For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 5, 2001
Remarks by the President at American Society of Newspaper Editors Annual Convention
The J.W. Marriott Hotel Washington, D.C.
Listen to the President's
Remarks
1:17 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow Texan --
(laughter) -- by way of other
states. (Laughter.) It's good to see you again,
Rich; thank you. I've had a great relationship with Rich in
Austin, Texas. He occasionally opined in ways I didn't care
for, but I always knew he was honest and open. He had his priorities
straight: his country and his family. It's good
to see members of his family here. I see you lowered your
standards by inviting others from the Office of American Statesmen here
to Washington today. (Laughter.) Particularly
Harmon. (Laughter.)
At any rate, it's my honor to be
here. It turns out every President since Warren Harding has
spoken to this group. I found that interesting. Harding
came here because he was a newspaperman himself. The rest of
us just wanted to pander. (Laughter.)
Of course, with a lot of attention you get as
the President, you often occasionally get criticism, and I understand
that. You know, I admit, I take it pretty
well. After all, I was in baseball. But I wish
some of the stories had come out differently.
And so, in the spirit of constructive
criticism, I thought I'd thought I'd make some suggestions to you as to
some of the headlines I'd like to see in the future: "Cheney
Cloned -- (laughter) -- President Has Nothing To Do At All
Now." (Laughter.) "2 Million Overlooked Ballots
Suggest Bush Won California." (Laughter.) "Sri
Lanka President Chundrika Kumart Atunga Stumped By Name Of U.S.
President." (Laughter.) "Gephardt Says Bush Tax
Plan 'Just Makes Sense'." (Laughter.) And
finally: "Sammy Sosa Returns To The Rangers -- (laughter)
-- Says: 'I Want To Go
Home'." (Laughter.)
But I'm really not here to tell you your
business. It's your job to tell everyone how to run
theirs. (Laughter.) And you do a pretty good job
at it. Few American figures are more legendary than the
hard-bitten, but idealistic, news editor. And I'm aware of
that. After all, I've sat through what seems like hundreds
of editorial boards. But I think of people like Benjamin Franklin or
Horace Greeley or Meg Greenfield, who we all dearly miss.
As you know, we've had a serious of votes
recently on a proposed budget. And that's what I'd like to
talk about today. Sometimes the Washington filter makes it
hard for me to get my message directly to people. And since
I view you as people -- (laughter) -- I'd like to go directly to you.
The House passed a budget last
week. Tomorrow we'll hear the final say on the Senate
budget. The House and I agree: We need
common-sense policies to safeguard Social Security and accelerate
economic growth. And I hope the Senate joins us.
I've written a budget based upon my vision of
an active and responsible government. Now, I recognize
government has got important work to do; yet, active government must
also be focused and effective. Education is my top priority; and,
frankly, it ought to be your top priority as well.
After all, an industry which depends on the
ability of people to read, needs to be involved in
education. Children who fail to master reading are going to
be left behind in America, and we had better do something about it.
I know Rich Oppel has heard me talk a lot
about waging a war on illiteracy; it was a focus of mine when I was a
governor of Texas; it will be a focus of mine as President, and that
focus also will be the focus of the First Lady as well.
My budget reflects the commitment to
education. It increases -- it has an 11 percent increase in
the Department of Education. We triple funding for reading
programs. We have got a big focus on early childhood
development.
In my budget, we double the Medicare budget by
the year 2011. We introduced a new prescription drug
program. We finished the job of doubling medical research at
the National Institutes of Health by 2003. Basic research gets big
increases as well.
My budget pays for ambitious new programs to
mobilize faith-based and community groups, which fight poverty and
addiction. We expand the Women's, Infants' and Children's
nutrition program by $94 million this year -- next year. The
federal contribution to drug treatment by $100 million. Head Start by
$125 million, and programs to fight child abuse and neglect by $267
million.
We propose to put $900 million into the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, the biggest conservation budget in U.S.
history. Over five years, we'll devote $4.9 billion to
repair and improve our national parks -- again, the biggest increase in
park upkeep in our nation's history. We provide housing
vouchers to 34,000 additional low-income families, and assist 130,000
others with the downpayment on their first home. We support
1,200 new and expanded community health centers, to double the number
of patients served in those important institutions.
It's an ambitious agenda, and it doesn't come
cheap. The total budget is $1.96 trillion in the year
2002. You know, when you hear all the litany of things we're
spending money on, some people are beginning to wonder whatever
happened to all the penny pinching Republicans.
But I don't think this budget's too big for
the critics, nor do I think it's too small. As I'm sure you
can guess, I think it's just about right. We've prepared a
budget with great care. I understand the budget is to
choose, so I made choices. We identified
priorities: education and health care, research, military
pay, conservation, community and faith-based organizations.
I gave those priorities the funding they
needed, while keeping overall discretionary spending at a responsible
rate of 4 percent growth. The result is a budget that keeps
our national commitment to Social Security and Medicare, and increases
the federal budget by $100 billion from 2001 to 2002. A
$100- billion increase in spending ought to be sufficient.
Let me give you some idea of just how much
money $100 billion is. It is, when you adjust for inflation,
it is more than all we spent on the Marshall Plan, five years' worth of
spending on the Marshall Plan, $100 billion is more than
that. It's enough money to run our government and meet our
priorities. The House understood that, and the Senate needs
to hear that as well.
Secondly, the percentage increases in spending
of the past few years cannot be sustained. In fiscal 2001,
Congress appropriated 8 percent more in discretionary spending than it
did in 2000. An 8 percent increase -- federal appropriations
will double in nine years -- 8 percent spending increases will burn
through the surplus.
My budget allows for four
percent. And that's more inflation, by the way, and that's
more than the average increase in wages in the past few years, and my
attitude is, if the taxpayer can get by on a 4 percent increase, so
should the federal government.
And we finally -- and finally, we need
significant tax relief -- I mean, significant tax relief -- and we need
it now. A Democratic Congress passed the Kennedy tax cut,
even though there was a deficit, because the country needed it.
A Republican Senate and Democrat House passed
Ronald Reagan's tax relief, even though there was a deficit, because
the country needed it. Our country needs tax relief now, and we have a
surplus. I don't think there's any excuse for providing
real, meaningful tax relief. We only used about one surplus
dollar out of four.
My tax relief plan is smaller than President
Kennedy's or President Reagan's. But it's just as urgently
needed. I sent Congress a reasonable budget. It
gives the federal government over $100 billion to spend on important
priorities. It pays down debt at a record
pace. It leaves room for tax relief. It will help
restore economic growth. It's a budget in line with the
values of the American people, as you know, from trying to cover it.
The budget process is a long and winding
one. An observer of Washington legislative processes once
said, it's never over until it's over. And it's never
over. It's especially true of how we pass our
budgets. No one vote is decisive. There will be a
vote today. There will be one tomorrow.
I urge the senators when they cast the vote tomorrow to remember,
there's a lot of people in our country who are beginning to
hurt. A lot of folks are paying higher energy
bills. A lot of people have got consumer debt. I
urge the senators to prioritize. But always remember that
the surplus is not the federal government's money. The
surplus is the people's money. And once we meet priorities, we ought
to share it with the people. It's not only the right thing
to do for our economy, it's the right choice to make, to trust people
with their own money.
The debate about the economic approach has
been a vigorous one, and it should be. I think it's healthy
for our country to debate these issues. People of different parties,
and as I have discovered, some of my own party, think we ought to spend
more than I think we ought to do, and have smaller tax relief.
But so far, it seems like everybody has shown
goodwill and good intentions, and for that, I'm
grateful. Since I took office, a little more than 10 weeks
ago, I've personally met with a lot of members of the United States
Congress. I was surprised to realize the other day that I
met with more than 278. And I hope a lot more come down to
the White House.
You know, I haven't convinced them
all. And they haven't convinced me. But we've
been able to make our points without making enemies. And
it's a good start to changing the tone here in Washington,
D.C. And that's what's needed, a more civil discourse.
I understand civility doesn't make good
copy. I understand it doesn't make good copy to say so and
so may not agree, but they respect each other. It's much easier to
print the mean word or the pointed attack. And your
reporters are just doing their job.
But the truth of the matter is, all of us can
work to make America a little more civil, can herald a civil
discourse. It's important. Ours is the greatest
democracy in the world. Ours is the greatest country in the
world. And those of us who are responsible for shaping the
dialogue must always remember that it's -- people are
watching. The more civil we can be in Washington, the more
civil we can be in our newspapers, the more likely it is democracy will
continue to flourish.
Thank you for what you do. I
sometimes wish I could shape it a little differently. But I
appreciate free press, just like you appreciate free
speech. And that's just what I've given you today, a free
speech. (Laughter.)
I'll be glad to answer any questions you
have. (Applause.)
* * * * *
Q I was wondering if,
in the spirit of civility and conciliation you were talking about,
whether you think that when it comes to appointing members to the
federal bench, and especially if there are vacancies to the Supreme
Court, that you should try, before appointments are made, to engage in
a bipartisan conversation with Democrats in the United States Senate
who have already indicated that they might be taking a very hard line
if they believe you're sending up nominees that are philosophically
extreme? Or do you feel that you are like any other
President, and should operate on the principle of you propose and let
them dispose?
THE PRESIDENT: The
latter. We're going to pick the most qualified people we can
find, people that share my philosophy about strict constructionism on
the Court. I'll be mindful of confirmation. I
don't particularly want a big fight in the Senate. And so
we'll be putting out -- we'll be gathering intelligence as to whether
or not a person can be confirmed or not. I made decide to
send somebody up that will create a tough fight. I don't
know. I haven't gotten there yet.
But of course, I pick somebody I want them to
get confirmed. And so we'll be mindful of
that. Obviously I've made a lot of other -- another decision
about whether or not we ought to have screening agencies or screening
groups, people to screen our people, and I decided not to do
that. We'll get a lot of opinions, and not one opinion is
more important than another, as far as my administration's
concerned. And so we'll pick the people, and the Senate can
hopefully confirm them.
Q Do you believe it's
appropriate for the Chinese to be questioning our airmen that have been
downed? And also, what do you believe the Chinese have put
at risk with their actions?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate you
bringing up the subject. I want to make this
clear. First, I regret that a Chinese pilot is missing, and
I regret one of their airplanes is lost. And our prayers go
out to the pilot, his family. Our prayers are also with our
own servicemen and women. And they need to come home.
The message to the Chinese is, we should not
let this incident destabilize relations. Our relationship
with China is very important. But they need to realize that
it's time for our people to be home. We're working all
diplomatic channels to affect our priority. There's
discussions going on. And we'll continue to do
so. My mission is to bring the people home.
And as to whether or not we'll have good
relations, my intention is to make sure we do have good
relations. But the Chinese have got to act. And I
hope they do so quickly.
Q Following up on that,
are there any circumstances in which you would offer an apology to the
Chinese? And secondly, are you having any second thoughts
about your decision to go to China later this year?
THE PRESIDENT: I have no further
comments on the subject. That won't count as a
question. (Laughter.)
Q Sir, as you know, at
the heart of this newspaper organization is its passion for preserving
and enhancing the nation's access to information. Would you
take this moment to articulate your own view of First Amendment
freedoms, and give us a sense of the fundamental message that you will
send to your administration as it makes decisions on whether to open or
close access to government information?
THE
PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) There
needs to be balance when it comes to freedom of information
laws. There's some things that when I discuss in the privacy
of the Oval Office or national security matters that just should not be
in the national arena.
On the other hand, my administration will
cooperate fully with freedom of information requests if it doesn't
jeopardize national security, for example. The interesting
problem I have, or for me, as the President, is what's personal and
what's not personal. Frankly, I haven't been on the job long
enough to have been -- to have had to make those choices.
I'll give you one area, though, where I'm very
cautious, and that's about e-mailing. I used to be an avid
e-mailer, and I e-mailed to my daughters or e-mailed to my father, for
example. And I don't want those e-mails to be in public --
in the public domain. So I don't e-mail any more, out of
concern for freedom of information laws, but also concern for my
privacy.
But we'll cooperate with the press, unless we
think it's a matter of national security, or something that's entirely
private.
Q I hope you will
respond to this question. It's on the Asia subject, but
general.
THE PRESIDENT: I might; I'm not
sure yet. (Laughter.)
Q In my region, we have
strong economic interests in Asia as an export market. Would
you please comment on the balance that you think should be struck
between our strategic interests and our economic interests in Asia,
including China?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe that China
ought to be a trading partner of ours. I think it's in our
economic interests to open up the Chinese markets to U.S. products, to
U.S. agricultural products. I not only believe it's in our
economic interest, I believe it's in our interest to promote U.S.
values.
And I believe the marketplace promotes
values. When people get a taste of freedom in the
marketplace, they tend to demand other freedoms in their
societies. And so, I'm an advocate of China's entering into
the WTO and I'm hopeful that the current situation ends quickly and our
people come home.
China is a strategic partner, a strategic
competitor. But that doesn't mean we can't find areas in
which we can partner. And the economy's a place where we can
partner. And we've got some differences with China,
long-term differences, spreading of weapons of mass destruction is an
issue that we need to work with the Chinese on, as well as other
nations in that part of the world.
Human rights is an issue, but I believe trade
will encourage more freedom, particularly when it comes to individual
liberties. The marketplace is -- the marketplace unleashes
the opportunity for people to make choices, and so I continue to push
for trade with China, and --
Q All of us here flew
in for this conference. Most of us had delays of one type or
another. Earlier this week --
THE PRESIDENT: Most of you --
sorry?
Q Had delays at
airports. Earlier this week, there was a report issued which
was critical of the airline industries and the mounting problems with
service and people getting around the country.
I guess my question, coming from Northwest
Indiana, where the debate is whether to have a third Chicago airport or
not, what's your administration going to try and do to solve this
ongoing problem?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, one thing we
need to do is expand the number of runways all around
America. And as you know, there's a lot of environmental
regulations, some of them meaningful, some of them not, that prohibit
the expansion of runways. And step one is to increase
accessibility, which will then make it easier to increase competition.
As to your question about whether or not there
ought to be a third airport in the Illinois area -- I mean Chicago
area, I haven't made up my mind yet.
Q I'm getting the
signal from your --
THE PRESIDENT: Getting the
hook? Thank you for having me.
END
1:40 P.M. EDT
|