12:55 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. The President intends to nominate Joseph E.
Schmitz to be Inspector General of the Department of Defense. The
President intends to nominate Jeffrey William Runge to be
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. The President intends to nominate Terry
L. Wooten to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina. And the President has designated
Warren L. Miller to be Chairman of the Commission for the
Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad.
With that, I'm prepared to take your
questions. Mr. John Roberts.
Q Why does the
President believe that patients shouldn't have the right to sue HMOs
for damages in state court?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the
President's concern, John, is to provide patients with the maximum
protections possible in their dealings with HMOs, without turning
our system of health care into a system of one lawsuit after
another.
There has been a very successful federal
experience under what is called ERISA, which is a federal statute
that guides coverage decisions, which has resulted in tens of
millions of Americans getting insurance coverage they otherwise
would not have through their corporations, through their businesses.
It's been very popular. Many
unions, when they negotiate with corporations, seek to protect and
to get those federal health benefits. That's secured through ERISA.
Once you have a federal system that
allows employers to provide insurance protected through ERISA, and
then you have a state system that could unwind those protections,
you have a fundamental inconsistent match up. And since
the federal system has worked so well to get assurance to people
through their businesses, it makes no sense to change a working
federal system and make it a diverse 50 state system. It
cuts against the spirit of a very successful federal program that
has brought health insurance to millions -- tens of millions of
Americans. And that's why the President believes that the
best remedy is to allow, after independent review, the right of
patients to sue, if necessary, in federal court.
Q But isn't the
bottom line really that there are no damage limits in state court,
and that's something that he just can't live with?
MR. FLEISCHER: That, too, is
a factor, that there are --
Q Isn't that the
factor?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, no, no,
they are both. Because, again, the federal system that
has gotten health insurance to tens of millions of workers is a good
system that's working. Why would anybody want to undue
it? And by taking court cases out of the hands of the
federal government and putting them in the state hands, it could
start to unwind the very successful system that has encouraged
employers to provide insurance to their employees.
There also are issues involved in the
amount of damages, particularly for non-economic
damages. If you put that into a state system, you will
have places where the sky is the limit, and it becomes a lottery,
where anybody can win whatever amount they try to win.
Let me broaden this too, because there
are very important issues here involving the patients' bill of
rights. The President welcomes the upcoming debate on a
patients' bill of rights and he hopes that we move quickly to a
vote, so that patients can get the projections they need and
deserve.
The President believes that this can be
the year, if Democrats and Republicans work together, that we have a
patients' bill of rights that can be signed into law. And
he's prepared to do his part to make that happen. But the President
believes that nobody, Democrat or Republican, should risk defeating
the vital protections that patients need in dealing with HMOs in an
effort to put in a poison pill that deals with legal liability
issues that would derail the bill and prevent it from being signed
into law.
There is so much good, there is so much
common ground, there is so much agreement between the President and
the Democrats and Republicans on patient protections. The
President would urge the Congress not to put any poison pills in the
way of that patient care.
Q Would he veto a
bill that would put this situation in the courts, state courts?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, in a
speech that the President gave in Florida, he made very clear that
the legislation that was pending on the Hill at that time, which was
principally a bill that did not have the legal liability provisions
the President was seeking would not be signed into law.
Since then, there has been a bill that
is a bipartisan bill -- it is offered by Senator Breaux, Senator
Frisk and Senator Jeffords -- which is a bill the President would
support. And as the Senate takes up its work, and as the
amendment process begins, the President is going to keep a very
careful eye on the substantive provisions of the bipartisan approach
that he favors, which protects people's health care, which allows
patients to have more rights in dealings with the HMOs, but does not
turn into a system of unlimited lawsuits, lawsuits in a way that
would make it very hard for people to get insurance.
And that's why the President views
anything that does not meet the criteria he outlined in the Florida
address as being a poison pill. It would just be a shame
if the good patient protections would get drowned out by a poison
pill and therefore not be --
Q Why is he
worried about any liability award?
MR. FLEISCHER: He's not
worried about any liability award. The President does
believe there should be liability awards. It's a
question, as always, of the matter of degree.
Q -- decides, I
mean, would he object?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a matter
of degree. It's a matter of making sure that there are
reasonable limits on those awards.
Q Why?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the
President does not want to turn our health care system over to the
trial lawyers. He does not think that is a way to protect
people's health needs and he does not think that's a way to keep
health costs down, to keep health premiums at reasonable rates so
more people can afford health insurance.
If all of a sudden the trial lawyers can
have their way with everything dealing with health care, premium
prices will shoot up. When you have massive jury awards,
somebody has to pay that bill. And that's why the
President supports reasonable caps on non-economic damages.
Q Ari, what
you're calling a poison pill really is the heart of the
McCain-Kennedy bill. Are you saying the President would
veto that bill if it reaches his desk? It's also the most
popular in Congress right now.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that
the heart of the patients' bill of rights should be a patient's
right to get the care they need in dealing with their
HMO. If the heart of a patients' bill of rights bill is a
matter that is of special interest to the trial lawyers, that's not
what the heart of the bill should be.
The heart of the bill should be people
who, in their regular daily lives, have trouble getting the care
they need from their HMOs. That means women who want to
go see their OB/GYN, for example, are first required under some HMO
plans to go see a gatekeeper. It's a difficult way to get
health care delivered.
Patients who need to go to an emergency
room are sometimes dissuaded from going because they first have to
call an 800 number, otherwise they won't get their bills paid
for. That should be the heart of a patients' bill of
rights.
If that is the heart of the patients'
bill of rights, a bill will get signed into law this
year. If that's the heart of a patients' bill of rights,
and the President, the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress
will find a lot to agree on.
But once they get off track and start
getting into issues of unlimited lawsuits, suits with a $5 million
cap, that is way too high, then that's a poison pill, in the
President's opinion.
Q Ari, when you
say that cap is way too high, does that mean -- and you say it's a
matter of degree also, does that mean that the President is at least
willing to talk about Democrats, about something between the
$500,000 that Breaux caps his bill at and the $5 million that
Democrats are at?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
thinks it's very important for all parties to want to work
together. He thinks it would be unfortunate if anybody
ever said there is no room for compromise. The President
is prepared to work with the Congress, but it has to be efforts that
are focused, always, on patient protections, not on trial lawyer
protections.
Q Ari, FERC today
is going to -- apparently going to approve this plan that would
expand price limits on energy to 10 other western states and cover
non-emergency sales. Does the President support that
plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of
all, FERC has not taken any action, and so I would hesitate to
comment on anything until the action is taken by
FERC. But the President has told Governor Davis that he
is committed to helping California. He wants to make
certain that if there is any evidence of illegal price gouging, for
example, that FERC takes immediate action to correct any of the
problems that were created from illegal price gouging.
So it's very important for FERC to
remain vigilant, and to help protect California. But it's
too soon to say, because we haven't heard what FERC is doing.
Q Does he view
that plan as a cap?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again,
without seeing the specifics of the plan, I don't want to wade in
too deep. But what the President supports is action that
is focused on market incentives, that preserves efficient generation
of power. He opposes price controls, because price
controls lead to great inefficiencies, that do not increase supply,
that do not reduce demand and, therefore, make the problem
worse. And that's why the President is opposed to price
controls, because it will hurt Californians.
But if a solution can be found that is a
market-based solution, to prevent spike-ups, for example, to send a
signal to producers and generators that if they, for any reason, try
to temporarily withhold supplies from the markets in an attempt to
create a price spike, FERC could take action. The
President supports market-based programs and market-based
incentives.
Q You don't think
that's going on now?
MR. FLEISCHER: If it is, and
if FERC were to take the type of action that Scott asked about, than
the FERC action would be very helpful.
Q Right now FERC
has in place a market-based price mitigation system for peak
hours. What's the difference between that and a price
cap?
MR. FLEISCHER: A price
control is set at an arbitrary level. If something is
market-based, it is working within the market to create the greatest
efficiency, so that the suppliers and the producers have an
incentive to keep developing their supplies, and bringing them to
the market, so people can afford them and people can buy
them. If they don't have an incentive to produce
supplies, then of course you're going to have a diminution of the
supply, and therefore the price will go even higher.
Q But isn't
government intervention in the market just government
intervention? Isn't it trying to be half
pregnant? Either the market sets the price or of the
government caps it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, clearly
that's not the way FERC works. FERC is a very complicated
entity, where they make decisions based on a whole variety of
factors that involve market considerations. It indicates
here Governor Davis is asking FERC to go way beyond that, and to put
on price controls set at an arbitrary level, as opposed to more
market-based prices. And that's the whole essence of what we all
have to wait and see exactly what step FERC takes today.
Q One more
question. Has the White House or the Energy Department
been in contact with FERC on this policy?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
has not. I'd have to check to see if anyone else here has, I don't
know.
Q If any White
House officials or Energy Department officials have contacted FERC
about this market-based --
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, I
couldn't tell you. I know what the President has done.
Q Another
question on another subject, rather. Congressman Waxman
has been asking for Karl Rove's records of meetings and his stock
holdings. A, is the White House going to comply with that
request? And, B, have all White House Cabinet members,
senior staffers, sold off their stock holdings to this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: On this
question, of course, Mr. Rove's financial disclosure is public
information. Mr. Rove has complied. Mr. Rove
has complied with all ethics requirements of White House
employees. He's done exactly what the White House Counsel
has said he should do. Mr. Rove has acted at all times
with the fullest regard to ethics provisions.
As for Mr. Waxman's request, I think the
American people are tired of these open-ended investigations and
fishing expeditions. And just as Senator Daschle indicated over the
weekend, he, too, agrees that it is not time to reengage in that
type of activity. And the White House does not believe
that that would serve the public well. The White House
takes seriously all requests from members of Congress, and the
Counsel's Office is working on a response to Mr.
Waxman. And the White House will cooperate and will
provide all information that it deems appropriate.
Q With all due
respect, Waxman's office is saying they're not looking for a fishing
expedition, and they also say, and Senator Daschle's office also
says today, that while he doesn't believe in any payback, he does
believe there are legitimate questions concerning Karl Rove that
should be answered.
MR. FLEISCHER: And that's why
I just indicated the White House Counsel's Office treats all letters
from members of Congress seriously, and they are working on a
response and they will cooperate to all degrees
appropriate. But if people are asking for every meeting
that anybody in the White House has ever participated in, that may
have absolutely nothing to do with the matter in question, that
clearly is a fishing expedition and that goes too
far. But the White House is going to work to draft a
response and we'll share all information that should be appropriate.
Q Is that what
he's asking for, what you've just said would be a fishing
expedition?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well,
according to what Kelly's question was, it's all Mr. Rove's meeting
logs.
Q Should we
anticipate when this response is given that we will see additional
information -- we'll see additional information related to Karl
Rove's contracts with companies that he had stock holdings in?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the
White House Counsel is working on a response to Mr. Waxman's letter
and they will cooperate to all degrees appropriate.
Q Ari, if I could
try just one more time. Isn't there, though, an
appearance problem here, though, in the fact that even if the matter
-- also it's come up with energy policy, what role Karl Rove may
have played and the fact that he did have some holding in some
energy companies -- isn't there a little bit of an appearance
problem that this White House may be concerned about, about being
involved in meetings that could have affect his job?
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, I think
the White House has already acknowledged that the Counsel's Office
did not move as quickly as we would have liked on this
matter. And we've acknowledged that. But Mr.
Rove, right from the beginning, indicated he was willing to divest
his holdings. And he was not able to receive his certificate of
divestiture due to events totally uncontrolled by Mr.
Rove. And as soon as he received his certificate of
divestiture, he immediately sold.
Q Yes, but
whoever's fault it is that he didn't --
Q Back on the
price cap issue. I'm wondering if the administration is
concerned that conservatives in the business community will regard
this as being a price cap that the President is prepared to
endorse? And, as an example of that kind of sentiment, I
read to you from an interview with a senior fellow in economics from
the Heritage Foundation today, usually a critic of the President's
policies, who said: what is being proposed today, we are
talking about the same thing as a price cap. There are
hard caps, there are soft caps. This is the soft cap
variety. I'd urge the President to back away from this
just as fast as he possibly can if he wishes to keep the energy
situation under control. It's away from free markets,
it's away from the very plan he has just proposed on reforming
energy.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think
that's why we should all withhold and wait to see what FERC
decides. Nobody knows what FERC is going to
do. So take a look at what FERC decides.
Q Are you
concerned about conservative reaction to this position?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, the
President makes his decisions on what he thinks is right and
wrong. And he's a pretty conservative
fellow. And he will make his decisions based on what he
thinks is appropriate, on the merits, and that he will be, of
course, always interested in the reactions from all the American
people.
Q Ari, you
received the Garza petition. What can you tell us about
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The petition
has been received. And the policy of the White House --
just so everybody is aware of this, for those of you who are not
aware of how the President proceeded on these matters in Texas, so
long as there are any legal matters that are pending prior to any
federal death penalty matters, the President will not
comment. There is currently a stay request pending before
the Supreme Court; there is a clemency request that is
pending. So the President will not have any comments to
offer until all appeals are final and are dispensed with or taken
up.
Q Given the
imminence of the execution, though, presumably, he's got someone
studying whatever action --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Certainly. The clemency request
goes through the regular channels, which means it is received by the
pardon attorney at the Department of Justice.
Q And they're
looking at that now?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's
correct.
Q As a follow-up
to that, there have been questions about the possible racial bias in
federal executions. Does the President consider that a
settled matter now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me,
on the question of racial bias in these matters, a very important
issue and something the President is very sensitive to and wants to
make certain that it's done properly -- this is from the review that
was conducted by the Attorney General's office into this question,
and I'm going to read from it:
These are the main findings of the
report: In cases in the U.S. Attorney's Office in which
the facts would support charging a crime punishable by death,
capital charges were no more likely to be brought against minority
defendants than against white defendants. Rather, in
potential capital cases, the proportion of defendants who were
actually charged with capital crimes were 81 percent for white
defendants, 79 percent for black defendants, and 56 percent for
Hispanic defendants.
In cases in which a U.S. Attorney's
office did charge a crime that is legally punishable by
death, the department's procedures required that the U.S. Attorney
General's Office submit the case for review with senior Justice
Department lawyers, and that the Attorney General make a personal
decision whether to seek a capital sentence.
For example, in cases considered by the
Attorney General, the Attorney General decided to seek the death
penalty for 38 percent of white defendants, 25 percent of black
defendants, and 20 percent of Hispanic defendants.
And so that is the findings of the
report. And I think this is one of the reasons why this
report was also concurred in by former Attorney General Janet
Reno. Attorney General Ashcroft has taken a look at this,
and these are their findings.
Q How about the
race of the victim?
MR. FLEISCHER: Of the people
who are currently on death row, 78 percent of the victims of those
people are minority; 65 percent black, 13 percent
Hispanic. And so, clearly, we have a situation in which
the victims of the crimes that were committed by those on death row
are disproportionately minority.
And President Bush believes that the
death penalty, if it's administered justly, fairly and swiftly,
serves as a deterrent to crime. And from that point of view, the
President views this as a matter of, given the disproportionate
makeup of the victims being minority, a way to protect vulnerable
communities in America through the delivery of a penalty that is
sure and fair, administered fairly. And that's the
President's overall view of death penalty cases.
Q But, Ari, the
Justice Department, though, is even wanting to study the matter
further because even it concedes that it still doesn't get to, sort
of, the fact that racial disparities -- why are there more
minorities on federal death row than non-minorities. So
is there some pause about going ahead with a federal execution,
potentially, when the Justice Department is even saying it's going
to study the matter further to make absolutely sure there is no
racial bias and to get to the heart of those racial disparities?
MR. FLEISCHER: Any additional
study that the Department of Justice does will not change the facts
that I just read about the sentencing. And in the case of
Mr. Garza, all of Mr. Garza's victims, except one, were
Hispanic. The prosecutor in the case was
Hispanic. The presiding judge is Hispanic. At
least six of the jurors were Hispanic. All the jurors
individually certified that race, color, religious beliefs, natural
origin and sex were not involved in reaching their respective
decisions.
And, finally, on that point, the county
in which the case was heard, which is Cameron County in Texas, that
county is 85 percent Hispanic. And that's where the
sentence was heard by a jury of peers.
Q Ari, when the
President was governor of Texas, he or people who spoke for him
always said that he based clemency requests on two standards:
questions of whether there was any questions or doubts about guilt,
and questions of proper legal representation. Are there
any lingering --
MR. FLEISCHER: On the
fairness of the process.
Q Right. Are there any lingering
questions on Mr. Garza's --
MR. FLEISCHER: There's a
pending clemency request, and I'm not going to delve into the
specifics of it. The President will, at the appropriate
time, inform the public of any decision he makes dealing with
clemency issues. There is also one appeal pending still.
Q Ari, whatever
the reasons for Rove's failure to sell his stock -- maybe he wanted
to sell it -- should he, as a general matter of principle, he or any
other White House official be meeting with officials of companies in
which they own stock?
MR. FLEISCHER: As a general
matter, it's important for all White House officials to comply fully
with all ethics rules. And the Counsel's Office makes a
determination about those rules, about who must
divest. Mr. Rove divested immediately upon receiving his
certificate.
Q You're not
answering the question at all. Should he, or any other
White House officials, hold meetings with companies -- with
officials of companies in which they own stock, or
not? It's a very simple question.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's important
for everybody to comply with ethics rules. That's the
answer. It is not illegal to meet. It's
important to comply with ethics rules.
Q Sort of on the
same issue, but different -- on Karl Rove. In the
decision to suspend bombing on Vieques, why was it that Karl Rove, a
political strategist by training and title, was so intimately
involved in that decision making process?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, Puerto
Rico is part of the United States. Puerto Rico has a
governor. Karl Rove is in charge of inter-governmental
affairs. Karl is often involved --
Q Even the
Defense Department thought that they should have been --
MR. FLEISCHER: Karl is often
involved in meetings that deal with matters pertaining to states,
and to, in this case, Puerto Rico. So that is part of his
purview as inter-governmental affairs. But the decision
was reached by the Secretary of the Navy, it was announced by the
Secretary of the Navy, and the President concurs with it.
Q Ari, back on
the situation of disparity in executions. President
Clinton, Janet Reno and John Ashcroft both saw the -- and President
Bush -- both saw the -- all of them saw that there was a problem
with the disparity. I mean, granted, they've made the
decision but, still, doesn't the White House see there is a problem
that needs to be crafted and straightened out in some way, shape or
form?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again,
the Justice Department study and the statistics it gives, I think,
speak for itself. The President is sensitive to this
issue, and he wants to make sure that justice is administered
fairly. And that's one of the reasons the President --
the Department of Justice has taken a look at these statistics and
these facts.
Q But it also
kind of looks like it's insensitivity, in a way. People who were on
the death row are minorities. Then you have the victims
are minorities. I mean, what if it was
another, situation was turned around, would it be looked
at a little bit differently?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can only
speak to the situation as it exists.
Q The New York
Times reported this morning that one of those leading the demand for
the Navy to evacuate Vieques right now, rather than in two years is
Lolita Lebrone, who in 1954 helped machine-gun the House of
Representatives. And since nobody has designated any
other all-year place in the Atlantic where the Navy could practice
amphibious landings like they did for Desert Storm, my question, why
is the President yielding on this to people like Lolita Lebrone and
Senator Clinton and Al Sharpton? I have a follow up.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
has always stated that what is important is that the United States
military be able to carry out its mission, which is why the
President has taken this action through the Department of Navy, with
the President's concurrence, through May of 2003. But he
also wants to make certain that our ability to use the facility is
effective. Now it would be effective to the degree that
there is local support for it. And those two factors go
hand-in-hand. They both have to be carried out.
I think it's also fair to say that
without this action, the Navy would not have any incentive to look
for any other facility in which to train. And so by taking this
action, the President is able to work with the people who are
involved locally, to make certain that whatever is done there can be
done effectively, while also helping the Navy to give itself
sufficient time to find alternative trading facilities.
Q The AP in
Raleigh has records of the campaign -- strong campaign by
environmentalists to try to force the setting aside of thousands of
acres at Fort Bragg, to protect the red culcated woodpeckers from
the noise and bullets of 82nd Airborne Rangers, Special Forces and
Delta Force training. Will the Commander-in-Chief yield
acres of Fort Bragg as he's yielding acres of U.S. Navy property on
Vieques Island?
MR. FLEISCHER: This decision
was based on the merits of the case in Vieques.
Q You've been
gone a week. One last one? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: You only get
two. And I congratulate you, they were both cogent and a
good follow-up. (Laughter.)
Q I know that you
talked about this in the general, but we something -- did the
President have a good time talking with Foreign Minister Makiko
Tanaka of Japan this morning?
MR. FLEISCHER: Foreign
Minister Tanaka was here for a meeting with National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice. The President and the Vice
President were able to stop by briefly. He informed her
that he's looking forward to meeting with the Prime Minister at Camp
David a week from Saturday. The Defense Minister from
Japan will be in town next week, and that was the nature of the
conversation. He talked a little bit about his meeting
with President Putin.
Q Is it unusual
for the President to drop by Dr. Rice's meetings with foreign
visitors?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it happens
from time to time.
Q Ari, during the
last election cycle, the President accepted campaign contributions
from seven political action committees of seven corporate
criminals. I'm wondering, do you think that's ethical,
and shouldn't the dignified thing to do would be to give the money
back and say, since it's not that much money, we're not going to
take money from political action committees of convicted criminals?
MR. FLEISCHER: You and I have
been through this many times before. Political action committees
come from the corporations. And that's the source of the
-- come from voluntary contributions of employees of the
corporations, and that's the funding source.
Q As a follow up,
since one of those convicted criminals was General Electric, and
they are lobbying heavily the EPA on a decision on whether or not to
dredge the Hudson River from PCBs, the governor of New York,
Republican, the governor of New Jersey, Republican, want the
dredging to happen even though it's going to cost GE hundreds of
millions of dollars.
The President has expressed concerns
about the dangers of PCPs. Where is he going to come down
on it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not
involved in that. I really have no information on this
specific issue. I'm not sure that's a White House
issue. You may want to check with the agencies.
Q At this time,
the Foreign Minister of Pakistan is here meeting with Dr.
Rice. And if the President is planning to drop by, just
like he did with the Foreign Minister of India? And,
also, how much role the President is playing in the upcoming summit
between India and Pakistan on Kashmir, in India.
MR. FLEISCHER: First of all,
the meeting has not yet taken place.
That's a meeting that is this afternoon, and if there are any
drop-bys, I'll do my best to endeavor to let you
know. But the administration is committed to building a
mutually beneficial bilateral relationship with
Pakistan. The administration is looking forward to a
return to a democracy that will permit fully normalized
relations. And the United States fully supports the
upcoming July 14th meeting between India and Pakistan.
Q Ari, would you
reply to the story in the Philadelphia Inquirer that the
administration will lift sanctions against India?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not
seen that story, so I can't offer you any comment.
Q Ari, going back
to Jim's question before, on Karl Rove, let me try and ask it a
different way. Given that he wanted to divest himself,
but was not able to because of delays by the White House Counsel's
Office, was it appropriate for him to meet with Intel at a time when
he still held Intel stock -- even, granted, he didn't want to?
MR. FLEISCHER: Under all the
ethics provisions what is prohibited is from making any decision
that can materially or directly affect someone's holdings as a
result of the decision. And at all times, Karl acted in
complete compliance with ethics rules.
Q Ari, does the
White House share the concern of some Californian Republicans that
some Republican members of the House could be imperiled by the
California energy issue and by the White House --
MR. FLEISCHER: The
President's view is that everybody could be in trouble if we don't
help to solve California's energy problems. It knows no
party. People need to have their lights go
on. And that's why the President has offered a national
energy policy that will help produce America's supply of energy,
will help give incentives for conservation. And the President is
committed to working closely to help California. He took
the emergency marketing orders earlier in the year to provide
natural gas and electricity to the California market. And
as I indicated earlier, he has asked FERC to make sure that they're
vigilantly monitoring any of the problems in California, that they
make sure there is no illegal price gouging.
The President doesn't think that this
problem is one that knows political parties. He thinks
it's a problem that all people, Democrats and Republicans alike,
have to join together and solve.
Q The problem
they're concerned about is that if the White House position is
offering them a limited range of options -- House members -- and
that an unyielding insistence on price controls could cause problems
down the road for about a handful of California Republicans who come
from districts that are getting hammered --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
at all times will make his decision on what he thinks are the right
decisions and wrong decisions, and focus on the
merits. The President is opposed to price controls
because he believes that it will make the situation worse for the
residents of California.
Q The European
Commission has criticized the President for his comments last week
on a GE-Honeywell merger. My question is, why
did he feel it necessary to intervene in that particular case, and
what is his response to the European concerns --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
did not intervene, the United States has already supported the
merger. Canada already supported the
merger. And the President was asked at a news conference
in Europe and he reiterated the American position, which the
American government already cleared the merger. So, of
course, the President said that.
Q Ari, you gave
an interesting answer to Les before when you said that without the
action at Vieques, the Navy would not have had an incentive to look
for alternative places to train. The Navy has come under
some criticism for training elsewhere in the world -- Okinawa, for
example. Would it be a good strategy to have them agree to leave
that island in order to create an incentive to find new training
areas in Okinawa and other places around the world?
MR. FLEISCHER: If you
remember Mr. Kinsolving's insightful follow-up question, I answered
by saying that the decision on Vieques is handled uniquely, it's
handled on the merits of this particular case. And that's
why the President made the decision. It's about Vieques.
Q Do you have any
degree of confidence that the Navy will find another place similar
to Vieques? I mean, apparently, there is no other place
like that.
MR. FLEISCHER: The Department
of the Navy has indicated, the Secretary of the Navy has indicated
that they understand that they have through May 2003, and they will
endeavor to do so.
Q But --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
is confident that they will.
Q The President
is confident they'll find a similar place?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's
correct.
Q Is there a
concern, though, that some Republicans in the Congress may not go
ahead and "undo" the legislation and call for the referendum anyway
in November?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's
important when you're dealing with military training exercises is
that they be effective. And, clearly, it was getting to a
point on the Island of Vieques where the effectiveness was coming
into question. And the only purpose of carrying out a
military exercise is for it to be effective.
Q But my
question, tho, are you -- is this administration encouraging or
trying to convince Republican lawmakers to "undo" this legislation
and not go forward with the referendum?
MR. FLEISCHER: With the
referendum? Yes, the position of the administration is
there's no need for a referendum any longer. But it is
the law of the land, and unless a change is made, there will be a
referendum. But the administration does not see the need
for it, given the action taken by the Navy and the President --
Q Have any other
areas volunteered -- for example, there is some talk that Israel
might have volunteered. And, if so, if another area can
be found, is there a chance the bombing practices will stop before
2003?
MR. FLEISCHER: Those are
hypotheticals, so I don't want to get --
Q Ari, after the
meeting last Thursday, Secretary Thompson came out and said that the
next piece of legislation that he would like to see pushed after
patients' rights is Medicare reform. Is the White House
planning to move forward on that agenda in the next few weeks?
MR. FLEISCHER: As the
President indicated earlier this year, that he would like to see the
Congress take up action on Medicare reform this fall. He is
committed to that. He thinks it's terribly important that
we are able to get prescription drugs to senior citizens and that we
are able to reform a program that was written and has remained
largely unchanged since its original construct back in the early
'60s, while health care has changed so dramatically since then.
Q Does he plan to
move forward with his own principles at all on this in the next few
weeks?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll keep you
advised.
Q Nothing before
this fall?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll keep you
advised.
Q Why is the
White House stonewalling the GAO's request for the minutes and notes
of meetings between the Energy Policy Development Task Force and
energy providers?
MR. FLEISCHER: I differ with
that interpretation. The White House is cooperating with
the GAO on their efforts.
Q But you're not
providing meetings and notes, though.
MR. FLEISCHER: The White
House is cooperating with the GAO on it. I'm not aware of
that. I'm not aware of anything specifically that John's
asking about.
Q The White House
has also argued that, legally, the GAO is not within its bounds to
make the request for those documents, nor is it within its legal
requirements to initiate an investigation based on who asked for it.
MR. FLEISCHER: John, all my
information on this topic is that the White House is cooperating
with GAO on it. So I'll be happy if you have any specific
aspect of the cooperation that you want me to delve into.
Q I just pointed
out two.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Right. I'll try to find out for
you. I'm not sure that's right. Oh, Jacob had
his hand up.
Q I'll cede to
Lester in a second. Ari, do you know of any Latin
American leader that has petitioned President Bush for clemency on
the Garza case?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware
of anything specific, other than the request that went through the
OAS, which Secretary Powell addressed yesterday.
Q Ari, did you
see that report in The New York Times yesterday that there's an
island off Maui which was used by the Navy for amphibious landings
since the beginning of the second world war that has been closed
down, and they paid $400 million to clean up the thing? I
mean, that indicates that it's going to be very difficult to find
any place. I mean, would you want it where you
live? (Laughter.) This thing is nine miles
away from the town of Vieques, so why --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think we've
exhausted this topic. Thank you.
END
1:30 P.M. EDT