For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 14, 2001
Vice President Addresses U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
November 14, 2001, Wednesday 12:09 PM
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you, Tom. And
let me thank all the members of the Chamber for the great work you've
done over the years. We especially appreciate the efforts that went
into helping pass the president's tax-cut stimulus package last spring
and summer. That was enormously beneficial, and given the state of
affairs today, it's extremely important that we did that. And I'll come
back and talk about that more in a minute. Let me say just a word at
the outset about the state of affairs in Afghanistan this morning.
Obviously, everybody's been following the developments over there.
There's a high degree of interest, especially over the last few days as
things have changed so dramatically. I am -- at a time like this, when
we see the Taliban in retreat virtually all over the country, when
they've lost their control over a major part of Afghanistan, they've
lost control of most of the cities; their forces -- many of their
forces have been killed, captured or fled to the hills, I guess there
are a couple of lessons in that for folks -- the handwringers who, a
week or two ago, were saying, "It's not going to work. You're not doing
enough. You've been at it now for three or four weeks, and my gosh, the
war's not over yet."
We've got some -- I think superb people working on this problem,
some of the best I've ever seen, and I've been in the business a while.
And I'm thinking in particular about the leadership the president has
provided overall and the way he's made a clear-cut series of very sound
decisions here; thinking about the enormous talent that Don Rumsfeld
brings to the process, as our secretary of Defense. We keep telling Don
-- this is the second time he's been secretary -- he's going to have to
keep doing it till he gets it right! (Laughter.) Dick Myers, our new
chairman of the Joint Chiefs, with a great deal of experience. And, of
course, Tommy Franks, our CINC, the head of CENTCOM. He's got the old
Norm Schwarzkopf job. I worked with a great one in Norm Schwarzkopf,
and we're working with another great one now in Tommy Franks.
So the United States is blessed to have people of that caliber
dealing with this problem, and you can't help but when you read the
Washington press and see what all the pundits have to offer and some of
the talking heads on Washington have to offer, it's nice at a moment
like this to be able to remind them that a lot of what they put out
over the course of the last few weeks was just dead wrong, that we've
got some great people running the operation. And the results are there
for all to see.
That does not, by any means, indicate that this operation is over
yet. We've got a long way to go. Remember, our objectives in
Afghanistan not only were to take down the Taliban, but also to wrap up
the al Qaeda network. And clearly, we're obviously interested also in
the command and control of that network and Osama bin Laden, who runs
it. And we're continuing very, very aggressively to pursue all those
objectives this morning. It's also important to remember that we've
talked about this not just as a problem related to Afghanistan and al
Qaeda and the Taliban, but rather, the problem of terrorism in general
targeted against the United States. The al Qaeda network is a global
network; they've got cells all over the world. And there's no reason
for us to believe at this stage that this operation is about to end. A
far more appropriate way to look at it is this is a very good beginning
to what's likely to be a long struggle.
There's another point that I think is vitally important to make
this morning as well too. And a major new departure, if you will, from
the way we've operated in the past is what is increasingly known as the
Bush Doctrine, and that's the pronouncement the president made early on
that we will hold those who harbor terrorists, those who provide
sanctuary to terrorists, responsible for their acts. If you're going to
provide sanctuary to the likes of Osama bin Laden, you are then going
to accept the responsibility in our eyes for any acts he commits
against the people of the United States of America. And you will face
the full wrath of the people of the United States of America, and I
think -- (applause) -- I think this morning, in the fate that has
befallen the Taliban, there's proof positive. If anybody has any
questions about whether or not we're determined to carry through on
that threat, all they have to do is go visit Afghanistan today and
interview members of the Taliban, if they can find any.
The -- let me move on, if I can, at this point, and talk a bit
about the economy and some of the issues you're addressing here today.
Clearly, from an economic standpoint, we believe the fundamentals of
the economy remain sound. We're the nation's strongest economy -- the
world's strongest economy, and I think the prospects are very bright
long-term. But we clearly are in the midst of a significant economic
slowdown as well. A slowdown that began a year ago or more, that's
carried on through into 2001, and was quite possibly headed for
recessionary levels before September 11th. But since September 11th,
with the impact of the terrorist attacks, clearly the situation has
gotten significantly worse. The slowdown is steeper. There's a lot of
evidence out there to support this -- consumer confidence at its lowest
level in seven years, some 415,000 Americans who lost their jobs in the
month of October. That's the largest monthly loss in two decades. The
third quarter growth of minus-point-four percent. Blue Chip forecast
that in the fourth quarter the GDP, Gross Domestic Product, will shrink
perhaps by 1.9 percent or even more here at the end of the year. And of
course, two quarters back to back equals a recession.
We think it's absolutely essential that we enact another stimulus
program as soon as possible. The president has made this a top
priority. We've worked with Congress on it. We've worked with the
legislative leadership. The president discussed it just yesterday with
the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate in the regular weekly
breakfast. The House has acted. The Senate is getting ready to act, I
believe, considering the measure on the floor today.
We believe that if we're seriously interested in stimulus, though,
that absolutely the best way to go is through tax relief. And there are
some fundamental differences, if you look at the bill that's passed out
of the House and the bill that's been approved by the Senate Finance
Committee.
If we're serious about wanting to restore confidence, to encourage
risk-taking and investment, and to create jobs, then clearly tax relief
is the way to go. It can arrive quickly. Unlike spending programs, we
don't have to create any new bureaucracy to write program guidelines
and pump out funds for new programs. New lower tax rates for
individuals and businesses will show up in paychecks starting January
1. Tax relief is efficient. Spending programs come with strings
attached.
Tax relief gives individuals and businesses the ability to make
economic decisions for themselves. Tax relief is pro-jobs. It gives
businesses the bottom-line incentives to invest in new equipment, to
increase productivity and create jobs. Government spending programs are
unlikely to boost productivity or wages. And tax relief works. We know
it works. President Kennedy cut marginal rates in the '60s, President
Reagan in the '80s. Both tax-cutting episodes led to periods of rapid,
sustained economic growth and prosperity. If government spending caused
economic growth, then Japan would have boomed instead of stagnating in
the 1990s. The economic approach the president's recommended does
several things. We've called for a stimulus package of upwards of $75
billion focused on immediate tax relief, especially on four particular
initiatives. Number one, accelerate all the marginal tax-rate
reductions already approved by the Congress. This will put money
immediately into the hands of consumers and businesses while improving
incentives to work, save and invest. Allowing businesses to partially
expense or deduct the cost of capital purchases is the second
principle. That will also encourage companies to invest in plant and
equipment.
Third is to eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax. The
corporate AMT is a job-killing tax that hits companies at precisely the
wrong time during an economic downturn. Repealing it will improve
corporate cash flow and increase job-creating investment. And finally,
we support the proposition of providing some relief for low- income
taxpayers. This will provide a rebate for those low-income taxpayers
who filed a return last year but did not receive a rebate check in the
earlier cuts this year.
If we look at the Senate spending plan, it's a stimulus plan. It's
primarily a spending plan. It is spending-focused and does little, in
our opinion, to actually help solve the problem or provide the kind of
stimulus that the economy so badly needs.
There have been a number of studies done now comparing the approach
that's been laid out in the president's plan, and is pretty well
embodied in the House bill, with what's been suggested, for example, by
the Senate Finance Committee. The Council of Economic Advisers
estimates the president's approach will help businesses create roughly
300,000 more jobs by the end of next year. Economists from the Center
for Data Analysis, over at the Heritage Foundation, estimate the
president's approach will produce nearly three times as many jobs as
the Senate stimulus plan just in the first year.
And if we look at the period from 2002 to 2006, out over the next
four years, we believe the president's plan would produce 10 times as
many jobs as the Senate plan. That's the work done -- careful
analytical study done by the Heritage Foundation. It also indicates the
president's plan would generate significantly greater gains in
disposable income, in consumption expenditures, and in investment. The
key message for Congress today is that it's absolutely essential to get
on with the business of moving an economic stimulus plan now. We cannot
afford to wait. This is not a matter that can be taken up after
Congress goes home for the holidays and comes back and reconvenes in
January and eventually begins to seriously consider legislation in
February. We need to do it now. It ought to be coupled as well --
(interrupted by applause). It ought to be coupled as well with a good
energy program. We've got a good energy program for the House. Haven't
seen anything yet in the Senate.
And we also need to get trade promotion authority approved once
again for the president. There's no reason in the world why that
shouldn't be an integral part of recovering our economy and expanding
our economic hopes and aspirations.
Now, these are difficult issues and there are legitimate
differences between individuals and groups and parties on how best to
proceed. But we think that the evidence is overwhelming that a stimulus
package needs to have as its central component significant tax relief;
that that is, in fact, the way to get the job done. We look forward to
working with members of both parties in the Congress to get that
package put together, get it to conference and get it resolved as
quickly as possible.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MR. DONAHUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President. As you can
see, there's a large group of supporters here. We agreed on the way in
that you might just take a few questions. Of course the staff is all
jumping up and down, but we'll get a few of them --
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: An unscripted moment scares the hell out of
'em! (Laughter.)
MR. DONAHUE: Yes, unscripted moment. Right.
Bill, why don't we start right here.
Q Bill (McCormick ?). Mr. Vice President, Senator Daschle was here
this morning and it sounded like the people up there were getting
pretty political. And I didn't have the feeling that he had quite the
sense of urgency that you have. Can you give us some assurances you can
get this thing through quickly?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think we can. It's my understanding that,
as of this morning -- things may have changed during the course of the
day -- that they were going to be debating this on the floor of the
Senate this afternoon.
I do think there's a sense of urgency -- I think there are about
400-and-some-thousand Americans who lost their jobs last month -- and
the importance of restoring confidence to the American people in terms
of the economy and that government can, in fact, work.
One of the things that has been, I think, most heartwarming about
the period since September 11th has been the fact that a lot of the
usual partisan bickering has been set aside here in Washington and,
frankly, we'd much rather operate that way than the other way.
And so I -- I guess at this stage, I think the president and I
would say that we hope Senator Daschle is as committed to a stimulus
package as we think needs to be done. And we need to get those bills up
and get them debated, get them to conference and get them down to the
president's desk. And there really is no excuse for not moving as
aggressively as possible and as quickly as possible.
Q Mr. Vice President, I very much appreciate you mentioning energy.
You've provided great leadership on the energy issue over the last
year. And under the Chamber's leadership, we now have a coalition of
more than 1,000 organizations, including labor unions and agriculture
groups and others, that are pushing very, very hard for an energy bill.
And obviously, the papers this morning talked about it, an overwhelming
majority of the American people being for an energy bill. We just --
very much again want to appreciate and thank you for it and hope we can
get it to the finish line here.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, we'll continue to work at it. You
know, we're dependent upon a somewhat fragile, uncertain part of the
world for a big part of our oil imports. And for us not to do
everything we can to shore up our domestic production here at home and
diversify our sources of supply would foolish in the extreme. We are
strategically vulnerable if we don't get on with the business of trying
to improve our domestic production and reduce our reliance on foreign
sources. We'll always be somewhat reliant on foreign sources, but
there's no reason why we should see that percentage of total
consumption continue to climb, as it will, if we don't act.
MR. DONAHUE: Last question, right here.
Q Yes, Mr. Vice President, the president's proposed military
tribunals to deal with terrorists, assuming, I guess, that some of them
would be found alive, what's the difference between the military
tribunals that he's addressing and The Hague? Is this going to be a
different process in terms of dealing with them, as opposed to what we
do today in the Netherlands?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, this is a process that we set in
motion; the president signed the order yesterday. And basically, what
it says is it sets up a procedure whereby he will make the decision in
each case in terms of whether or not a particular suspect, individual
who's come into our custody is transferred, if you will, from the
traditional sort of criminal procedural branch of our government
through the courts over to the special military tribunals.
And the individuals that will be considered for that are, first of
all, not American citizens -- they have to be non-citizens -- secondly,
believed to have engaged in or be participating in terrorist attacks
designed to kill Americans, or have provided sanctuary to those who are
conducting terrorist operations against Americans.
And when that's the case, when we find somebody such as that --
members, say, of the al Qaeda network, or others who may in fact come
under our -- come into our jurisdiction -- then the president will be
free to make that decision and move them over to that side.
Now some people say, "Well, gee, that's a dramatic departure from
traditional jurisprudence in the United States." It is, but there's
precedents for it. This is the way we dealt with the people who
assassinated Abraham Lincoln and tried to assassinate part of the
Cabinet back in 1865. They were tried by military tribunals. In 1942 we
had German saboteurs land on the coast up in Long Island and down in
Florida -- eight of them, I believe, altogether -- came into the United
States to conduct sabotage against us during the course of the war.
President Roosevelt signed an order, established a tribunal, had these
individuals tried. They were given a fair trial, prosecuted under this
military tribunal, and executed in relatively rapid order. And that
procedure was upheld by the Supreme Court when it was challenged later
on. So there's ample precedent for it.
The basic proposition here is that somebody who comes into the
United States of America illegally, who conducts a terrorist operation
killing thousands of innocent Americans, men, women, and children, is
not a lawful combatant. They don't deserve to be treated as a prisoner
of war. They don't deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that
would be used for an American citizen going through the normal judicial
process. This -- they will have a fair trial, but it'll be under the
procedures of a military tribunal and rules and regulations to be
established in connection with that. We think it's the appropriate way
to go. We think it's -- guarantees that we'll have the kind of
treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
|