. We are not going to skimp when it comes to
homeland security or national defense, and the President did run on a
promise to deliver prescription drugs to seniors, and he intends to
fulfill that promise. So long as there is fiscal discipline on the
domestic discretionary accounts, and as the economy comes back, the
President is confident, and you've seen the briefings on it, that the
deficit has hit the bottom and will start to reduce -- the size of
the deficit will be reduced, as it heads closer toward balance over the
next many years.
Q The reduction in the growth rate -- the growth rate of
discretionary spending still leaves us with a deficit of upwards of
$400 billion this year because of economic factors. And I left out the
$15 billion for AIDS, which we also cannot not afford. But the
question is, does the President then believe that simply by sitting
back and letting the tax cuts do its work, the budget will be brought
back into balance, or is there something that he's going to concretely
propose?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the fact is, what knocked the budget out of
balance was a recession and the diminution in revenues that resulted
from the recession. That is the single biggest cause of the deficit we
have today. In fact, if there had been no tax cut whatsoever, the
government would still be running a deficit as a result of the war, as
a result of the economic slowdown.
So the President's focus is on growth. The President believes that
the best answer to these fiscal questions on how to achieve balance in
the budget over the long-term is by focusing on policies and encourage
growth.
Q Doesn't that sound like we don't really have to make any hard
choices --
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q -- the President isn't really asking the American people
--
MR. FLEISCHER: It was a hard choice to get the tax cut passed
through the Congress that provided growth. There were many people who
voted --
Q -- that seems a pretty easy hard choice.
MR. FLEISCHER: You know -- there's no truth to that. Then why
did it pass with small margins? There are many people in Washington
whose approach to government issues is very different from the
President's, and we saw it yesterday at the Ways and Means Committee.
Their approach is to raise people's taxes, to spend more money on
bigger government programs.
The President has adopted what he believes are very careful reviews
of individual federal programs that need to grow because they are
proven successes, while working with the Congress to impose fiscal
discipline on the rest of the budget. That's his approach, coupled
with tax policies that focus on growth.
Q May I ask a quick question? There's a missing 727 airplane
in Africa. What are the President and the National Security Council
doing to keep abreast of that? How concerned is the President about
this?
MR. FLEISCHER: We are -- we've noted, of course, this
development, and the United States government is working with
governments in Africa, trying to cooperate to seek any information that
is available on the potential location of this. We don't have any
reliable assessments about what this portends, what it could be, who
may be behind it. But it is an issue that is being worked on in the
federal government.
Q Back on Iran. Iran is accusing the U.S. of tailoring the
IAEA report, Ari. How much influence did the U.S. have over this
report?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think as you've noted from recent events
involving the United Nations and the IAEA, these are proudly
independent organizations that call it as they see it and make their
own judgments. Sometimes we agree with them, sometimes we don't. The
IAEA, in this case, has rendered its report. The Commissioner of the
IAEA has spoken out in the report, and it speaks for itself. It's
their work. We agree with it.
Q Is the U.S. open to direct talks with Iran over its nuclear
program?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the United States has talked
through different parties with Iran from time to time. This was part
of -- in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, for example, we talked
with Iran. The United States has not had direct diplomatic relations
with Iran. We were represented in Tehran through the Swiss Embassy.
The issue here is, what will Iran do to bring itself into compliance
with international organizations. Iran has some serious issues to face
up to as the world makes judgments about Iranian intentions.
Q Ari, two questions -- one domestic, one foreign. On the
domestic side, just following David and Terry's lines of questioning
here, you referred to fiscal discipline -- the previous
administration had a sort of rough rule that when you started a new
program like this you then delineated how you would pay for it. In
other words, what would be the equivalent size cuts, or what would be
the equivalent revenue increase, tax increase, whatever to pay for it.
With Medicare we haven't seen -- with the prescription drug program,
we have not seen yet such a description. The sunset legislation on
some of the tax cuts also create that same question. Why is -- how
can the President talk about fiscal discipline without setting out very
clearly how he's going to pay for each of these?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the fact of the matter is, under the budget
rules, the President is able to propose and Congress is able to
consider priorities that need to be funded. And members of Congress
will make these determinations based on their overall reviews of the
budget. There are certain priorities, such as economic growth which,
if the economic growth package that the President just proposed to the
Hill and that Congress just passed was coupled with a corresponding tax
increase, it would kill the growth in the package. And, therefore, the
most important thing, again, for the President, who focuses on growth,
is to have a stimulative impact on the economy as a result of the tax
relief plan.
Now, again, if that's offset by correspondent tax increases on one
segment of the economy or another, it mitigates the value of growth
and --
Q -- budget cuts elsewhere?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of budget cuts elsewhere, the best
way to achieve that, the President thinks is through the spending
restraint -- which any time would be awful hard to achieve with
Congress' desire to spend more. And so seeking a 4 percent increase is
going to be an important line to hold as we continue to work with the
Congress on appropriations.
Q My foreign question was this. This morning you seemed to be
suggesting, in relation to the Madrid agreement last week, that we were
on the verge now of beginning the imposition of these interceptions of
nuclear-related materials. Can you say flatly that the U.S. and its
allies have now agreed and will begin to implement such interceptions,
starting with North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't predict the date. What I can indicate to
you is that there has been marked progress made between the United
States and many of these other nations as they team up to focus on how
to fight proliferation. And the interdiction initiative that the
President announced in Krakow has been well-received and has now moved
forward, as it was received in Spain in the recent meeting and then in
the conversations Secretary Powell is now having with other allies. So
it's moving forward nicely, given the fact it was only recently
announced.
As for a specific date, it's something that we would look forward
to, but I can't give you an indication yet.
Q But the agreement in concept, even if you don't have a date
to begin implementing it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a fair characterization of the
message we've received from our partners.
Q Ari, has the President ever, to your knowledge, contended
that the Supreme Court was wrong in its ruling on Roe v. Wade, as Norma
McCorvey, alias Roe, is now contending in a court action? And I have
-- want to follow-up.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President said repeatedly throughout 2000 that
what he would do as President is welcome in a society that creates more
of a culture of respect for life, and that the plans and the policies
he will pursue will be cognizant of that, as he tries to usher in a
culture that respects life.
Q In other words, he opposes Roe v. Wade?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's exactly how the President put it during the
campaign.
Q Ari, in New York, the Marist Poll reports that in a 2006
U.S. Senate race, Rudy Giuliani would defeat Hillary Clinton 56 to 39,
while an ABC News Poll reports that 53 percent of Americans think Mrs.
Clinton should never run for President. And my question, the President
surely has the highest regards and confidence in his fellow Republicans
Rudy Giuliani and Frank Keating, doesn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q Thank you. (Laughter.)
Q Back on the child -- the child tax credit. My
understanding is that Senator Daschle and Congresswoman Pelosi asked
the President to get involved, to be very public about the fact that he
wants this to pass, and to put pressure presumably on the House to work
things out. How did he respond to that, and will he do that?
MR. FLEISCHER: He responded just as I indicated. The President,
in the meeting with all relevant parties at the table, urged them to do
what Congress needs to do, which is get together to resolve the
differences. They know where the President stands. They know what the
President supports. It's been abundantly clear. He's said in private;
he's said in public.
Q Urged them to do it, but what about getting out and talking
about all these other issues we've been talking about here, making it
publicly clear that he wants it to happen?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no public misunderstanding. People
know where the President stands.
Q Earlier, a couple weeks ago, you said that the President just
thinks the House should vote on the bill. Is that what you still
think? Do you still think that they should --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, obviously, the House pursued a different
route. The President's message remains the same: don't let it get
bogged down. He wants to see it passed. He wants to see it signed
into law. And the House has now taken action; the Senate has taken
action.
The way to get it moving now is to do what the President said this
morning -- it's important to name the conferees to the conference.
And, therefore, the House and the Senate need to work together to
resolve this issue so that low-income families with children can get
the child credits in the President's judgment they deserve.
Q One follow-up. Has the President spoken recently -- today
or at all this week -- to any of the leaders in the Middle East? Has
he placed any phone calls?
MR. FLEISCHER: If he has any phone calls later today, I'll give
you a report.
Q Ari, as the President said last night at the fundraiser, he
does not intend to pass on problems to future presidents and future
generations. How does that square with lack of movement, it seems, on
doing Social Security reform?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on Social Security reform, that remains a
very important priority for the President. That is a very good
definition of a growing problem that future generations --
principally, younger workers -- are going to face. As you know, the
President had a commission, led by Senator Moynihan, that looked into
how to create a Social Security system that will honor the promises to
current retirees and those approaching retirement, making no changes
for them, while giving younger workers a chance at getting back the
money they put into Social Security. The President remains committed
to that solution.
He wants to work with Congress on the exact appropriate time for
when that has the greatest prospects of passing. But I assure you,
that, indeed, remains a presidential priority, something that he wants
to find the right time to return to so that it can actually be debated
on and passed.
But if you look at what Congress is working on right now, it's a
rather full plate for the Congress. And when you talk about the
success Congress has already had on Medicare, when you talk about the
success they've had on fighting AIDS, when you talk about the success
they may be on the verge of with Medicare -- Congress has a lot on
its plate right now and is doing rather well with it.
Q Would it be fair to conclude that the right time is after the
election?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President will make that judgment as he
works with the congressional leaders to determine when they believe the
time is right so that it can actually do more than be debated, but
actually can be enacted.
The President makes these commitments knowing that he will be
accountable to keep them, just as he did on Medicare. And he's
fulfilling that commitment. The President, indeed, wants to fulfill
that commitment on Social Security and he will look for the right time
to do it.
Q On the child tax credit issue, obviously, there's a big
difference between the House and Senate, between 10 and 82. Has the
President had any private conversations with anyone involved in this
issue to suggest that they narrow their differences? Or is his
strategy just to say, I wish you guys would get together, and to hope
for the best?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the first step is for the House and the Senate
to name conferees. And, as you know, the President had a meeting last
week with House Republican leaders in the residence and he made clear
to them what he wanted to see done on the child credit for low-income
workers.
Q He just made clear he'd like to sign it. He didn't make
clear that there's some way that he sees that they ought to narrow --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's message was that he wants to sign
low income -- the tax relief for low-income workers, and there was no
misunderstanding the President's position.
Q But he's doing nothing to push the two sides to a middle
ground?
MR. FLEISCHER: He is. I think when the President says that, that
is the definition of helping push the parties to get an agreement.
Q What's he trying to do this afternoon on Medicare? What's
the message in this meeting, other than just, let's get it done,
guys? -- a lot of issues or a lot of amendments the Democrats are
now talking about offering -- does the President have a specific idea
he wants to present --
MR. FLEISCHER: The specific message the President is going to
impart to the senators this afternoon is about the importance of
finishing the job to get prescription drugs to our nation's seniors,
and to do so in a way that includes modernization so that seniors have
more choices and more options as the Congress takes action on the
Medicare legislation.
Q One of the amendments the Democrats are talking about
proposing today addresses a problem they claim exists in the current
plan in the Senate, which is that people would not be able to get
traditional Medicare unless there were less than two private plans
available. You had said that the President wanted everyone to have
access to the same drug benefit under whatever Medicare option they
chose. It sounds like there is some confusion here over whether or not
that would be available to all people.
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take a look. You're referring to what's
called the fall-back provision; let me see if I can get you anything
further on that.
Q Just one quick follow on Jim's question, just so we read all
the signals here properly. The President wants to sign the low-income
child tax credit; fine. Was that a signal to the House to scrap the
other stuff?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was a signal for the House to pass legislation
that includes the low-income tax credit, to do so in a way that doesn't
get it bogged down, that doesn't get it slowed down so that low-income
Americans can, indeed, get the child credit assistance that the
President thinks they deserve.
Now, the President always -- I said for the President, the House
has its prerogatives, but at the end of the day the President wants to
make certain that this gets done so this can be signed into law.
Q Okay. Two on Iran. You mentioned that things are -- that
conversations in the international community are going well. But the
EU wants to engage Iran through trade and more talks and that sort of
thing. And there are people on Capitol Hill who want to isolate Iran.
Where is the White House in --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the EU already does engage in Iran. It's the
United States that does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, as a
result of Iran taking American diplomats hostage. And so Europe does
-- some nations in Europe do trade with Iran. And one of the things
that typically comes up in the President's meetings with European
leaders -- he talked with President Chirac about this when he was in
France -- the President will often raise, what do you think is going
on in Iran? What's your assessment?
And so the President recognizes that different nations have
different policies. They weren't the victims of the hostage-taking the
way the United States was; they are in a different position.
Q So is that -- does that mean the administration would not
consider a change in approach that would become more interactive with
Iran?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think for now, the focus remains on making
certain that Iran honors its obligations to the international community
as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They are a
signatory to it. They are covered by the IAEA safeguards, and they
need to comply with it. That's the focus of our policy with Iran right
now.
Q Okay. And on the question of WMD, you said the President's
proposal was well-received, in concept there's agreement. But
Europeans do want to have more formal international agreements about
the legal aspects of all of this, as opposed to the White House
approach, which was more, you know, treaties in between nations, and
things like that. How do you bridge that gap --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is why the conversations take place. We
are working on the modalities of it. This is also why I can't give you
a date when actual action may begin. But I don't think anybody would
expect action to begin one month after a presidential initiative is
announced. We're not even at one month yet.
These will be the types of conversations that are had between
different nations. Not all nations see it the same way in terms of
international or legal obligations and how those legal obligations are
best honored. It will all, of course, be done in honor -- in
accordance with international law. And that will all be worked through
in the conversations with the different nations.
Q But is the White House willing to move on that and to embrace
the U.N. --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is focused on the bottom line, how to
get this done so people can not get away with proliferating weapons of
mass destruction.
Q How confident is the administration that the President will
have a Medicare prescription drug bill to sign by the 4th of July,
which is only a couple of weeks away now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you'll have a better sense of that
after the meeting today, and the President is going to continue to push
for it. This has probably been the most progress made in Congress ever
on the topic of getting prescription drugs to senior citizens.
What we know from our experience, however, is that progress can get
derailed. And this is why the President wants to work so hard with
Democrats and Republicans to keep this on track so it can be done.
We'll have to see. There are many different issues that come up. Keep
in mind, even if you have House and Senate passage, it still has to go
to a conference committee before it can be sent to the President.
Q Did you get any sense that the Democrats still want to get
this issue bogged down so that they can use it as an election --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it is worth noting that the time when the
most progress has been made is at a time when we do have a united
government with a Republican President and a Republican House and
Senate, thanks to the help of many Democrats in the Senate and,
hopefully, Democrats in the House, as well, who are working to finally
get this done this year, rather than use it the way it's been used in
the past as a political football, where the only people who get hurt
are senior citizens who are promised prescription drugs, but then for a
variety of reasons it hasn't happened.
Q Ari, on the ban on racial profiling, early on, the President
wanted to deal with the issue of "driving while black". And is he
doing this -- doing this ban at the expense of national security and
homeland security?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the initiative as the President announced it in
the State of the Union in 2001, which, of course, took place before the
September 11th attacks, focused on what you've described as a real
problem in America, where many of our fellow citizens felt that they
could be pulled over and arrested because they were said to be "driving
while black". The initiative the President announced made the
Department of Justice review all the activities in the entire law
enforcement community on the federal level to prohibit the practice of
any type of racial profiling in law enforcement activities.
The announcement that the Department of Justice made yesterday --
and this is something that the President actively participated in. He
had a lengthy briefing on this on May 8th, and even another one prior
that in the Roosevelt Room, and then this was brought to him last week
in final form for his approval. The President approved it because it
does, in fact, put an end to racial profiling in America in terms of
the law enforcement activities and carrying out of routine operations
of law enforcement while making certain that we can protect national
security as a separate matter.
And so the spur of what drove the President in his State of the
Union in 2001 is what has now been done and carried out as a result of
this action. Separate and apart from that, we still do have this
ability under this action at our borders and at our airports to take
action to protect the country in more narrowly described instances
involving matters of national security and terror.
Q But as you're trying to stop "driving while black" --
MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
Q -- does the administration acknowledge that there has to be
some sort of racial profiling after 9/11?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, interestingly, what was found in the review
by the Department of Justice on this matter is in a very small number
of cases, they did find instance of racial profiling. It was small, in
terms of the total number of contacts that federal law enforcement
agents have with the general public, but it was there. And as a result
of this action, it cannot be there any longer. That's the purpose of
the action the Department of Justice took yesterday.
And I'll just read from it. It states -- and this is now the
policy: "The racial profiling guidance bars federal law enforcement
officials from engaging in racial profiling, even where such profiling
would otherwise be permitted by the Constitution and laws.
Specifically, the guidance provides that in making routine law
enforcement decisions, such as deciding which motorists to stop for
traffic infractions, consideration of the driver's race or ethnicity is
absolutely forbidden."
Q But isn't there a contradiction -- you're going to stop
racial profiling here, but at the same time at borders and airports
you're still going to have it. I mean, is the administration saying
it's still --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, because here's the criteria -- and the same
thing would apply to law enforcement. If law enforcement under this
receives information that a crime has been committed and there is a
description of a crime suspect, and the description would include a
racial description, law enforcement will, of course, take that into
consideration as they try to apprehend somebody who has been given --
for whom they were given a physical description by a witness to the
crime.
So, of course, race can be a criteria in the pursuit of somebody
who has been identified; not, however, in the more random selection of
motorists where they have no allegation of a crime being committed,
other than to pull somebody over for the color of their skin.
On the national security side of it, according to the announcement,
in the event the intelligence community, for example, has a report that
a group of male terrorists from Middle Eastern nations, for example, we
have intelligence saying that they are trying to infiltrate into the
United States and the information may be specific to a certain area
-- well, then, of course, the Customs people at the borders, people
who guard our country from keeping terrorists out will receive the
latest intelligence information so they can have stepped-up actions to
protect the American people from people trying to slip into our
country.
And that's one of the reasons that the review was delayed. As a
result of September 11th and as a result of wanting to ban the practice
of racial profiling for law enforcement matters, they did take a
separate look, also, how at the same time to protect in those much more
narrow circumstances of national security and terrorism threats.
Q And when does this start again?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is immediate. This went into action
immediately. It's guidance that has already been directed to the
agencies.
Q Ari, you said many times over the last couple days the
President wants to see the child care tax credit situation taken care
of. But we haven't heard him talk about it, we haven't had him do any
events on it. Now, we've just come out of a period where he toured the
country and talked extensively, made trips for the sole purpose of
pushing for this latest round of tax cuts. Then, as now, there were
differences between the House bill and the Senate bill. And in those
cases he got very particular about what he wanted -- he didn't want
an itty-bitty tax cut package, he wanted one of $550 billion or more.
There were a lot of specifics. If this is important to him, then why
aren't we seeing him do that the way he did with tax cuts?
MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, there are many provisions in the tax
bill where the President has spoken out about it at one time or another
and he doesn't return to each and every day. This is the nature of the
tax bill; it has massive number of pieces to it. But never rule out
that it could come up at any given day.
Q But this is one that has been the subject of remedial action,
if you will, up on the Hill.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no misunderstanding where the
President is and what he thinks about this, and I never rule out that
it may come up directly from the President.
Q Ari, what aspect of the administration efforts to stimulate
the economy does the President specifically want to talk about
tomorrow? And in more general terms, when does he think that the
administration's efforts are going to begin to bear fruit? When is the
unemployment rate going to come down?
MR. FLEISCHER: In Minnesota the President is going to talk about
economic security for the American people, and he will focus on the tax
relief measure that was just passed by the Congress and is now law of
the land, and particularly how it provides growth incentives for small
businesses to grow and to hire workers as a result of the increased
expensing that is in the bill, as a result also of the reduction of
marginal income tax rates which creates higher growth.
The President has received information from private economists,
from government economists that suggest that we are starting to see
more good signs on the economy; however, the economy still remains
mixed and this is why he wants to continue to monitor it closely.
Q President Clinton went to the voters with a specific promise
for X number of jobs created. Does the President ever think of maybe
doing something like that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think every President will go to the voters and
talk about different issues at different times in a different era. And
this President will always talk to the America people about economic
security and national security.
Q Ari, Senator Kennedy and other lawmakers have written to the
President, urging him to request additional funding for AmeriCorps.
Given the President spoke at length about it in 2002, about community
service in the State of the Union address, and more recently wanted the
number of volunteers to go from 50,000 to 75,000, will he consider it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is strongly committed to working in a
bipartisan way to expand the national and community service, or
AmeriCorps. He thinks AmeriCorps is an important part of our efforts
to have a society of volunteers who can help do good for their fellow
citizen.
The President's commitment is underscored by the budget he
submitted in 2004, which did, indeed, call for -- and he still calls
for -- AmeriCorps to expand to 75,000 members. He has supported this
publicly; he supported it privately; he thinks that this will be good
for our country. And he's continuing to work with the Congress to find
a way to maximize enrollment this year. There's some technical issues
dealing with the manner in which some of the accounting is done for
AmeriCorps that he wants to see resolved so that this can be done. But
the President stands behind his commitment to AmeriCorps.
Q But what about additional funding? Will he consider that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the budget the President submitted in '04 is
a call for more funding. The President did increase that in the budget
that he submitted to the Hill. The request for the National Service
Trust Funds, which is where the Americorps has its education awards,
the President proposed increasing that from $100 million to $120
million. And on the AmeriCorps grants, he proposed increasing it from
$175 million to $313 million.
Q Democrats in Congress are dragging their feet on the
President's free trade initiatives. Is the President frustrated by the
loss of business and jobs as a result of their procrastination?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think, actually, some of the most important
free trade agreements that remain the closest to action are the Chili
Free Trade agreement, which was just signed into law. And I anticipate
Congress will turn its attention to that. And, of course, Congress did
pass by a one-vote margin in the House the overall free trade agreement
that we had sought to permit the President trade promotion authority
around the globe.
So this Congress has taken action on several of the most important
trade initiatives. There will be others coming. We continue to
negotiate them around the world. It's always a tough and close vote in
the Congress. It divides the parties. Typically, you will have more
support from the Republican Party than the Democrat Party, but both
parties have splits when it comes to trade. Nevertheless, there has
been important success on it, and the President is going to ask for
more.
Q Thank you. North Korea today says it will increase its
nuclear deterrent capabilities in response to what it calls the New
York -- sorry, U.S. pressure. What's your reaction to that? And do
you have a list of the countries North Korea is selling drugs and
nuclear weapons to?
MR. FLEISCHER: On your first question, what's important is for
North Korea to understand that the international community is unified
in its approach to North Korea not developing nuclear weapons. It
remains a deep source of concern for China, for Russia, for Japan, for
South Korea, and for the United States. And this is a message that has
been conveyed directly and repeatedly to the North Koreans. I think
they're understanding that their actions, where previously they were
rewarded for their belligerent and bad behavior, will not be repeated
this time. North Korea has a rather dramatic history of engaging in
rhetorical excesses, and I think that continues now.
Q Ari, Newt Gingrich was at it again yesterday, said the State
Department is broke, it's not doing its job, it's not doing enough to
spread American ideals around the world. Is this the kind of
revisionist history that's getting under the President's craw?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, as you know, the President disagrees with
that sentiment. The President thinks that the State Department, led by
Secretary Powell, is doing an exemplary job around the world.
Secretary Powell's mission is to carry out the President's policies,
and he is traveling right now doing so.
Q Also on North Korea, are we any closer to another round of
actual talks with the North Koreans?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're continuing to consult with our allies about
the modalities for what the next step will be. So that remains to be
determined.
Q On the child credit, if the President wants this done as
quickly as possible, why doesn't he just directly ask them to send him
a clean bill without any additional add-ons from the House?
MR. FLEISCHER: Congress has already chosen a different path.
Q But in the past, like for continuing resolutions, the
President has asked for clean bills if he doesn't want it bogged down
by Christmas tree ornaments?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President did ask for something relatively
clean, and the House of Representatives used its prerogatives and voted
in a different manner. We now are where we are, which is an upcoming
House-Senate conference as the best way to get this done. But the
President did ask for that.
Q But a moment ago you said that the President wants Congress
to pass a credit bill, and then after that you said that the President
wants Congress to pass legislation that includes the child credit.
That's two different bills.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's message to the Congress is, don't
let it get bogged down, get it done, get it passed and get it to him.
Now, Congress has to make a decision about whether or not they're going
to attach anything else to it. If Congress attaches anything else to
it, the President wants to make sure that it doesn't accomplish getting
this bill bogged down.
Q Mr. Fleischer, any comment on the upcoming meeting between
the Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis and President Bush here at the
White House --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we'll have anything closer to the meeting.
There's nothing I'm going to indicate on that now.
Q Ari, there is concern at the Pentagon, growing concern, about
whether Americans will lose patience and stay the course since we're
losing about one American soldier per day on the average, and since the
feeling now is there will be U.S. forces in Iraq for at least a year or
more. Will the President be addressing this issue on the hustings and
asking for patience?
MR. FLEISCHER: I refer to what I said this morning. I was asked
that question this morning and I dealt with it then. So that's --
you have that already.
Q The administration and some of its conservative allies on the
Hill seem to be parting company over the Medicare prescription drug
benefit plan. The Heritage Foundation, specifically, says that the
bill that's before the Senate, which seems to be pleasing to the
President, would be a disaster, with very little reform in it and
exploding costs beyond the first 10 years. How can the perceptions of
this legislation be so different?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think one of the most interesting things that
happens in Washington when you're making progress on major legislation,
is sometimes people on both sides of the aisle will disagree, but what
results is an important center that holds. And you see many of the
most liberal members of Congress who disagree with the President's
approach on this. Nevertheless, this President is determined to work
with members of Congress from both parties to get seniors prescription
drugs and do so in a way that modernizes the program.
There are still more moving pieces that have to be settled, and
those will continue to happen. As the bill is amended on the floor of
the Senate, as it moves into the conference committee, different
decisions will get made, and the President will continue to push for
more modernization, more choices, more options, more competition.
Q One of the aspects of the bill in the House introduces the
concept of means testing. In principle, does the administration regard
that as a helpful way to approach entitlements?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question specifically of the way they view
it on Medicare -- which is, in the House provision, I think it has a
$60,000 income threshold, which is more along the lines of income
relating than it is means -- the President is willing to talk to the
Congress about that proposal. And we'll see where the Congress comes
out on this. The Senate did not have it, the House had it. The
President is interested in talking to the Congress about how they would
approach this matter for Medicare.
Q Ari, just one other thing on Medicare. One of the other
amendments that the Democrats are talking about is sunsetting the
provisions in order to compress the $400 billion worth of benefits into
a smaller number of years, in much the same fashion that the tax cut
was compressed by sunsetting many of its provisions in 2005. What is
the White House view of using that practice on Medicare?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there was a majority judgment in the Congress
on the taxes that that was the appropriate way to go. And when it
comes to Medicare, which is a different nature program, that does not
appear to even have any close to majority support. As you know, the
majority has already spoken -- in the Senate Finance Committee in a
very overwhelming, bipartisan way that did not include a sunset
provision. And in the House Ways and Means Committee, and likely on
the floor of the House, such a provision will not find acceptance.
Q Thank you.
Q You're not saying whether --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks this should be done, just as
he proposed it, which does not include a sunset.
END 1:34 P.M. EDT
|