For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 9, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Personnel
announcements
- AIDS
Office
- China
- Budget
- Death tax/estate
tax
- Pentagon/Army
berets
- Energy
- COPS
program
- Government funded
program
12:10 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. I have several personnel announcements and a
couple other minor items, or other items that I want to discuss.
The President intends to nominate Tony
Armendariz to be a member of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority. The President intends to nominate Sarah V. Hart,
to be Director of the National Institute of Justice at the Department
of Justice. The President intends to nominate Shirin
Raziuddin Tahir-Kheli to be Representative of the United States on the
Human Rights Commission of the Economic and Social Council of the
United Nations. And the President intends to nominate Gordon
H. Mansfield to be Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for
Congressional Affairs.
A little news about welcoming leaders to
Washington. The President will welcome Amir Hamad bin Iffa
Al Khalifa of Bahrain to Washington for a working visit on May
7th. And the President today announced that he will name
Scott Evertz to be Director of the Office of National Aids
Policy. He is currently the Vice President of the Lutheran
Manor Foundation, Incorporated, and Director of the Resource
Development for the United Lutheran Program for the Aging in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
And as the Director of this office, Mr. Evertz
will be the White House point person and the point of contact for
organizations focused on community based, national, international
aspects of HIV/AIDS. The office will coordinate with the
administration's activities related to domestic and international AIDS
academic and will be staffed with two detailees, one from the
Department of State and one from the Department of Health and Human
Services.
And because HIV and AIDS is such a growing
global crisis, and because of the particular emphasis that President
Bush wants to put on fighting AIDS and finding ways to reduce AIDS, if
not cure AIDS around the world, the AIDS Policy Office will have
increased focus on international components of the
disease. The office will have, I mentioned the two detailees
from State and HHS, and the office will also work with a new high-level
task force that will be co-chaired by the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, that will work with the White
House Domestic Policy Advisor and the National Security Advisor.
The final announcement I have is the President
at 7:30 p.m. last night spoke with Tiger Woods, to congratulate him on
winning the Masters Tournament. With that, I'll be happy to
take questions.
Q Is Tiger coming to
the White House any time soon?
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll let you
know. I don't have anything on that yet. He just
won.
Q On the AIDS office,
real quick, what does the President have to say to his detractors about
this? This gentleman is gay, and at the Republican
convention, when the gay gentleman spoke before the convention, many in
his home state, as well as many in the Republican Party could not even
look at the gentleman. What does the President say to this,
especially in an era of bringing people together?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President picks
the best people for the job -- for their jobs, regardless of what their
background may or may not be. And that's why he has chosen
Scott. The President respects him, knows he's a leader in
the community that is fighting AIDS, and he'll be welcome at this White
House.
Q Ari, it's not just
about what he is, but what he believes. It said in the Post
this morning that he believes that perhaps one of the solutions to AIDS
would be to reduce the stigma of homosexuality in the African-American
community. Is that a position the administration shares,
that we need to reduce the stigma of homosexuality?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think what's
important is to allow the office to develop and to come up with as many
ideas as they can, to fight what has been just a growing international
problem that is wreaking terrible, terrible problems in many
communities across our country and around the world.
And so the President is forming this group for
the whole purpose of bringing together some of the best minds to share
their ideas. It's too soon to say exactly what the tactics
will be. But this administration is committed, under
President Bush, to fighting AIDS and to having a high level focus here
at the White House to getting that job done.
I do want to emphasize the international
component is generally new. And that's a reflection of the fact that
the President is concerned about this. He has brought up the
problem of AIDS in Africa with foreign leaders who come here, with
congressional leaders who come here, it's on the President's mind, and
it's something that he wants to combat.
Q Are you saying he's
doing more than Clinton on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm not making
more -- oh, on the international component? Well, the office
will have an international component built into its
structure. But I think the Clinton people made every good
faith effort they could possibly make, as well. And we're
going to continue that in this administration.
Q What is the
administration doing to make the language, which both sides are trying
to use to solve the China dispute, understandable, one to
another? That seems to be one of the big hang-ups.
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration's
actions are diplomatic, and by that I mean any discussions and
negotiations about resolving this matter are being led by our
ambassador in Beijing, under the direction of Secretary Powell and the
President. And he's been involved in many intense
conversations with his counterparts in Beijing to resolve this matter.
They're working on language; they're working on wording; and that's
where the matter stands.
Q Is the President
still going to China, and how can he justify it if the plane's crew is
detained?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Helen, as you
know, the President has announced his trip to China, and we have
indicated previously, the administration has said they will take
matters one step at a time. But many members of Congress
were supposed to go to China this week, and they cancelled their
trip. And that's further evidence that the longer this goes
on, the more damage risks getting done to U.S.-China relations.
Q Well, do you see the
President following suit in that --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to
deal with hypotheticals. The President has announced that he
is going. The longer this problem drags on, the more damage
will be done.
Q Ari, you had earlier
said that you had no objection to the members of Congress taking this
trip. Did they contact you before they
cancelled? And did you give them any guidance at that
point?
MR. FLEISCHER: They did, many of
them did contact us, and they were looking for
guidance. They were seeking the administration's opinions.
The administration did not tell them to cancel, we didn't tell them
what to do. But the administration clearly understands what
they're thinking and why they did what they did. This is a
sensitive moment, but those are decisions made by congressional leaders
and they can give their own reasons for why they took those steps.
Q This morning,
Congressman Spratt, who is the ranking Budget Committee member, said
that he was standing in line -- or I saw him standing in line -- and he
said that he could not get a hold of the budget until 10:00 a.m, the
White House did not say that they would give him a copy of the budget,
and so he had to stand in line with the press to get a
budget. Was there a mess-up there? Is that
policy? He said this broke protocol in 20 years.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the first
I've heard of it, so I'll have to look into it. Standing in
line with the press isn't so bad. (Laughter.) I'll have to
look into that. Members of Congress, of course, need to get
their budgets in a timely way. But that's the first I've
heard.
Q The President said
that, we are going to get rid of the death tax to keep farms in the
family. Yesterday, the New York Times, on the front page,
ran an article quoting tax experts saying they have never found a farm
lost because of estate taxes. And they quote, even the
American Farm Bureau Federation, which supports repeal, saying they
could not cite a single instance of a farm lost because of estate
taxes. So what did the President mean when he said, we are
going to get rid of the death tax to keep farms in the family?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one of the
reasons for that is that farmers have to go through a tortuous process
just to keep the farm in the family hands. And there is no reason that
farmers, or anybody else, should have to go through these tax avoidance
schemes, should have to get financial planners. You shouldn't have to
get an estate planner just because you work the land.
The only reason they have to get estate
planners and carry out all these tax avoidance procedures is for the
purpose of keeping their farms. If it wasn't for all those procedures
they have to put in place, which cost them a tremendous amount of
money, they certainly would lose the family farm. And that's
why they do it; they're worried about losing the family
farm. If you abolish the death tax, people won't have to
hire all these planners to help them keep the land that's rightfully
theirs.
Q Ari, back on China
for a moment. The President said this morning, the longer
this goes on it could harm the relationship. Secretary
Powell said something very similar yesterday, as well.
Can you be more specific about what you mean
by, harming the relationship? You've already addressed
visits; some on the Hill have talked about slowing down WTO entry,
China is still not a member; some have talked about the Olympics; some
have talked about the Taiwan decision.
Are all of those within the atmosphere of what
you're discussing in harming the relationship? Are there
other things?
MR. FLEISCHER: David, so long as
the talks are ongoing and it remains as sensitive as it does, I'm going
to refrain from getting into any of the specific steps. The
administration is taking it one step at a time, as I indicated earlier,
and I do not think it would be productive to go down any of the items
that could get damaged.
But you heard the President say it this
morning, Secretary Powell said it yesterday, Condoleezza Rice said it
yesterday, there is no question that the longer this goes on the more
damage can be done. I'm not going to today put my finger on
what those specific items could be.
But, again, I want to go back to something
that took place in the Oval Office just about two weeks ago or so, and
that was the President's visit with Deputy Premier Qian Qichen, where
they did talk about so many of the positive aspects of the United
States-Chinese relations. And it was one after another, all
the positive, productive things that are underway between the United
States and China.
And from the President's point of view, if
this continues, so much of the good they talked about can go wrong, or
will go wrong, and he wants to avoid that.
Q On that point, you
obviously have a number of members of Congress coming out and saying
that they're rethinking their support for PNTR, they're beginning to
think that maybe this should in some way be linked to arms sales to
Taiwan. Aside from what the administration might hold out as
the list of things that are being harmed, what do you see, in terms of
relationship with Congress, that are being harmed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not
certain, when you say relations with Congress that are being
harmed. I think the President's relations with Congress is
not affected by this. But the President is going to do what
he thinks is the right thing to do.
He will work with his foreign policy advisors,
with his national security team to secure the release of our men and
women, and that's where his focus will be.
Q I mean, sentiment
toward China in the Congress, not toward the administration.
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, okay, different
question. From the President's point of view, there is no
doubt that that could be harmed. The longer this goes on,
the more difficult it will be, and that will particularly manifest
itself up on the Hill, where there are several important votes. So
there's no question, when the President says that the longer this goes
on, the more damage can be done, that includes what members of Congress
will come to the conclusion -- the conclusion that members of Congress
will come to, vis-a-vis, China.
Q What step is he on
now? You say he's taking it step by step, where are we?
MR. FLEISCHER: He remains in the
middle of the diplomatic steps that he has authorized to be taken.
Q How long will it
take, though, and how long of a delay before you do start using the
word, hostages? And isn't this setting a precedent? U.S.
military personnel are being held away from U.S. diplomats, for most of
the day. And doesn't this set a dangerous precedent if you
don't start referring to them as hostages?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. From
day one, the President's focus has been creating an environment that
helps bring our men and women home. And he has kept this in
that environment. And he has directed his staff to keep it
in that environment and his Secretaries and the diplomats, also, who
are doing his bidding, to maintain that environment.
The President believes that is the most
productive way to resolve this situation. As Vice President
Cheney said yesterday, inflammatory words do not help and this
administration will not engage in them.
Q A follow-up is that
the Chinese media reported, for the first time today, really, about the
meeting with the Ambassador. Do you find that an encouraging
step, in that it looks like they possibly could be preparing their
people for a resolution?
MR. FLEISCHER: Eileen, I'm going to
refrain from characterizing any of the play by play, as events go
along, each individual event -- the President is going to
just continue to let the talks take place. He remains
hopeful that this will be resolved soon. And I'm not going
to get into the characterization of moment by moment.
Q Can I ask you also
about the crew? What can you tell us about what their daily
routine is like? When we, and members of Congress and the
public try to assess whether they're detainees, guests or hostages, how
much freedom do they have to move around, and how far as they able to
go outside? What is it like?
MR. FLEISCHER: They're staying in
officers quarters, in the northern end of Hainan. And they
are in air conditioned rooms, air conditioned
facilities. And they are being well taken care
of. Their food is brought in from outside the base,
suggesting a higher quality of food for them. All their personal
effects are with them. They all, for example, have new tee
shirts they were given by United States consular
authorities. So they were all wearing the same new tee
shirts today. That was reported to the President.
So General Sealock, in his conversation with
the President today, said that their spirits are high, that their unit
morale is strong. And that's the status of
them. They're getting exercise within their
rooms. And that's the update and the status of the crew.
Q They can't leave the
rooms, for example?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have that
information -- that type of movement.
Q The Washington Times
reports that Bill Clinton is scheduled to give a speech next month in
China, which is still holding our hostages, as Chairman Henry Hyde has
called it. And my question is, has President Bush heard of
any Clinton plan to cancel this speech if our people are not released,
or does the President believe whatever Clinton does is
irrelevant? And I have one follow up.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm not aware
that the President has kept up with President Clinton's travel plans.
Q Page one of this
morning's Washington Post reports the expressed grief of a mother whose
midshipman daughter was gang raped by three Naval Academy football
players who were never prosecuted and are, instead, looking forward to,
what one of them said, we're going to show them when we play at another
school.
Since the Post reported that their victim is
white, does the Navy's Commander-in-Chief believe that if three whites
raped a black, instead of vice versa, that they would get away with it,
as these blacks have, and is Commander Bush going to put up with this?
MR. FLEISCHER: If your question was
about what the Navy thinks, I would refer you to the Navy.
Q No, but I mean, what
does the President think, Ari? Do you want to dodge
this? What does the President think? He must be
aware of it, isn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't talked to
the President about that.
Q I have a two-part
question, if I may. We understand that China is going to
demand reparations for the plane and for the pilot. Is the
Bush administration willing to pay reparations, as a sign of good
faith? The second part is that there was a change in words over the
weekend -- instead of "regret," this President and the Secretary of
State used the word, "sorry." Are we to take any
significance from that? Is that anywhere closer to the
apology that China is demanding?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of
reparations, just like all other questions about specifics that may or
may not be discussed between the diplomats, I'm not going to entertain
any speculation about specifics like that. As for the word
use, it is the position of the United States, as Secretary Powell said
yesterday, we do regret that the pilot is missing and perhaps
lost. We are sorry as a government that the pilot is
missing, perhaps lost. That's what Secretary Powell said
yesterday; that is the United States position.
Q But that's not an
apology in any way, shape or form?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not an
apology, and we have nothing to apologize for. But we are an
humanitarian nation, the United States, and we are led by a
humanitarian President, and it is wholly consistent to have no
apologies, because we didn't do anything wrong, while feeling regret
and feeling sorry about a possible loss of life. That's in
the spirit of this country, and properly so.
Q On that point, Ari,
one gets the sense that while the U.S. won't apologize for being there
or doing what they were doing, that there is a search for some words
that are stronger than regret, but well short of an
apology. Is that a fair way to characterize the current
process?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you've
summarized the essence of diplomacy. Diplomacy always is a
search for words and agreements to resolve peacefully difficult,
contentious matters. And that is the essence of diplomacy,
and it is underway.
Q The Washington Times
said the plane was detecting -- the reconnaissance mission was to
detect low-grade or underground nuclear testing in China. Is
that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to
comment on any of those types of questions.
Q Ari, could the timing
of the Taiwan arms sales decision be affected by this
crisis? If it still hasn't been resolved by the end of the
month, are you going to delay that decision?
MR. FLEISCHER: Randy, they're
separate decisions, and I've heard no discussions that the timing would
be affected by this.
Q Yes, but Secretary
Powell said yesterday that it could certainly influence -- even though
it's separate, it could certainly influence the climate in Congress,
which seemed to be a message to the Chinese.
MR. FLEISCHER: I answered that
question earlier in regard to this affecting what Congress
thinks. The question here was on the timing of it, and I
have not heard anything about the timing.
Q Is there a deadline
for that --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to find
out if there's a hard deadline. I don't know what the
specific date is, if there is one date.
Q President Bush this
morning specifically said, diplomacy takes time. Is that a
signal to the American people to continue to exercise some patience and
not try to worry about getting this resolved?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's a
reflection from the President that he's handling this and talking to
the American people about it in a straightforward
fashion. He said on Tuesday last week that the time is now
for our men and women to come home. And diplomacy does take
time, and the President is recognizing that reality and informing the
American people about that. Don't read too much more into it
than that. But diplomacy does take time. The
second part of what the President said was that the more time it takes,
the more damage can be done, or will be done, to U.S.-China relations.
Q Ari, one of the
points made over the weekend was that one way that the U.S. and Russia
tried to avoid conflict was they had a lot of agreements, working
groups, official channels of communication and so on to make sure that
those two adversaries were always in touch with each other. Is it the
administration's intention to try and create more such working groups
and agreements with the Chinese as we move forward in our relations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, many such
organizations or entities or avenues of communication already do exist,
productively so, between the United States and China. And
I'm not going to discuss any specifics that may come out of what's
being negotiated now. I think that's a fair question that
you may want to suspend on and when we have more to say you may learn
more about that. And certainly in the future, there always
are new avenues, but I'm going to leave it at that.
Q Back to the AIDS
situation real quick. President Clinton is supposed to be
going to Nigeria later this month. Obasanjo invited him for
the World AIDS Conference. Is there someone from the White
House that President Bush is sending there for that event?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do not have
that. Let me try to get back -- information on that one for
you.
Q Ari, is the President
feeling any pressure from the business community to wrap the China
dispute up promptly, seeing that it has a lot to lose if they lose
access to the Chinese market?
MR. FLEISCHER: In the many meetings
I've been in on this topic I have not heard anything at all in regard
to external groups, business or otherwise. The President's
focus is on the diplomatic efforts and on securing the release of our
men and women without delay, regardless of any external groups.
Q Ari, is it a given,
or is it assumed by the administration that China will not win
accession to the WTO by the time when Congress would have to vote again
on PNTR?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would have to
check with congressional affairs to get more precise information on
it. As a result of the status of agricultural talks between
the United States and China, there was a question about the timing of
China's entry into the WTO. If the agricultural provisions
have not been resolved in a timely enough manner, it could present an
opportunity for Congress to vote on it again.
Q What do we know about
the status of the talks between China and the European Union and the
other links that have to be completed before it wins accession?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's something
you'd have to check with Bob Zoellick's office about.
Q Ari, the Secretary of
State said yesterday that he had tried early on to broach this issue at
the highest levels -- those were his words -- and was told by the
Chinese, this has to be handled at the Foreign Ministry. Dr.
Rice also said that President Bush's -- a call between President Bush
and President Jiang can only be done once, it has to be done at the
right time. My question is, has the President wanted to
contact President Jiang and he's been told no, or does the President
think the time is not right, a few more days before we make a call?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going
to discuss the exact tactics that the President is using in the middle
of this negotiation. I think what you heard a little bit on
the shows was that at the very beginning of this it took a little bit
of time to get in touch with the proper authorities in
Beijing. And as you know, the President -- this incident
began at 8:30 p.m. on Saturday night last week -- the President did not
say anything on Sunday. When we were not able to get clear
information about the status of the crew, the President spoke out on
Monday so that we could learn about the health of the
crew. And the President's statements did lead, of course, to
the first meeting that took place with the crew, so we were able to
ascertain their status.
Communication is always important,
particularly at the appropriate level, dealing with China or dealing
with anybody in a time of a back-and-forth issue like
this. I hope that answers your question.
Q With consideration of
the Summit of the Americas -- when does President Bush find to promote
the trade promotion authority of Congress? We are going to see
something in the next few days by the President?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have
anything for you on the exact timing. As you know, the
President is committed -- trade promotion authority to the language
that would allow the President to have negotiating authority to enter
into agreements that could be submitted to the Congress for an up or
down vote.
The President is committed to
that. The exact timing has not been determined.
Q Ari, you said several
times today that the focus of the President is getting the crew
released. You didn't mention the plane. Is that
no longer the part and parcel, to tie together, we want the crew and
the plane?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, we want the
crew, we want the plane. But the President's first focus is,
of course, on the crew.
Q Are the talks at all
-- the negotiations, are they over the release of the crew or are they
over the release of the crew and the plane?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's over both.
Q There are talks about
both?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Can you explain how
it is you can rule out an apology now, when part of the diplomacy is
still finding a mechanism for explanations? Presumably, all the
investigations haven't been done. I mean, how can you rule
out that there might not be something uncovered that the United States
has to apologize for?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the United
States has taken a careful look at this matter. And you have
heard it said from President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to
Secretary Powell, to National Security Advisor Rice, that while we are
sorry about what has taken place involving the wife of the serviceman,
and we regret what has taken place, the United States has nothing to
apologize for.
Q Then what's the point
of an investigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there
is always an important -- it is always important to review all the
information that all sides would like to make available and to have all
those appropriate discussions so that everyone is able to fully have
their side heard.
Q So it is possible
that the U.S. pilot did something wrong up there?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not saying that,
Terry. I'm saying it's important to allow for a mechanism so
that all sides can have their side heard.
Q Ari, the New York
Times reports from Beijing that the Pentagon has "put off an
announcement that they were going ahead with plans to buy from China
more than half a million black berets for the Army." And my
question is, did the President order this, or did somebody else, and
was he pleased when he found out?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to
DOD on that. I think DOD recognizes this is a sensitive
time, and any timing of the decisions they make is going to reflect --
Q Is the President
happy that they've done this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President
authorized DOD to review the matter and --
Q So he is happy?
MR. FLEISCHER: He is satisfied that
DOD is handling it properly.
Q I'm
delighted. Thank you.
Q Ari, when the
President was in the baseball business, he pulled together an
investment group that wanted to build a stadium for the Texas
Rangers. And the local authority used the power of eminent
domain to get the land to build the stadium.
In today's LA Times, there is a proposal
floated to use eminent domain in California to take electricity
generation plants back into public power, so as to relieve the crisis
in California.
Does the President approve of the use of
eminent domain for public purposes?
MR. FLEISCHER: In the case of what
California is doing, so long as it falls within California law, that's
something the President would say California needs to
decide. The President is not willing to weigh in on states'
business and tell states how to conduct their affairs, so I would refer
you to California authorities.
I thought you were going to ask me about the
pitch the President threw out Friday night in Milwaukee.
Q And you were going to
say?
MR. FLEISCHER: Davey Lopes said it
looked like a strike to him. (Laughter.)
Q Just on the budget, a
macro question. As you know, all around town there are
activists and congressional offices pouring over the budget, finding
cuts that they are convinced are wrong and are made only so that the
tax cut can be afforded, within the framework. What do you
make of that argument, which is that the only reason that there are
cuts being made in certain programs is so that the President can still
say that this tax cut falls within our means?
MR. FLEISCHER: The budget that the
President sent up to the Congress today funds America's vital
priorities, such as Social Security, Medicare, child care, fighting
crime, health care, while paying off a historic amount of debt, and
providing tax relief.
What opponents of this budget want to do is
spend more government money. The only reason they want to
reduce the size of the tax cut is not to pay down more debt, but to
spend more money. And it's a classic --
Q On what? I
mean, what are they going spend it on? You keep saying
that.
MR. FLEISCHER: They want to spend
it on building --
Q How about on child
health and rural health and training doctors and so forth, all these
cuts?
MR. FLEISCHER: The opponents of the
President's budget seek to reduce the size of the tax cut so they can
build the foundation of a permanently bigger government that spends
more money on countless areas of government. It's the classic formula
for how to build a big government. And that's why
they seek to reduce taxes. The President's budget fully
funds and meets our nation's needs, social needs, health care needs,
and it does so in a way that restrains the rate of growth to a
reasonable level.
There's no shortage of people in this town who
will oppose the budget because they want to spend more. And
I predict to you that you're going to see this debate play out just
along those lines, where people will just want more money to spend on
more government programs, which results in a permanently bigger
government. But that's why they want to reduce the tax cut,
so they can spend it.
Q Isn't it possible
that some of those programs are worthwhile?
MR. FLEISCHER: And that's why the
President has funded them. I'll give you some of the
specific examples.
Q Those are the ones
that people want to spend more on?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's
budget addresses those spending initiatives.
Q How about the COPS
program? Here's a program that lots of communities think
works very well that the President has cut. Why?
MR. FLEISCHER: The COPS programs
was a three year commitment made by President Clinton. And
the three year commitment has been honored. It's a classic
example of when Washington says we're going to fund something for one
year, or two years or three years, it's funded forever.
The way spending works in Washington, people
make an initial commitment up front to get the money, to spend it for a
short period of time, and then they want it
forever. Programs never go away in Washington, and that's
one of the reasons the government is so big.
But on that measure, the President's budget
includes $87 million for front line prosecutors, which includes $9
million to fund juvenile gun prosecutors. It's part of the
whole war on crime. There's a $121 million, a 9 percent
increase, in the budget for the Drug Enforcement Agency. There's $75
million in the President's budget to provide child safety locks to
parents in families who want them. The President calls it
project Child Safe.
The police funding also will allow localities
to have more flexibility in their determinations. But when
that program was sold to local enforcement agencies, they were told,
and they agreed, that it would be a three year program. The
three year commitment has been kept.
Q Ari, just one more on
that. Not programs that you think are wasteful, but this was
a campaign promise that you guys made a big deal about at the time,
which was the debt-for-nature-swap-- it was in the speech in
Miami. And he's not asking -- he proposed at the time I
think $100 million. And there is no new funding on
that. I mean, this is a Republican initiative.
MR. FLEISCHER: There is new funding
on the debt for -- on the debt for rain forest program that the
President talked about. In last year's budget, the
government was able to spend $6 million on the debt for rain forest
program. The budget that the President has submitted today
includes $32 million for that program, an increase of more than
fivefold. What took place during the --
Q But that includes the
money from the last two previous years. That's not new funding, it's
$13 million --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's $32 million
is the total spending for the program. But it underscores
the point, they were only able to spend $6 million last
year. There are certain programs that no matter how much
money you give them, they can't spend it all. And this is
one of them. And that's not surprising, that's nothing new in
government, that people get money, it's sitting there, and it's not
going to any good purpose because they simply cannot spend it, because
they don't have the ability, they don't have the need, and just cannot
be spent at the rate in which it's given. This program is an
example of that.
The President's commitment remains just as
firmly intact as ever. He was funding it at a level that we
think they will be able to increase the funding to, a fivefold
increase. And any agency, whether it's a private sector
agency or a government agency, when you give people fivefold increases,
there's always a question of will they have the ability to spend it and
do so in a way that's effective.
We believe a fivefold increase is the right
way to get it done. To increase it any more than that is
going to, again, leave money that goes unspent. And that
always leads to, again, money being plowed back in the following year,
or unwise spending decisions, as bureaucrats rush to spend because they
have it. And that's not the way to do good budgeting.
Q So why did he pledge
$100 million at the time then, if it was a program that didn't need the
funding in the first place? MR.
FLEISCHER: I think as the Office of Management and Budget
reviewed that particular program, they determined that because they
were only able to spend $6 million last year, the $32 million figure
would be a more effective way than the $100 million
figure. So new information came to light.
Q Ari, Senator Harkin
today is accusing Lockheed-Martin of using an accounting trick to gouge
taxpayers out of $100 million. The two top people in the
Department -- President Bush's two top people in the Department of
Transportation, Norman Mineta and Michael Jackson, are from
Lockheed-Martin.
Is the President concerned at all -- and
Lockheed-Martin obviously has a lot of business before the Department
of Transportation. Is the President concerned at all of this
appearance of Lockheed-Martin in control of the Department of
Transportation, number one; and number two, of a tax gouger being in
charge of the Department of Transportation --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all,
Secretary Mineta is a man of great respect, a former member of
Congress, a former Cabinet member, and that's how he's viewed in this
administration. And if there are any irregularities, the
President is confident they will be looked at and fully explored and
will be corrected, if any are found. He has nothing but
faith in Secretary Mineta.
Q The irrepressible
Judicial Watch is now saying it's going to go after Tom DeLay for what
it claims are efforts to sell access to the administration and the
President. Does the White House have any view on the
validity of those claims or whether or not there is any evidence of
what they're claiming?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no
validity to what they are claiming. If they're referring to
the fundraising letter that Congressman DeLay sent out, it looked like
your run-of-the-mill, routine fundraising letter.
Thank you, everybody. And Mitch
Daniels will be here to brief shortly.
END 1:46
P.M. EDT
#30-04/09
|