For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 9, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Racial Profiling
- The
President's Tax Proposal
- National
Missile Defense
- Military
Readiness
- Secretary Powell's
Trip to the Middle East
- GDP
- Robert
Pickett Letter
- California/Environmental Protection
- Capital
Punishment
- Middle East
Peace/President's Telephone Calls
- The Week
Ahead
- Mexico
Backgrounder
2:21 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: It must be Friday in
the White House press room. I have nothing prepared to open
with. I would like at the very end to give you the schedule
of the President for the upcoming week and, as an extra added bonus,
I'll go a tiny bit even into the week following that. But
until then, I'm all yours. Ron Fournier.
Q The President today
talked about racial profiling. What does he -- first of all,
a lot of that data was collected by the Clinton
administration. Do you plan to dip back into anything they
collected? And what does he hope to accomplish?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the
President is going to listen to a number of parties on the question of
how to find a solution to a problem that he is very concerned about, as
he indicated earlier today. We'll be listening to various
people in different communities who are affected by racial
profiling. We're going to be listening to law enforcement
authorities and trying to move forward on some type of understanding
about what can be done that's productive.
Q Do you know how soon
he'll have a decision made or --
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no
timetable set.
Q Is there any meeting,
Ari, with the International Association of Chiefs of
Police? I think they're pushing for some type of national
commission to look into racial profiling, other issues, and they've
wanted a meeting with the White House.
MR. FLEISCHER: I believe it's not
yet scheduled. They've requested a meeting with the White
House staff.
Q During the campaign,
the now-President referred often to a waitress who earned $22,000 a
year. Now when he refers to what seems to be that same
person, she earns $25,000 a year. People in the House --
MR. FLEISCHER: He's raising incomes
for American people since he was elected, obviously.
Q Right. In
addition to that, the Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee
are pointing out that they think that woman's salary had to be raised
in order for her to get anything out of this tax
proposal. Is that, indeed, why the example has been
changed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Here is what the
President said during the campaign, and this is why he brought it
up. If you are earning $22,000 a year in this country and
you have a couple of kids, as a result of the way the earned income tax
credit phases out, which is a program that helps low-income working
people with children, principally, who receive extra help from the
federal government -- it's predominantly a redistributed program -- you
start to lose your earned income tax credit as you make more money,
plus you're in the 15 percent tax bracket, which means you're paying
taxes at a higher rate than the President believes you should.
The marginal tax rate imposed on that person
is higher than the marginal tax rate imposed on somebody who makes
$220,000 a year. In other words, if you make only $22,000 a
year, for every dollar of pay raise you get from your employer, the
government snatches more of it away from you than somebody who makes
$220,000 a year who gets a dollar pay raise. The amount the
government takes from that upper-income person is less than it is for
that lower-income person. That's the reflection of a system
that has marginal income tax rates.
So the President's concern was that we need to
help that person so they can make it into the middle class, and that's
the purpose of the President's proposal. And the way the
President's proposal works is that a family making $22,000 a year with
a couple of kids actually would not start to get taxed until they made
about $31,000. In other words, they can have a
multi-thousand-dollar raise without the government snatching that money
away from them. And that's how he believes we can help
people get into the middle class.
Q Twenty-five thousand
is a better example, because that person actually pays --
MR. FLEISCHER: That person would
receive a tax cut.
Q Right. So
it's an example of that.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q I have one on police
profiling.
Q Ari, you said that
the President is considering reducing unilaterally America's nuclear
arsenal. If so, is that an attempt to ease the opposition
from the NATO countries to the national missile defense, and is it also
to try and convince Russia to allow -- or not to oppose, if you will,
the modification of scrapping the ABM Treaty?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a
reaffirmation of what the President denounced in a very public event in
May of 2000, in a speech at the National Press Club, where he reflected
on the possibility of the United States setting its nuclear levels of
deterrence at a level that we would set, not as a result of treaties,
but as the result of a decision that the United States makes, that is
the level appropriate to protect our national defenses. I
refer you to his remarks from that speech.
Q Just one follow-up,
please. You say considering, you used the word
"considering," but is there a stronger word you'd like to
use? Is it almost a done deal that he's going to reduce --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's what the
President said, that we should consider that, and we should do so in
consultation with our allies.
Q One of the other
things he said during the campaign to veterans' groups and others was
that help is on the way, for the military. He criticized the
Clinton administration's handling of military readiness, and now that
he's saying he's not going to propose any more spending than President
Clinton has proposed, there are those on Capitol Hill and some in the
Pentagon talking to reporters who feel misled. Are they
wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President said
help is on the way, and help is on the way. And the help
will be delivered in the manner exactly as the President said during
the campaign. There will be a pay raise above and beyond the
pay raise that was provided in the previous administration. That's
additional spending beyond what President Clinton proposed for the
military. There will be improvements in housing, as well,
pending the review that is underway, per the President's direction to
the Secretary of Defense, additional help will be on the way.
And that's exactly what the President laid out
in the campaign. And we're very pleased with the reaction to
it. And I think what you're seeing here is a President who
not only does what he promised to do during the campaign, but he's
going to make big picture, big spending decisions in a careful,
thoughtful way, and Secretary Rumsfeld is leading that effort to help.
Q Are you pleased with
the reaction of members, hawkish member of Congress and members and
people in the Pentagon who want more money now? And they say that if
they don't get it now, the military will not be ready, as the President
promised it would be?
MR. FLEISCHER: And let me remind
you that an appropriation bill was recently signed into law, just a
couple months ago. And one of the items that the President
wants to bring to Washington is fiscal discipline. And that
is another reason why he has talked about no supplemental immediately.
Q Well, what would you
say to those members, and others in the defense community, who feel
that there was perhaps a wink and a nod from a Republican about to take
office that would take care of the military's immediate needs?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that many of
them paid very close attention to the speech he gave at the Citadel,
where he announced in September of 1999 that this is exactly what he
would do. And he's doing it. And I think the
Pentagon will be very pleased to have a Commander-in-Chief who does
exactly as he says.
Q Some of them
apparently weren't paying attention.
Q But, Ari, what if
circumstances are different? What if the Pentagon now is
finding itself $5 billion to $7 billion short, and if it doesn't get
that money now, it's saying it has to cut flying hours or training
exercises. So what if it makes a compelling case to the
White House that it needs this money, or it's going to have to take
steps A, B and C? What would you say?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has
discussed this with the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of
Defense of course has discussed this with his top commanders, and
there's no disagreement.
Q No disagreement in
the sense that the commanders say they don't need this money?
MR. FLEISCHER: The commanders
understand the President's position. He's made it clear. He
has said no immediate supplemental.
Q How long -- just one
second, I'm sorry -- how long -- an assessment of this review before
any additional funds could be directed to the Pentagon?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll inform you as
events warrant.
Q Ari, The Washington
Times quotes Maryland's Senator Paul Sarbanes on Tuesday, when he told
a reception for businesswomen at the Capitol, and he tells Senator
Mikulski, "You're the first woman elected to the Senate in your own
right, in other words, not on the body of your dead
husband." And my question is, does the President, as a
gentleman who is always gracious to ladies, believe Senator Carnahan
deserves an apology from Senator Sarbanes, or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is the first
I've heard of such a statement and I don't think --
Q It was quoted
yesterday in The Washington Times.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't see the
President getting involved.
Q But you're a
gentleman, Ari, surely, you believe the Senator should
apologize. (Laughter.) Don't you believe he
should apologize? Really, Ari? You're a gentleman.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if the
President won't get involved, I certainly won't. Jim Angle.
Q Actually, that was my
question. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Ladies and
gentlemen, welcome to Friday in the press room. (Laughter.)
Q I'm only kidding.
MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to
Mr. Kinsolving.
Q The President said
he's ordering this review, as I believe you've indicated, we expect the
review to be completed by summer, sometime?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q What that suggests is
the President is perfectly willing to spend the money and talked about
it during the campaign, but wants the review first, that would suggest
that after the review is complete, then you would be looking more
seriously at a supplemental.
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me remind you of
the words the President used when he announced this in September of
'99. He talked about how he was going to direct the Pentagon
to conduct a force structure review, and he said, following that
statement, that this will likely require more money, but we will spend
it and approach this manner in a wise way.
So the President does understand that there
are needs and he looks forward to addressing them. But we
will do so in a wise and careful, thought out way, which is why
Secretary Rumsfeld is conducting the review.
Q Is there any sense of
whether or not once that review has been conducted, whether you would
want to move quickly on that, wait until the following February to put
it in the next budget, or simply ask Congress, who will probably still
be working on a military budget by then, to add it in?
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, I'm not going
to prejudge that event. That will depend on what the review
finds, what its recommendations are and what the Secretary of Defense
recommends.
Q But would you
expected the President to act quickly --
MR. FLEISCHER: I won't
prejudge. Let's just -- we'll wait for the review.
Q On the same subject,
Ari, can you confirm that Andrew Marshall* has been tasked to look at
the military report back within a week? And how does that
fit in the broader scheme on the review? Why do you have
this very preliminary report back and then the longer review?
MR. FLEISCHER: There are a number
of people who are involved in the review at Secretary Rumsfeld's
direction, and I think the Pentagon can explain to you the procedures
they're going to use for their review. That's internal to the
Department of Defense.
Q On police profiling
real quick, President Bush today said that he wants to study this
issue. Is he aware that former President Clinton had a study
on this same exact issue, but he never completed the
report? Will he go back to the prior administration and try
to go through their findings on this at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly, if there
was anything that was done by the prior administration that can help
solve the problem, we're going to take a good, hard look at
it. This is not an issue that should know any partisanship,
and it shouldn't matter. If good work was done, if good
research was done, if there's a way to bring people together to find an
answer to something that is vexing a large number of Americans, it
doesn't matter what the source is; the President's going to have an
open mind and want to look at it.
Q Do you know whether
it requires legislation or an executive order? There was a
lot of talk in the campaign between Senator Bradley and Mr. Gore, at
least, about the fact that he could have simply marched down the hall
and told President Clinton to sign an executive order. Have
you done a study to see what kind of action would be required to take
any sort of --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that, as is
typical with any decision, there are a number of tools that are
available, and I'm not going to prejudge what those tools could be, and
that's one of the reasons we're going to take a look at this issue
inside the administration.
Q Now that Secretary
Colin Powell is going to the Middle East, does President have any plans
to go at some point, and does he intend to meet with Prime Minister
Sharon who actually comes here next month?
MR. FLEISCHER: Any questions about
that will be announced as we formulate trips. And so we'll
have additional information at later times throughout the year, as well
as any scheduling meetings, too. Nothing to report today.
Q How does the
President define the Secretary's charge on this trip?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think Secretary
Powell addressed that today and his reasons for why he's going.
Q In the Rose Garden,
the President said that the federal government is now taking 21 percent
of GDP, up from 18 percent over 16 years. CBO says it's 18.2
percent. Do you have any idea why there is such a large
disparity between those numbers?
MR. FLEISCHER: I wish you had told
me, I had my book right there on my desk. I'll take a look
at the numbers and see, but I think the figure is what the President
indicated. There are different ways of measuring the -- what
taxes you're considering, for example. Are you measuring
income taxes, are you measuring all taxes, are you measuring state,
local and federal taxes. Any time you're talking about
budget numbers and statistics, there are many different ways to
measure.
The measure the President thinks is relevant
is what percentage of taxes are people paying.
Q He said federal
shares.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to look at
his words.
Q Ari, on this question
of military spending and budget again. Under Goldwater/Nickles, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the President's primary military
advisor. And, yet, we're getting reports that Secretary
Rumsfeld has told the Joint Chiefs, in effect, don't end-run me. Is
the President going to be receptive to the Chairman coming to him and
talking about his own particular needs, even in parallel to the
Secretary of Defense?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President hosted
a meeting just this weeks with the CINCS and people spoke around the
table, and the President is going to listen to a number of people, part
of his national security team. And, of course, Secretary
Rumsfeld is Secretary of Defense.
Q Any update on the
Robert Pickett letter? Has the President read that letter?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to
the agents involved. I haven't talked to the President about
it.
Q Did you get a copy
and you're aware that you have a copy of the letter?
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't looked for
it.
Q How quickly you move
on this request from Governor Davis for environmental protection?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration
is very well aware of the need to move promptly to help
California. The letter is under review as we speak. A
number of Cabinet Secretaries are reviewing it and reviewing their
options with it. As soon as we have something to report, we
will. But we are aware of the sensitivities and the need to
move. We're pleased to help California any way we can, and
as soon as we have something to report, we will.
Q Can I follow on
that? What is your understanding of what Davis is asking for
in that letter?
MR. FLEISCHER: An expediting of
permitting, which covers a number of agencies, and covers a number of
issues. It involves construction in some instances; it
involves existing plants and the amount of energy there and able to
produce under the law; it deals with credits, pollution credits as
they're known as; it deals with back-up generators being brought on to
line.
The letter was broad; it encompassed many
different options to help California through its energy problems.
Q Would it, among other
things, lift or loosen environmental restrictions?
MR. FLEISCHER: The request from
Governor Davis did involve a request to lift, or relax environmental
restrictions.
Q Does it indicate
temporarily, until the crisis is done or is there --
MR. FLEISCHER: The letter --
Q The letter doesn't
mention environmental, or is that inherent in the request to speed up
the --
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, it's by
definition.
I don't believe the letter had a duration
attached to it. It asked for the administration's assistance
in expediting permitting by all appropriate federal agencies -- it said
during this emergency was the terms of the letter.
Q It's not going to
happen today? Can you tell us that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's not
likely to happen today.
Q Can you explain
that? The letter asks for expediting certain licensing
procedures. Why is that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Expediting
permanent.
Q -- why is that a
loosening of environmental restrictions?
MR. FLEISCHER: By definition, it
is. The way the system works in terms of energy production
under the Clean Air Act, is you're entitled to pollution
credits. And you can run extra generating capacity at
certain times of the year, and then you drop your capacity if you have
sufficient credits to do so.
Very often -- in this case, in California --
they are running out of credits, and they're asking for a relaxation of
the crediting procedures so they can continue to run energy, produce
energy. It's by definition how it works under the Clean Air
Act.
Q Ari, the wire
services report that more than 250 people in Oklahoma applied to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons to watch the May 16th Timothy McVeigh
execution, which the Bureau is considering televising by closed
circuit. My question is, since the President believes in
capital punishment as a deterrent, why should its deterrence be limited
to closed circuit rather than network television late at night?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a matter for
the Bureau of Prisons to resolve.
Q But, I mean, what
does the President believe? They would certainly follow the
President's belief. Doesn't he believe that deterrence
should be widespread, or does he believe it should be hidden?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does
believe in deterrence, and he also --
Q Okay, then, he
wouldn't mind it being on national television as long as it's late?
MR. FLEISCHER: And he also believes
that there are decisions to be made by the relevant agencies -- in this
case, that decision is the Bureau of Prisons'.
Q The phone calls the
President's made this week to Sharon and Arafat, did you say that this
is the most personal involvement the President has had thus far in the
question of Middle East peace?
MR. FLEISCHER: In terms of phone
contact with those foreign leaders, this was his first opportunity
since the election to talk to those two leaders. In terms of
the President and what he is doing inside the White House, I would not
share that. The President is actively involved and engaged
in foreign policy, in the Middle East.
Q In what ways on
Middle East peace until now? I mean, it was -- we had the
impression before that everything was sort of up in the air awaiting
the outcome of the election because there wasn't much you could do.
MR. FLEISCHER: In terms of waiting
for Prime Minister-elect Sharon to form his government, that is, of
course, correct. But in terms of -- you said the President's
activities and the President's involvement -- I remind you that each
day, the President begins with an overnight intelligence briefing and
with foreign policy briefings, foreign policy updates, and that's part
of our ongoing foreign policy.
Q One more question on
the subject of single moms. There was a woman here named
Deborah something-or-other who was from Arlington Heights, Illinois,
who introduced the President the other day, and she said that she would
get $1,000 back. Do you or anybody in your office know what
she earned?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, if
you have two children you would stand to get back $1,000, and that's
because the President's proposal doubles the child credit from $500 to
$1,000.
Q As long as she's
paying at least $1,000 tax.
MR. FLEISCHER: Precisely.
Q More on taxes,
actually. Ari, what's your reaction, a couple of moderate
Republicans have expressed some concerns thinking the $1.6 trillion
package is too large. Senator Jeffords of the Finance
Committee said he wouldn't support it. Senator Olympia Snow
said, unless there are safeguards in it, she couldn't support
it. I think Senator Chafee also said it's too
large. What's your concern about that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think it
matters what party somebody belongs to. The President has
set that level of tax cut because he thinks it's the right tax cut
level to set. And, of course, as a conservative Democrat
from Georgia who has said the President's level is the right level and
he supports it.
So I think what you're going to see is us work
very hard with members on the Hill to get that tax cut enacted into law
by building coalitions who will support it, vote for it and let it
pass.
Q But, obviously, as
you know, with a sharply divided Senate, I mean, if three moderate
Republicans already sort of speaking out, does that affect your
confidence going into the debate?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President
still is very confident that when the time comes to vote, the votes
will be there.
Q Ari, can we come back
to profiling? And I'd like to phrase this question the same
way it got phrased to both President Clinton and Al Gore during the
campaign. If the President is troubled by the practice, why
doesn't he just take some action within his purview to do away with it
in some fashion?
I understand he wants to hear what the law
enforcement folks have to say and gather some facts, but isn't this an
issue of moral leadership? If he's opposed to it, he thinks
it's wrong, shouldn't he act, as opposed to just finding out how
widespread it is?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the
answer, frankly, lies within your question. As you said,
this is an issue that troubled former President Clinton, that troubled
former Vice President Gore. And it is an issue that is
difficult to wrestle with, and the President is determined to do his
best to address this issue.
It involves local jurisdictions, local
authorities. It's not as if there is one federal police
force that the President can wave a magic wand and make a very, very
difficult problem go away. It involves a lot of local
jurisdictions that the United States government does not have direct
control over.
So it is an issue that if it can be so easily
done, I suggest it would have been done a long time ago.
Q I'm not suggesting
that he could wave a magic wand and do away with it
universally. What I'm asking, though, is if he finds it
offensive for someone to be pulled over because he fits a racial
profile, there are police forces within his jurisdiction the he could
take action on.
MR. FLEISCHER: Sure, and as you
heard the President today speak about the topic, it is a source of
concern and he wants to find a solution for it. And our
administration is three weeks old.
Q Ari, do you have any
reaction to the AP report that Governor Cellucci, from Massachusetts,
will be the next ambassador to Canada?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. I saw
that report but, as usual, we're not going to comment or confirm, deny,
speculate about personnel.
Q Is there any
timetable for an ambassador to Canada, given that you've got the Quebec
trip coming up in April?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to
entertain about timetables. We'll have personnel
announcements as they're made.
Q Governing officials
in Yugoslavia have indicated that they may put Slobodan Milosevic on
trial in a domestic, national court. Would this
administration feel that is sufficient treatment under law, of Mr.
Milosevic, and would that relieve Yugoslavia of its obligations to turn
him over to the Hague?
MR. FLEISCHER: If you don't mind on
that, take that up with Mary Ellen.
Q You said during the
transition that the Deputy Director of OMB would have a special role
with regard to technology. You named that official this
week. Can you explain, would that role be just government
wide, or the broader issue of technology in the economy, or what will
he do? What will his job be with regard to technology?
MR. FLEISCHER: If you don't mind on
that, let me take that question and get back on technology.
Q Ari, The Wall Street
Journal reports that at the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter convention in
Florida, which former President Clinton addressed, there were
shareholders that held up signs, "leave the silverware," "does Dean
Witter need a pardon," and a man with a megaphone who shouted, "sexual
predator alert, Bill Clinton in the neighborhood." My
question is, did this disappoint the President, or does it illustrate
what he repeatedly promised about restoring honesty and decency to the
Oval Office?
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, as I think you
know, the President is looking forward and not backwards, and not
focusing on those type of events.
Let me give you a read on the week
ahead. It's going to be a busy week next week, with
considerable travel. We will have a schedule out for you
shortly. We will have our departure at approximately 8:00
a.m. on Monday morning from the South Lawn for Savannah, Georgia,
Hunter Army Air Field. Following that, the President will
arrive into Fort Stewart, Georgia, in late morning, to review the
troops and make remarks and tour barracks at Fort Stewart and have
lunch with the troops. His focus of that day is going to be
on the men and women of the military, improving the morale of the
military, a real focus on the people who serve in our nation's Armed
Forces.
On Tuesday, departure approximately 9:00 a.m.,
by the President, arriving into Norfolk Naval Air Station, where he
will participate in a video teleconferencing battle exercise, and make
remarks. His focus that day will be on transforming the
military for the next generation. He will be joined at that
event by our NATO allies.
On Wednesday, the President will also depart a
little bit before 9:00 a.m. from the White House for Charleston, West
Virginia, Yeager Field. The President will participate in a
round table discussion with reservists and guardsmen, and participate
in a disaster relief simulation at the West Virginia emergency
operations center in Charleston. The focus that day will be
on our citizen soldiers, our reservists who serve our nation.
On Thursday, the President will travel to the
State Department for some remarks, talking about diplomacy, the
importance of our alliances. And on Friday, the President will, of
course, travel to Mexico for his meeting with President Vincente Fox.
We will overnight in Waco on Friday
night. The President will be at his ranch in Crawford for
the weekend. And we will spend that weekend there, and then
on Monday morning, the 19th, travel from Crawford to Oklahoma City,
where the President will participate and speak at the opening of the
Oklahoma City Memorial Center, in memory of the victims of the Oklahoma
City bombing.
And then I believe we come back to Washington
that evening. So that's the highlights of the schedule with
a glance at the next day.
Q Ari, a backgrounder
on the Mexico trip -- do you plan a backgrounder on the Mexico trip?
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Yes, we plan one
and we'll get --
Q It would help if we
knew what day so we'd know when to be --
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Well, I think the
only day we can do it is Thursday, right, because we're out Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday. Thursday morning.
MR. FLEISCHER: We will be getting
back to Washington typically in mid-afternoon-ish on the three travel
days.
Q Ari, you said
yesterday that the need for reform in Social Security was based not on
the shortfall of revenues, but on the long-term sustainability
program. Does the same apply to Medicare as an explanation
for why you don't just use the surplus to solve that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the President
thinks they both need --
Q What's the difference
between sustainability and shortfall in revenue?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's how you achieve
sustainability. You can achieve sustainability in a variety
of ways, and that's why reforms are necessary, in the President's
opinion.
Q A question on --
Q Could I just come
back to that for a second? In these three trips the
President is asking for a review of these very -- these issues.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's right.
Q Why does he then want
to go out and speak about it and visit the bases? Why
doesn't he --
MR. FLEISCHER: To underscore the
importance of the reviews that he has directed the Department of
Defense to undertake.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
2:48 P.M. EST
|