For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 26, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Personnel announcements/head-of-state visits
- Florida
election results
- Federalism
initiative
- Medicare
reform/governors' view
- Speech to Joint
Session
- Energy/President's view
on nuclear energy
- Tax
cut/surplus/budget
- Debt reduction
- Vieques
12:29 P.M. EST
MR.
FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I've got several
announcements I would like to make in terms of some visits the
President will be having with some foreign leaders who are coming to
Washington and several personnel items as well.
President
Bush will welcome Chancellor Schroeder to Washington for a working
visit on March 29th. The President will welcome President
Mubarak of Egypt to Washington for a working visit on April the
2nd. The President will welcome King Abdullah of Jordan for
a working visit on April 10th. Also, this week the President
will welcome President Flores of El Salvador on Friday, March 2nd.
In terms of
personnel here at the White House, the President intends to nominate
Hector Baretto to be Administrator of the Small Business
Administration. The President intends to nominate Marvin F.
Sembler -- Mel Sembler -- to be President of the Export/Import Bank of
the United States. And the President intends to nominate
Glenn Hubbard to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisors and,
if confirmed, Mr. Hubbard will serve as Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisors.
Finally, I
can't help but notice, in the pool report this weekend, there was an
indication that the White House Press Secretary threw a snowball at the
press. I would like to assure everybody that there was a
generalized area where the press was standing. If the
snowball landed anywhere near it, it was obviously
unintentional. (Laughter.)
Q It
couldn't have landed anywhere near it because it was thrown by the
Press Secretary. (Laughter.)
Q Oooh.
Q Do
you promise not to snow us in the future? (Laughter.)
Q You
need to start that Roger Clemens workout, Ari.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I did fear I was almost going to hit that First
Sergeant who was in charge of you. I'm trying to get him to
this podium; I like his style.
Q Do
you have any more information on Hubbard, who he is?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes, we have paper coming out on all of this, so
you should have that shortly. He is presently the Russell
Carlson Professor of Economics and Finance at Columbia
University. He served previously as Deputy Assistant
Secretary at the Department of the Treasury from 1991 to
1993. He is a graduate of the University of Central Florida,
received his masters degree and Ph.D. from Harvard University.
Q Some
in the nation feel that George W. Bush was never a legitimate
President, and now there is word from Florida that indeed, he's
legitimate, with 140 votes over Gore. What is the
administration saying about this, his legitimacy now is confirmed?
MR.
FLEISCHER: April, we've never thought it's been in
doubt. I think the overwhelming majority of the American
people have moved on and never thought it was in doubt. And
it doesn't change anything of this White House about what we're
doing. This election's been settled a long time ago.
Q But
there is still a rift. How can you heal
that? We'll these results help to heal this rift, especially
in the minority community, particularly the African American
community?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think regardless of the margin of the election,
which was, as I indicated, settled quite some time ago, the President
is well aware, as we just talked previously, about the difficulties in
some parts of our American community. And he is going to
continue in his efforts to reach out and bring people
together. I think you'll hear a little bit about that in the
speech tomorrow night. And it's going to be an ongoing part
of his administration to continue to build one nation and bring people
together.
Q So
race will be a part of his speech to the joint session --
MR.
FLEISCHER: His remarks tomorrow night will touch on bringing
our American community together, and that we are one nation, just as he
discussed in the inaugural address.
Q Can
you give us any more details on the new federalism initiative that the
President talked about, in general?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We should have copies of that coming around for
everybody once the President signs it. It creates a new
working group that will be a White House working group, together with
members of the Cabinet -- many Cabinet Secretaries being
involved. We will explore on a very detailed level what
steps the federal government can take to streamline regulations to make
it easier on the states to carry out reforms within state programs.
One
example, for instance -- and this now has to be fixed by law, but the
federal education proposals that the President is
making. There are some 60 education programs that the
federal government runs that will be consolidated into five,
streamlining it, more flexibility for the states to carry out the
accountability and reforms in education. That's an example
that requires law.
What the
working group the President announced today will focus on are what
similar consolidations, streamlinings, waivers can be carried out
through executive order. And we are going to work very
closely with governors of both parties on that executive order.
Q This
is the start of a process which at some point in the future will yield
specific streamlining?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Precisely right. That's a fair take.
Q There
is a sense among some governors that Medicare reform is not going to be
accomplished and may not even get through the Congress in the next
couple of years. At the same time, there are many states
that are experiencing a double hit of a decline in tax revenues as
Medicare and Medicaid costs are going up. Inevitably, those
two will crash headlong into each other and create a crisis in those
states. Is the President not concerned that we need to have
Medicare reform, meaningful Medicare reform, within the next couple of
years?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He absolutely is. You put your finger
on it. Medicare is a fast rising -- the costs of Medicare are rising
fast. I know there was a new report out in the last couple
days about the cost of prescription drugs may be increasing more than
previously thought.
All that
indicates the need to have a focus on reforming
Medicare. Medicare is still essentially a 1965 program with
its Part A for hospitals, Part B for doctors, which is a reflection of
how most people received their medical care in 1965. You
either went to the hospital or you went to the
doctor. Today, you have a whole change in health care
delivery. You have skilled nursing facilities, you have home
health care. All of that, frankly, is the fastest-rising portion of
Medicare. You have prescription drugs, which really were not
in widespread use back in 1965.
And the
Medicare program still is a 1965 model, all of which suggests that to
get needed medical services to our seniors and to modernize Medicare,
we have to have a government that is willing to reform the Medicare
program and the President remains committed to it.
Q Any
proposed reforms, Ari? And will he do it this year?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He will.
Q Two
questions. First of all, do you know how long the speech
will last tomorrow night?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Don't have it yet. The President will
do his first TelePrompTer practice a little bit later this afternoon,
and that's when I'll have my first guess at how long it will be.
Q Do
you generally expect it to be as long as a full State of the Union?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me wait to see how long he takes on a
TelePrompTer, and then, of course, we'll have to add frequent applause
to it.
Q Can
I ask you an energy question? You might have to look into
this. Does the President have a particular impression or
reaction on nuclear energy research? This is in light of the
fact that Cornell University, which gets sizeable energy
grants -- federal grants for its reactor, says
it's going to decommission its nuclear reactors. And I just
wondered if you have a program on this?
MR.
FLEISCHER: If I recall, the President's energy program had
one small provision in it that dealt with some streamlining of
procedures for nuclear licensing. I would want to check
that. There was one small area in there dealing with things
nuclear. We've handed out the fact sheet on that previously,
so --
Q It's
still the same?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes, it's the same proposal. Of
course, we still have our working group that is focused on a national
energy policy. So you've got the proposal he discussed
during the campaign, which will be the core of that. And
we'll have to wait and see what they come up with in the working
group.
Q Ari,
could I just come back to Medicare for a second? To
accomplish Medicare reform it's going to take money. The
Democratic National Committee has come out with a poll saying that 77
percent of the American people feel that President Bush's proposed tax
cut is too big. And while you might dismiss that as a partisan poll,
it squares with what a lot of other polls find, that a tax cut is a low
priority for people, that they have other priorities, and that they are
concerned that the size of President Bush's tax cut will squeeze those
other priorities. How concerned is the President about the
lack of popular enthusiasm?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, let me take your question in the order that
you answered it. On Medicare, and that reform takes money, I
don't think anybody in government should begin with the premise that it
takes money. They should focus on what reforms are necessary to
deliver a program that works, and works well. Several of the
proposals up on the Hill, frankly, do not require additional
money. There are additional costs associated with reforms;
there are also savings in the reforms. And so you want to
take a look at the proposal in context, in its entirety. So
that premise I don't think is shared by all.
To go with
the segue -- as for the tax cut, two points. One is, the
President has proposed it and is fighting for it because he thinks it's
the right thing to do, not what the polls say. But I differ
with your interpretation of the polls. The tax question in
the polls is one of the most easily asked questions to get whatever
result you want. And if you ask in a poll what should be the
top priority, tax cuts, Social Security, Medicare, it's a false choice,
because it suggests there's only one priority in the use of the
surplus.
And as we
know, the surplus can be used for multiple priorities. And all you
have to do is ask the question, of the following priorities, how would
you divide the surplus? And what you'll see is, frankly, the
American people will divide the surplus very much like the President
has, with the biggest share of it going to debt reduction, with $2.6
trillion saved for Social Security, with only about a quarter of it
used for tax relief. So all you have to do is ask the
question in a more accurate way, and you'll find that the American
people are very supportive of what President Bush has proposed.
Q So
the answer is --
MR.
FLEISCHER: If you say to people, you only have one choice
for the surplus, you're giving people a false choice. And
many of those questions ask it basically in that
manner. They say, of the following, what would be your top
use? And you get that top use, and it in effect ignores that
there are other valid uses.
Q There
is, however, a limited amount of dollars in that
surplus. Listen, the President's message is that we can have
it all. We can have the debt reduction, we can have his big
tax cut, we can have education, defense and other
increases. We're in that kind of time frame in our history
where we can have it all.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, frankly, we are a fortunate nation that we
can wrestle with the reality of budget surpluses for as far as the eye
can see. That is what the estimates tell us. We
have money in the bank. There is an operating budget surplus, set
aside all of Social Security's money.
The federal
government today enjoys a very large surplus, money in the bank, money
that will likely be spent on more government programs. And I remind
you that the surplus would be some $600 billion over the next 10 years,
had it not been spent by both parties in the Congress and by the
previous administration last year.
So with a
$5.6 trillion surplus, we do have room for a lot of
options. And the President's options are -- his
recommendations to the Congress are, pay down the debt an historic
amount, save Social Security, set aside all the money for Social
Security for debt reduction and Social Security, and fund the necessary
priorities, including an 11 percent increase in the education budget,
fund defense, fund our priorities. And the money that's left
over, absolutely return to the taxpayers, because they deserve it.
Q Two
questions about this new federalism thing. First of all, can
you give us a specific example, not of a law that you would have to
change, but of a set of rules and regulations that's too nettlesome for
states to deal with now?
Number two,
at the stakeout, Governor Engler said he was under the impression that
this new federalism approach could help states deal with the energy
crisis that may visit their states later on this summer and maybe deal
with the access, from changing the regulations to allow them to
accommodate more energy use in their states. Do you agree
with that assessment?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the proof is in the pudding on that one
in terms of the letter that Governor Davis sent to President Clinton
asking the President to expedite permitting, which is under the
discretion of the President, to help solve California's energy
problems. So there you have a case on energy in the state
that is most affected by energy where a state asked the federal
government to take unilateral action to loosen regulatory procedures,
to expedite permitting, which has now helped keep California's energy
on line. So that is one crystal clear example.
Another
example, I think, where you have seen a recent road block to reform,
frankly, was in the state of Texas when the state of Texas asked the
federal government to change some provisions of the welfare law, where
Texas wanted to have some aspects of welfare delivery privatized, allow
private sector competition for the delivery of services. And
the previous administration denied the waiver. The state of
Texas, on a bipartisan basis, thought that it would be a savings to the
taxpayers and a more efficient delivery of care and help for those in
need. The government said, no. That's an
example.
Q Ari,
can you talk a little bit about the preparation that has gone into the
speech? When did the President get a draft? How
much time has he spent on it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He spent a healthy part of the weekend, right
after Prime Minister Blair left. Karen Hughes went up to
Camp David, and the President worked through the speech extensively
throughout the weekend. He had been working on it throughout last
week. His first TelePrompTer reading with the speech,
formally, with the screens, will be today. He's been working
through, reading through the various drafts of it though for the past
several days.
Q Ari,
on the tax issue, on the tax code specifically, the tax code has 44,000
pages. Nobody understands it or can see through, and it's
packed with special interests. I wonder if the President
will clear up the tax code also, besides a tax cut?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, there are a couple provisions in the
President's proposal that do represent major simplification of the
code. And one is lowering the rates and limiting the number of
brackets, reducing them from five to four. If you recall, in
1986, in the tax reform act, they eliminated a lot of loopholes and
deductions, and in its place, created two new brackets, a 15 percent
and a 28 percent. And then the 1990 budget agreement and
then again in 1993, new rates started to spring out. And so we have a
system now, we have five tax brackets. The President's
proposal reduces that closer to the 1986 tax reform level.
The other
big area of simplification, which is major, is repeal of the death
tax. The estate tax, the death tax, is one of the largest
loop holes in the code, that invites CPAs and lawyers to figure out
ends around, which complicate the tax code. If there is
anybody who has a lot to lose in the President's budget proposal, it's
tax lawyers and accountants. If you repeal the death tax, a
lot of them are going to lose their ability to carry out their
livelihood, which is to help people avoid paying taxes.
Q If
you're not afraid of going against special interests, including those
that supported him like big tobacco, big pharmaceuticals --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I certainly think a lot of CPAs and tax
lawyers support President Bush. If you repeal the death tax,
a lot of them are going to find their livelihood redirected.
Q Senator
Murkowski, I understand, introduced or announced a package of
energy-related legislation today. I think it includes some
of the ANWR stuff. Do you have a view for that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that that's a very good
start. And we look forward to working with Senator Murkowski
and others on his energy proposals. I know Senator
Murkowski's proposal, like President Bush's approach, would open up a
small sliver of ANWR for development of oil in Alaska. And
the amount of oil that would come into the United States as a result of
opening ANWR represents 20 years of imports from Saudi
Arabia. We can replace 20 years worth of Saudi Arabian
imports here at home, if ANWR is opened. And that's in
Senator Murkowski's legislation.
Q On
taxes, does the President's proposal shift any of the income tax burden
across quintiles?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It does, because it takes 6 million Americans off
the tax rolls. Six million low-income Americans will no
longer pay income taxes. So as a matter of who shares the
burden, shoulders the burden of the tax code, any time you take 6
million people off, the people who are left shoulder the
burden. And that means as a percentage of taxes paid,
upper-income Americans, while still receiving a tax cut, will actually
pay a higher percentage of all the taxes paid.
Q --
what the numbers are on proportions?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Don't know off the top of my head.
Q Is
he going to be specific at all tomorrow night in terms of cuts, or is
he just going to talk broadly about the need for some spending cuts?
MR.
FLEISCHER: There will be a lot of specifics on the speech
tomorrow. And I just urge you to tune in.
Q He
will address specific programs that are going to be cut, or specific
cuts of different agencies, or --
MR.
FLEISCHER: He'll address a lot of specific areas in the
speech tomorrow. And let me stop right there with that.
Q Ari,
on Medicare, if I could.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let's get some new people, and then we'll get to
you. You don't get four before somebody else has one.
Q I've
had one.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Mimi?
Q On
the polls you were talking about, answering Terry's question, polls
that show that the public wants to split up the pie the same way the
new President does, are those internal White House polls, or other
polls --
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, it's just polls I remember seeing over the
years. Typically the way the question is asked in the polls
is, what would be your top choice for reducing -- the use of the
surplus, as if there's only one choice with surplus money.
Q I
understand, I just want to know which polls --
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, it's just public polls that I've seen
before. Typically the way the question is asked, if the surplus was
$100, and you had the following problems to divide it up, debt relief,
Social Security, Medicare, tax cuts, how would you divide
it? And you find people on their own suggest dividing it in
a way not too dissimilar from the way President Bush has.
Q Are
we going to get an advanced text?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Of the speech? Yes, at some point
tomorrow. I can't guarantee how --
Q During
the day, or --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Ask me tomorrow.
Q Ari,
beyond the race relations themes that you alluded to earlier, will the
speech in any way reflect or acknowledge the nature of the outcome of
the election?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No.
Q Why
not?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because I think the American people have moved
on. The American people have recognized that in President
Bush, our nation has a leader who is focused on the substantive agenda
of our nation, improving education, cutting taxes, rebuilding the
military. And I think the American people are pleased to
have a President focus on the future.
Q Will
he talk about electoral reform at all, which is a reference to the --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Stay tuned for the speech. I don't
want to process of eliminate or get into everything he is going to
say. He will have things to say for himself.
Q Ari,
on the length of the address, as a matter of principle, is it going to
be shorter than President Clinton's were, which tended to get longer
and longer as the presidency went on?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, his speeches are the length they are because
it's what he has to say. It has nothing to do with whether
something is shorter or longer than any of his predecessors.
Q Will
he talk about Social Security at all, or perhaps propose --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that's likely.
Q What
about the commission proposal? Will that come up?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Stay tuned for the President.
Q When
will the President send his Medicare reform proposals up to Capitol
Hill, and will they be modeled on the governors' program, which
devolves to the states a lot of discretion in spending and in the
actual structure of the program?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Nothing -- that's Medicaid, I think you're asking
about. Medicare is not a state
program. Medicaid. You asked about Medicare, if
he would send Medicare up.
Q Medicare-Medicaid
reform.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Okay. There is nothing announceable at
this moment.
Q But
what about the idea of devolving to the states more discretion with the
Medicaid part of the program?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's one of the reasons he announced his new
federalism initiative today. That process is just beginning
to take a look with the governors and other local officials,
too. And that also is going to help mayors, help other local
officials in terms of any of the rules or regulations. There
is a movement by a lot of governors to look at waivers under
Medicaid. Secretary Thompson has talked about that and that
is one area that this group will look at strongly.
Q Does
the President like their plan?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Their plan is general. The plan is
supporting waivers. That's why we're at the beginning of the
process.
Q On
taxes, I don't know if you mentioned the insurance lobby, but they are,
of course, lobbying very strongly against the inheritance tax
reduction. Have you seen them having much influence with
this administration or with the Congress so far?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It gets to Peter's question. There are
a lot of powerful special interests who are lining up now to protect
attacks that, frankly, because of all the loopholes and end-arounds,
creates a lot of work. And the President is going to
continue to fight for its repeal. He thinks it's a wrong
tax. He thinks it's wrong to tax people after they've worked
their whole lives, to make them pay taxes again when they die.
He is aware
of this effort launched by several millionaires and billionaires to
keep the estate tax in place. He disagrees. And
certainly, if the estate tax is repealed, as the President will
continue to fight for, any individual American has the right to
continue to send in extra money if they so choose.
Q On
estate taxes, is there any room for compromise in terms of the idea of
repealing it, but taxing the capital gains --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the President deserves to have his day in
court and that's what he intends to do. He is going to
present his case tomorrow night. He is going to present it
in the budget on Wednesday and he is going to continue to fight for
it.
He believes
that there should be no death tax. He thinks it is wrong; he
thinks it is not good policy to make people visit the IRS and the
undertaker on the same day. And he is going to fight to
repeal that tax.
Q --
tax on the same day, just when it's sold.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Actually, the stepped-up basis on capital gains
takes place on the day you die. So there's a lot of that.
Q But,
Ari, do you honestly think it's okay for Bill Gates and the like to
transfer -- and there aren't going to be loopholes -- to transfer all
of his wealth to his kids? There's so much money there.
MR.
FLEISCHER: We think it's wrong for the government to take
people's money simply because they die, no matter who they are.
Q I
want to get to the spending side of the budget. A number of
Republicans have started speaking gingerly about their concern over
cuts. And I want to sort of broaden the question a little
bit. Those of us who were here during the deficit years saw
how difficult it was for Congress to make cuts even when we were in
deficit. Now we're in a completely different
environment. And I'm wondering what -- how is the President
going to get even these Republican members to go along with cuts in a
surplus environment?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Like other items in his budget, because he
believes in it, he will fight for it and the process again is just
beginning. I think there are a lot of people who do support
cutting programs and making sure we get waste out of the
government. Certainly, in a budget with $1.9 trillion being
spent, something can go. Something is
duplicative. Something has filled its useful purpose and has
already been done, carried out and now it simply lingers.
But there
are many proposals, many areas in the federal budget, that have
powerful constituency is behind them, from both
parties. Often, they are regional as opposed to
political. And it is not an easy task, but it is the right
task and that is why he is committed to it.
In this
area, I submit to you, he will be joined by a lot of
allies. It's something that Senator McCain talked about very
often on the campaign trail. And in the last Congress, they
went on a bipartisan spending spree. Spending went up 8
percent last year alone on domestic discretionary programs, more than
6,000 earmarks, which are special provisions that are directed to be
put into individual members districts.
Is it easy
to get them out? No. Is it the right thing to get
them out? Yes. And that's why the President will
commit himself to doing it. But we're aware there's going to
be bipartisan thoughts on that effort.
Q One
of the reasons for that is that there is a kind of truism when you're
running for office that you aren't serious on an issue unless you're
spending money on it. Is that one of the things you're
fighting if you're going to be suggesting cuts in things like energy
efficiency, renewable energy, that kind of thing?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think there's an equal truism that you're not
serious about limiting the size and power of the federal government if
you're not willing to take on sacred cows.
Q Ari,
in terms of -- on the other side of that coin, on budget increases,
there's been reports that the NIH will be slated for an increase of
some significance. Can you give any details on
that? Will that be the only increase on a discretionary
domestic program?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President announced last week that he would
increase the budget for the National Institutes of Health by believe
it's $2.8 billion from this fiscal year to the next fiscal year.
Q Has
he given any specifics, though, on where that will go?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, it goes to the NIH, broadly.
Q Within
NIH?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Within NIH they have discretion, per regulatory
authority and overview from HHS, on where it will go. That's
part of the normal budgeting process within the agencies.
Q As
the President approaches the issue of debt reduction, can you walk us
through some of the specific numbers as the administration sees it, on
this question of redeemable debt and debt that can and should be paid
down and what timeline that the administration is looking at, what debt
is sort of non-paid off, and doesn't get us to zero, but is
nevertheless important?
MR.
FLEISCHER: This gets us into Terry's question about is the
surplus at such a size that our nation is in a fortunate position where
we can have several options served and served well. And we
are. The way debt works is you have certain debt obligations
that are long-term, some that are short-term, some that are foreign
nations, some that are U.S. savings bonds that many of our
grandparents, for example, held or still hold, and many of us perhaps
hold.
The thrift
savings plan, which is a program for federal workers that they can
invest in their retirements, much like a lot of pension programs, where
you can invest in markets. It's a tremendously popular
program. And there are an awful lot of people who have their
money, for their retirement savings, invested in government
bonds. It would not be in the interest of either those soon
to be retirees or in the government to retire those
bonds. It would be a reneging on the commitment made to
those
workers that they could invest in these bonds and therefore have a
secure retirement. That's an example of debt that it would
not be prudent to pay off.
Very often,
too, there is a premium or a penalty paid for early pay-down of
debt. The example I would give you on that, to put it in
somewhat -- there are some mortgages, for example, that if you pay them
off too soon, you pay a penalty, you pay a premium. And so
there is a lot of debt, though, that can be paid off and paid off
fast. And that's what this budget will do. This
budget will pay off the debt that can and should be paid off at an
historic rate.
Q According
to CBO right now, it's about $3.1 billion that is publicly held
debt. Of that $3.1 billion, what does the administration
consider in bounds and readily available for payout over a distant
period of time?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That will be in the budget submission on
Wednesday, but it is a very large share of that.
Q A
very large share?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes. In other words, after this budget
is submitted, the share of federal debt will be at its lowest level in
about a century. And the only debt -- I've got a Cabinet
meeting I need to get to in a couple minutes -- the only debt that
remains would be debt that it is not in the interest of the country or
the taxpayers or the bondholders to have paid off. It's a
remarkable time in our nation's history that we can be at this point.
Q So
what you're saying is it will create more budgetary flexibility than
might be originally viewed, if you thought the goal was getting down to
debt zero?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Okay, can
we take two more and then I need to get to this meeting?
Q Can
you tell us what's the President's position regarding the Puerto Rican
island, Vieques, and whether or not he had the opportunity to talk to
--
MR.
FLEISCHER: There is nothing new on that point. I
don't know if he has had any conversations directly with her since the
meetings. And let me ask you to refer to Mary Ellen to see
if there is an update on that. But I know he has been talking with the
Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense. And if
there is anything further, I think Mary Ellen can get it for you.
Thank you.
END
12:58 P.M. EST
|