For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Personnel Announcements
- Patients' Bill
of Rights
- Tort
Reform
- Middle East Peace
Process
- Israeli
Elections
- Energy
- Clintons/Gifts
- Canada/Relations
with North Korea
- Gun
Control
- Defense
Spending
- President Reagan's
Birthday
- Tax
Plan
- Possible Airline
Strike Later this Year
- Bush/McCain
Meeting
- The President's Exercise
Routine
12:08 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have some personnel
announcements I would like to make, and then I'll be pleased to take
your questions.
President
Bush today announced his intention to name Richard Haas as the Director
of Policy Planning for the State Department with the rank of
ambassador. Also, he is announcing at the State Department
today the nomination of Ambassador Marc Grossman for the position of
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Grant S. Green for
the position of Under Secretary of State for Management. And
you will have paper on each of these three nominations shortly.
And with
that, I am all yours.
Q Ari,
can you tell us about last night's meeting between Karl Rove and
Congressman Norwood and what part, if any, that might have played in
Congressman Norwood removing his support or withdrawing his support for
the patients' bill of rights that was rolled out on Capitol Hill
today?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I will allow, of course, Congressman Norwood to
speak for himself on this matter. But as part of our
reaching out to Congress on an issue that is very important,
Congressman Norwood is one of the lead people on Capitol Hill on the
issue of patients' bill of rights. And so our staff has been talking
with him.
They met
with him yesterday to talk to him about the President's proposal on
patients' bill of rights, and I think it's a very positive sign of the
progress we anticipate we're going to make on patients' bill of rights
that a leader of it, Congressman Norwood, is going to be working with
us as well.
Q Did
you ask him to dial back on his support for the bill that's being
rolled out in Congress today and jump on board your train?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We emphasized to the Congressman as well as to
others that the President deserves his chance to put forward a
patients' bill of rights that is going to be strong and bipartisan, and
we expressed to the Congressman our desire to work with him on it; and
he was pleased to work with us on it.
Q So,
in other words, we would appreciate it if you don't get in our way?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think -- it's not a question of getting in
the way. It's early in the President's term, and he is
entitled to make his proposals on patients' bill of rights and to work
with the appropriate leaders who can help get it done.
Q I
have a hard time, though, telling any difference between what was
proposed today and the principles laid out by the
President. Can you give me a couple of examples of where
there's any light between the two proposals? It seems like
something he would embrace right off the bat.
MR.
FLEISCHER: And I think that's an encouraging
sign. I think that we are very hopeful that this year will
finally be the year that we can enact a patients' bill of rights into
law.
Q On
this bill specifically -- does he support it, and if not, what are the
differences between them --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, we're going to wait to see --
Q --
the principles he outlined and what was outlined today?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We're going to wait to see the specifics of the
bill, as they are drawn up, as we would with any legislation on the
Hill, patients' bill of rights or otherwise. So we will take
a look at that. But the President is very concerned about getting a
patients' bill of rights done and enacted into law this year, as there
are a number of people, Republican and Democrat.
Q Then
why not support this one? Why talk about we're doing our own
and try to get lawmakers to stay -- as you say, that we deserve a
chance to work on our own bill. Why not jump on this
one? What about this bill is not right?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm going to wait until we see the details of
this bill, but there are likely to be many things in this bill that we
think are right, and that we are going to be supportive
of. But I will await to see what exact language is in the
bill before commenting further.
Q Ganske
specifically said that the principles that they outlined are the same
as the President's principles. Could you agree with that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, I want to review the exact language of the
bill in question. But let me walk you through some of the
specifics of the President's principles on patients' bill of rights,
the things that he believes in, that he thinks need to be
done. And he will sign a strong patients' bill of rights
that provides patient protections, and he thinks we can do so without
driving up the cost of health care and without making employers drop
health care coverage.
We want to
ensure that patients have meaningful remedies that are coupled with
responsible tort reform. We want to work with members of
Congress to reach a bipartisan compromise on that issue. And
the other provisions we're going to look for to make sure that
consumers, health consumers have the protections they need, such as,
for example, a woman's right to go see her OB/GYN without going through
a gatekeeper first, the right of a patient to go to the emergency room
without first having to dial an 800 number. Those are some
of the classic patient protections that we think could have been signed
into law if the political climate had been different in
Washington. We think this is the year to get it done.
Q Why
wouldn't it be fair though, for people to conclude that since those
principles are so similar, if not identical, to what was articulated
today on the Hill, that all this maneuvering, and Mr. Norwood being
over here has less to do with a patients' bill of rights then with Mr.
McCain and the President and politics?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think it has to do with -- and again, I
would refer you to Congressman Norwood. He can explain his
reasons. But I think it's a healthy sign that members of
Congress are going to be working with the President and others to enact
a patients' bill of rights into law.
Q Can
you elaborate on the tort reform? Because that likely to be
an impediment to Democrats signing on to this bill. It has
in the past.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Actually, the --
Q --
malpractice limits, what kind of --
MR.
FLEISCHER: The proposal in question today has tort reform
attached to it.
Q But
do you mean tort reform separate from the patients' bill of rights?
Q You
have looked at this proposal?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the patients' bill of rights that is being
advanced today has tort reform as part of it.
Q But
when you talk about tort reform, do you mean maybe other types of tort
reform, general limits on medical malpractice suits and so forth?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think we're getting ahead of where the
President is on this. He's going to work with the Congress
to enact a patients' bill of rights that doesn't drive up costs and has
meaningful remedies.
Let me
remind you --
Q You
think this bill would drive up costs?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I said we can have a patients' bill of rights
without driving up costs.
Q The
one that's proposed today, do you think it will drive up
costs? Or, in other words --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'll have to look at the details.
Q Well,
you have. You just told us that -- I'm referring to the
bill.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Some of the details I haven't looked at, at all.
Q Does
it have the kind of tort reform in it that the President thinks is
needed to hold down costs?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We're at the very beginning of the process; the
President is encouraged by the legislation because it addresses an
important issue, which is tort reform. And there will be a
variety of ideas suggested from the Hill on what the best way of
enacting meaningful tort reform is, and we're going to be prepared to
work with a number of people to get it done.
Q You
would work with the people, including the ones who put the bill forward
today? Why won't you work with them?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Absolutely. Absolutely we will.
Q So
why are you asking lawmakers not to go with them, to stay with us?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, I think the President is just in a
position now where we want to begin the process, begin this year
working directly with some of the more influential people who have been
part of the patients' bill of rights in the past, and we'll continue to
do that.
Q There
must be something about -- this is the last question I'll ask -- but
there must be something about these people or the proposal that these
people are supporting that you don't like, or you would have jumped
aboard it. For some reason, you want to put forward your own
legislation.
MR.
FLEISCHER: We will always want to put forward our own
legislation. And in so doing, we're going to look for
legislation that is close to ours, and we're going to work with the
cosponsors.
Q Why
is this one not close to yours?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It well may be. There are several
aspects of it that are very close to the President's principles, and
that's an encouraging sign.
We view
what's happening today on the Hill as very helpful to the process, and
helpful to finally getting a patients' bill of rights enacted into
law.
Q Does
the President have a problem with the $5 million cap proposed in this
bill, and would he like to see that cap far lower than that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think it's too soon to start speculating about
exact numbers of caps.
Q Because
there's certainly the insurance industry has come out and said this cap
is extraordinarily high.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think it's very helpful that this patients'
bill of rights has a cap, and it's too soon to speculate on the
number.
Q Does
he think it's high?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I haven't discussed the number with him.
Q If
it's helpful what happened on the Hill today, why was Norwood asked not
to attend today's event?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, I think the President is looking forward
to working with Congressman Norwood and others on his plan.
Q So,
then, it was not helpful what happened on the Hill today, because you
asked Norwood to stay away from the meeting.
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think it's a good sign that we can make
bipartisan progress and get a patients' bill of rights enacted into
law.
Q So,
Norwood should have gone today?
Q So,
the President wants to propose his own bill in order to have
substantive differences and do more on the issue than what has been
introduced today, or to take credit for it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Listen, patients' bill of rights is an idea that
a lot of people are going to contribute to, from both
parties. There is no one magical answer that any one person
or any group of people are going to come up with.
To get a
patients' bill of rights enacted into law is going to require a
consensus. It's going to require a number of people coming
together. It's also going to require a change in the will in
Washington, so that both parties on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue
agree that this is the year to get it done. And I think
that's what we're going to see this year.
Q What
is the timetable for the White House sending its proposal on patients'
bill of rights to the Hill?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We haven't established an exact
one. We'll keep you informed of what will happen, but it's a
priority for the President, and I think you will see it in the not to
distant future.
Q Does
the President also consider it a priority to cover all Americans who
are enrolled in health maintenance organizations?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q Not
in the way that the Nickles bill did?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President believes all Americans should be
covered.
Q And
that will be part of his proposal?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That will be part of the principles he espouses,
that's correct.
Q How
would it have harmed the President's position if Congress Norwood had
followed through on his plans to co-sponsor this bill?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think congressmen decide everyday whether they
want to co-sponsor bills or not co-sponsor
bills. Congressmen decide every day about whether they want
to allow the President to have time to put up his proposals
first. Those are the routine decisions that get made on the
Hill every day.
Q Ari,
why is this particular issue different? Ordinarily, the
President would invite a handful of people who are involved in an
issue, have them come to the White House, sit down with them, talk
about his principles. In this case, he peels off one member
of Congress and apparently urges him not to participate in a news
conference that was scheduled to talk about the new bill. I
don't understand. You said the idea is to get a
consensus. They seem to already have a consensus.
MR.
FLEISCHER: And Congressman Norwood, as I indicated before,
is one of the more influential people on -- in patients' bill of rights
legislation on the Hill, and we're very pleased that he has indicated
this willingness to allow the President to put forward his plan.
Q Why
not get all of the people involved in this effort up here and talk to
them?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think we've been working with a lot of people.
The patients' bill of rights has come up in some of the meetings the
President's participated in with members of Congress. It's
an issue that he's talked about before, and he's going to talk about it
again. He believes in it.
Q You're
leaving us with the impression that there's something here that you
cannot say. (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: That has never happened at this podium, in this
room, before. (Laughter.)
Q Since
I couldn't get a straight answer in the last two weeks, let me try it
again, to ask the question. I know it's still off the table,
but why isn't it just a rational idea to give any role in the Middle
East peace process to President Clinton by the new administration?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We've addressed that before.
Q Will
that change? Let me ask a follow-up? Will that
change after the election?
MR.
FLEISCHER: If it changes, we'll advise you.
Q Ari,
has there been a similar effort to engage Mr. Dingell in a supportive
effort of the administration on this issue of HMO reform? He and Mr.
Norwood were partners in the previous Congress, have been over the
years. What role do you expect --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think you can anticipate that at the time that
we move forward with patients' bill of rights language, we will be
engaging with members of Congress from all the relevant
committees. Mr. Dingle of course, from the Commerce
Committee, Ways and Means Committee is involved in this, the Finance
Committee is involved in this. There will be a series of
important members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that we're
going to work with, including Mr. Dingell.
Q To
this point, has there been any effort to reach out to Mr. Dingell?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Major, I really don't know the
specifics. I can only tell you that the Congressional
Affairs people work with everybody up there on a very regular basis.
Q Ari,
what with the tax proposal not still being officially unveiled and the
public starting to digest that, would you have preferred that the
people on the Hill have waited on this particular issue, one major
issue at a time?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, it doesn't work that way. Members
of Congress every day make their proposals.
Q The
public's interest can only focus probably so much on some of the
issues.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the public has the ability to focus on
several important issues at one time and taxes and health care are both
important issues.
Q On
energy, Senator Schumer has been calling for more help through LIHEEP
in the Northeast and New York. Do you guys have any plans to
put more emergency funds into LIHEEP to release that faster to help
these folks who are struggling with these high costs?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President did advocate increased funding for
LIHEEP and acceleration of the spending on LIHEEP. The
previous administration did begin the process of increasing the
spend-out of LIHEEP and so we would be prepared to take a look at that
spend-out rate and see if it is being brought to fruition and the
President would support that acceleration of the spending to help
people get through the winter months.
Q And
you're actively pursuing that to try to --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I would refer you to the Department of Energy to
see what that spend-out rate is and where the money stands.
Q Ari,
back on patients' rights, you may not want to get into specifics, but
in general, what is the President's philosophy on limiting lawsuits?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President believes that it is very important
to allow people to have the right to sue their HMO if they did not
receive the care to which they are entitled. He believes
that should be done after independent review of the claims, and that it
is people's right to sue.
He also
believes that it is important to have a patients' bill of rights and
not a lawyers' right to bill. In other words, we want to
have a health care delivery system that protects patients and doesn't
protect lawyers first. So there is a balance that the
President would like to seek. And that balance means
patients should have that right to sue, but lawyers should not have the
right to change our health care system into another system where they
can simply sue to make money outside of what are reasonable needs of
people in the health care community.
Q With
specific monetary limits like those in Texas? Is that what
he has in mind on the federal level?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the bill that we were discussing this
morning had a specific monetary limit on noneconomic?
MR.
MCCLELLAN: Punitive.
MR.
FLEISCHER: On punitive, on punitive damages, so we'll be
prepared to work with the Congress to achieve that goal.
Q Does
he have a view on whether people should be allowed to sue in state or
federal court?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Federal.
Q He
believes they should only be allowed to sue in federal court?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I believe that's the position.
Q So
you get a single bite at the apple, not two, as the bill in Congress
now would provide?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me ask you -- you will see some communication
from the President on this issue shortly, and it will spell it out for
you in some further detail.
Q Shortly,
as in --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think later this week.
Q So
there is no answer, then, on federal or state court, or can I use that
answer?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me advise you to wait for that
letter. What I've indicated to you is what it will likely
be.
Q Ari,
the President has talked about fostering the spirit of bipartisan
cooperation -- Washington in general. Does it advance that
goal to peel off a supporter or longtime supporter, of a particular
piece of legislation and get him to back off at the last minute --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think certainly, if you want to get patients'
bill of rights enacted into law, it's very helpful to have the support
of Congressman Norwood and many other people, and so again, I would
reiterate, we're pleased that Congressman Norwood is going to allow the
President the opportunity to move forward.
Q Doesn't
that somewhat poison the well with the other people, Republican as well
as Democrat, who are still on there?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, you know, I really think this notion of wells
being poisoned, it goes too far. That is not where we are
with patients' bill of rights this year. The President's
mindset, coming from a state where -- Texas has a strong patients' bill
of rights where President Bush played a significant role in getting
that done and enacted into law, is that this is an issue that can, will
and should be done. And that will be the mindset he brings
to his dealings with members of Congress. He's dedicated to
it.
Q Just
to follow on what you were talking about earlier about it should be a
lawyer's right to sue, I assume, based on what the President --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Right to bill, I think I said.
Q --
right to bill, I'm sorry. I assume, based on what you just
said and what the President said on the campaign trail, that he will
require that tort reform be in any patients' bill of rights
legislation?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think you should await to see what the
President says specifically. But the President does think we
need to find balance between allowing people that right to sue, which
he believes in, and making certain that we don't create a a system
where the lawyers are able to take too much advantage of a good
proposal that distorts the health care marketplace.
Q Based
on what the White House knows what was proposed today, and the White
House knows a lot about what was proposed today, is that the balance in
the McCain -- at all, legislation?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I just think it's too soon to say. The
process is beginning, and we're encouraged by the fact that there is a
cap in that bill. That's a productive step.
Q Ari,
who is he sending a letter to specifically -- and he's going to lay out
his plans in this letter, and can you give us a better time frame --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Later in the week.
Q And
who is he sending it to? I mean, who is he sort of directing
it to?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Members of Congress. I'm not certain
of the exact list at this time.
Q On
tort reform, you're not ruling out accepting provisions that might
extend beyond the HMO issue, that may have a more generalized effect on
a lawyer's right to sue?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We'll let the process proceed.
Q Federal
court.
Q So,
but you're not ruling that out, but wouldn't that be perceived by
Democrats as a real poison pill if you start to go to general tort
reform and maybe act in bad faith?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I didn't indicate that.
Q But
why not rule it out?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the process is just beginning.
Q Ari,
on energy policy, can you say anything about the Vice President's
meeting with Senator Murkowski, and are you planning to roll out an
energy policy anytime soon?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I would refer you to the Vice President's
office. I don't have anything for you on that.
Q That's
not part of an energy policy the President is involved in --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I just don't have a read on his meeting with
Senator Murkowski.
Q Is
the President likely to contact the new Israeli leader as soon as the
election results are finalized?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The polls will not close to approximately 3:00
p.m. Eastern Time.
Q Is
he expected to make contact right away, or just --
MR.
FLEISCHER: As events warrant, we'll keep you informed after
3:00 p.m.
Q Ari,
has the President made any other phone calls to foreign leaders since
he called Nigeria yesterday?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't think we have any new information -- no?
We always try to do our best to keep you apprised of the phone calls,
but there's nothing that has been brought to my attention.
Q Ari,
is there any update on the attempt to determine whether the gifts taken
by the Clintons were for the Clintons or the White House?
MR.
FLEISCHER: On the matter of the gifts, I will refer you to
the National Park Service who are the proper spokespeople on that
issue, or the White House Foundation.
Q Ari,
back on patients' bill of rights. Would it be fair to say
that the President is trying to slow down an ongoing effort in order to
get his views included in whatever bill emerges in Congress?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think the President is endeavoring to
create a consensus behind a proposal that he will be making, and he is
encouraged by some of the efforts of other people who have been
involved in this process. And we're going to reach out to
people who have been involved in the issue before and reach out to
Democrats and Republicans to rally support for the President's
proposal.
Q Other
than talking to Congressman Norwood, what have you done so far to try
to create that consensus?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated, in several of the meetings
the President had last week and the previous week with members of
Congress, he has brought up the patients' bill of rights, talked about
the need to get it done and done this year, and we will be moving
forward with it, as I indicated, in the not too distant future, and
you'll have more to eyeball and review for yourself in terms of what
the President's proposals will be.
Q Has
he talked to others about the details and the principles that
apparently give him some difficulty with the current bill?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He's focused on the principles.
Q When
can we expect to see the President's proposal? Will it be in
this letter that he's sending this week?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As I indicated -- no, the letter will be focused
on the principles.
Q So
when can we expect to see it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's already been asked.
Q When?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Sometime in the future.
Q Ari,
is there any reaction to Canada's decision to regularize -- normalize
relations with North Korea, and was the President informed of this by
Prime Minister Chretien yesterday?
MR.
FLEISCHER: On the second part of your question, their
meetings last night were private, and I'll refer you to Mary Ellen on
the first part.
Q The
nation witnessed another workplace violence shooting
yesterday. And when President Clinton was here, he often
used workplace shootings as a means of delivering another message to
Capitol Hill about gun control.
I know the
President doesn't agree with what President Clinton said, but we have
an incident here where someone who had been convicted of a crime gained
access to weapons. Does the President have anything general
to say about this shooting, or anything that informs him or the Justice
Department about how to proceed on the issue of guns and crime?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, that whole issue is one on which the
President, as you know, has spoken out in favor of -- for example, and
this doesn't immediately address the shooting, which unfortunately --
too often with these laws, there are people who are going to break
laws, and we cannot stop that in all cases. But what the
President has proposed is to have safety locks, mandatory sales of
safety locks with hand guns. In Texas, he proposed raising
the age at which a youth could gain access to a handgun from 18 to 21.
Q Is
he going to propose legislation like that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q It's
been holed up for one year in Hatch's committee for safety locks for
children.
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President, during the course of the campaign,
talked about the safety locks should be national policy as well.
Q He
is going to propose a gun control law?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's what he campaigned on, that's what he will
do.
Q What
about accelerating programs such as the program that many are familiar
in Richmond, which used the U.S. Attorneys, who are very vigorous in
enforcing federal gun laws? Perhaps in a case like this, in
Chicago that may have had some effect, perhaps not. The
jurisdictional differences might have interfered. How about
stepping up things such as that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me refer you to -- there were a series of
commitments the President made during the course of the campaign on gun
safety and on gun programs. But the President -- let me also
advise you that the President does believe one of the answers is in
tougher enforcement of the current laws, to make certain that the laws
that are on the books are enforced, which will be a role of the
Attorney General. We believe that especially in school zones
and people who bring guns into schools -- there are federal laws
prohibiting that, and we can step up enforcement of those laws.
Scott, is
there anything else that the President proposed to do?
MR.
McCLELLAN: It also rises to what he's talked about, about
changing our culture and -- responsibility.
Q This
is the birthday of President Reagan. I would love to know
what lessons President Bush learned from him, and I would refer to the
1981 tax cut, which was followed by huge public debt.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the number one lesson that President Bush
learned from President Reagan is the importance of instilling a spirit
in America that this country can accomplish anything it sets out to
do. I think that President Bush was particularly taken by
President Reagan's optimism, and the manner in which he took office in
1981 and addressed America's problems in a direct, forthright
fashion. Certainly his strength -- his policy of peace
through strength, which helped secure democracy around the world, is
something that President Bush has noted and noted well.
We will
have a message from the President sometime later today in honor of
President Reagan's 90th birthday.
Q So
how to avoid to accelerate public debt after a huge tax cut this time?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's an entirely different era.
There are surpluses in this era that were not present in
1981. And the greatest danger to increasing the public debt
is government spending, not tax cuts. And as evidence of
that, just from last July forward, as a result of legislation passed by
the Congress, signed by the previous President, the Congress and the
President agreed to spend some $550 billion in new spending over the
next 10 years, and they agreed to cut taxes by some $37 billion over
the next 10 years. The biggest threat to the surplus is
spending increases.
Q Ari,
how concerned is the administration about the possibility of a major
airline strike later this year by three or four airlines, and what
plans or how involved would the administration get in making sure that
does not happen?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is very concerned about the
possibility that four major airlines may all be struck at approximately
the same time. He thinks, particularly given the softness in
the economy right now, we need to be very careful that that does not
take place. And therefore, he will urge all parties to enter
into agreements so that our nation will not have to suffer through a
major strike at four airlines, particularly in the months leading up to
summer travel, particularly when the economy is weak.
Q Are
you taking any steps to involve the administration?
MR.
FLEISCHER: At this moment, it is premature. The
negotiations are still underway between the various parties and we hope
that they will be successful.
Q Ari,
how generally annoyed are people here with Senator McCain for moving on
two separate tracks from you on two very important issues?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Not an issue. Not an
issue. As you know, Senator McCain and President Bush met
and had a healthy discussion about issues on which they are going to
move together on the agenda. And members of Congress are
free at any time to introduce legislation as they see fit. Democrats
will do it, Republicans will do it. There are obviously
going to be points of disagreement, there are going to be points that
are in agreement. There are many people on Capitol Hill who
are our best friends and allies who support cutting in the capital
gains tax rate. That is not one of the President's
proposals.
There are
other people who have different visions of how to accomplish campaign
finance reform, including Senator McCain. What's important
is that we are going to work with those people and not against those
people, and there are ways to do that and have disagreements and keep
it civil. And that's what we are going to do, whether they
are Republican or Democrat.
Q Well,
the President is the leader of the Party and isn't Senator McCain
undermining his agenda as a new President, undermining his agenda by
moving early on two of these things, obviously earlier than the
President would like him to?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President understands that the job of a
leader of the Party is to lead and to welcome the voices that have
other ideas to share on how that President can best
lead. And that is the context in which he will proceed.
Again, let
me belabor a point I started to raise yesterday. This is
part of old Washington versus new Washington. In the old
Washington, every time somebody had a difference with you, it became
fuel to start a fire. In a new Washington, which President
Bush is going to try his hardest to create, you just put your head down
and you work with people.
Q So
you won't tell any more people not to attend his press conferences in
the future?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I will refer you to Congressman Norwood for his
reaction.
Q Isn't
it a little Machiavellian in the old Washington sense to peel off a
supporter from this bill, apparently simply because Senator McCain is
on it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think, again, we are encouraged by the fact
that Congressman Norwood is going to allow the President to proceed
with his bill. Congressman Norwood, as I indicated before,
is a very constructive, influential person when it comes to a patient
bill of rights, so we're pleased.
Q Have
you promised him anything for that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Promised him that we would work with him on the
legislation.
Q Is
it fair to assume, Ari, that one of the things that Congressman Norwood
learned is if the Kennedy-McCain bill passed, it would be vetoed and
therefore the whole process would have to start over again and he'd
better look for another vehicle?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Was there a promise of that? Is that
what you're asking?
Q That
the Kennedy-McCain HMO bill would be veto bait and the process would
have to start all over, so he better look for another train --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think it is premature for anybody to be talking
about vetoes. Again, as I indicated, there are a lot of
things in the legislation that are positive items that we are going to
work with.
Q But
it's not acceptable and if it were passed, he would probably veto it,
right?
MR.
FLEISCHER: You're getting way ahead of the
story. Nobody has indicated that.
Q The
President asked Senator McCain --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q Did
the President ask Senator McCain not to endorse this bill?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Not to my knowledge.
Q Why
not? Why ask just Representative Norwood not to do it and
not ask Senator McCain?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think they each have different roles.
Congressman Norwood in the past has worked on the patient bill of
rights from his perspective with different members in the House and the
House leadership and with Congressman Thomas, and we had discussions
with Congressman Norwood and he acted as he saw fit.
Q Back
on the airline issue for a second, what preliminary work has the
administration taken to address the situation? I'm thinking
about conversations, perhaps, between the Chief of Staff and Secretary
Mineta?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The White House Staff is monitoring very closely
the situation involving the potential strike at four major
airlines. We are keeping aware and abreast of the
developments in the negotiations. And there are a series of
processes that can take place that have yet to be triggered, may not
need to be triggered if the negotiations are successful. Right now,
the White House is monitoring it and concerned about where it could go
if all four airlines were to strike, or any of the airlines for that
matter.
Q Have
you undertaken any action to make sure that there will be a smooth
trigger through those processes?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Premature. Premature.
On the gun
question, I do have -- let me walk people through the President's
proposals during the campaign on that. We are to establish
Project Century, which is a federal/state partnership to provide
funding for safe school task forces; Project Child Safe, which is a $75
million a year program for five years, matching funds with a goal of
providing free trigger locks for every handgun owner in America,
stronger enforcement of existing gun laws and providing funding for
aggressive law enforcement programs, such as Project Exile.
Support
automatic detention for juveniles who commit crimes with
guns. Support a ban for life on serious juvenile offenders
from ever purchasing or carrying a gun.
Q Has
he got a commitment from Hatch to --
MR.
FLEISCHER: One second. Support increasing the
minimum age for possession of a handgun from 18 to 21, and support an
assault weapon ban for juveniles. Support instant background
checks. And the President would also ban importation of
high-capacity ammunition clips, and close the gun show loophole
Q Is
he aware that Hatch sat on a bill for one year and wouldn't let it come
to a vote on the floor?
MR.
FLEISCHER: President Bush has been in office now for
approximately just over two weeks.
Q He
doesn't have to be in office. He could have known that like
anyone else in America.
MR.
FLEISCHER: This will be another one of our agenda items that
we are going to work with the Congress on.
Q Ari,
on trigger locks, that's voluntary and not mandatory; is that right?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The sale would be mandatory. The use,
you cannot go into people's homes and say, "Where is your trigger
lock? You must put that on." You can only hope
that parents and others will see fit to do so.
Q But
if you bought a handgun, you would have to buy a trigger lock at the
time of purchasing the gun?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That would be provided with the sale of the gun.
Q What
about guns you already own?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's why the President is setting up a program
to provide free trigger locks for those who need them. He
set up that program in Texas. And it would be for all
existing handgun owners. The President would set up a
program to do that nationally.
Q Ari,
on defense issues, if I may? Yesterday again you repeated
the President's intention to spend as much as $45 billion extra to
bolster America's defenses. There are high military sources
at the Pentagon and experts outside the Pentagon who say that's not
nearly enough to do the job to get America's military back where it can
do its proper job. It will take perhaps an additional 1
percent of the GDP and up to $100 billion more a year.
If that is
found to be the case in this study that the President has ordered,
would he support that much of an increase?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That is the purpose of having the Department of
Defense engage in the strategic review, the force structure
review. And I think it would be premature to comment on what
we will do until that review is complete.
Q The
$45 billion is not locked in concrete as an absolute gap or ceiling?
MR.
FLEISCHER: There is a question of the funding that the
President talked about during the campaign over a 10-year
period. That addresses an issue of pay raises for the
military and housing for the military. And there is a
separate question which will be pending, the force structure review,
that Secretary Rumsfeld is carrying out now, that addresses the longer
term strategic needs of the military.
Q Ari,
could I ask one more question on the patients bill of rights?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I can't stop you if I try. (Laughter.)
Q How
would attaching broader provisions to tort reform to a patients bill of
rights go any distance toward crafting a bill that would achieve broad
bipartisan support on Capitol Hill? Not just bipartisan, but
broad bipartisan.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think you have to look at it both
ways. If there isn't, if there is simply a right to bill
without a bill of rights, will that lose support? So, as
always, you endeavor to bring together a majority consensus behind the
President's ideas and that's what he will do.
Q But
why not just limit it to tort provisions for suing HMOs? Why this idea
of attaching broader provisions --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I never said we would go broader. I
haven't discussed that.
Q You
haven't said that, but you indicated --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think you need to wait to see what the
President proposes before we rush into a conclusion on it.
Q This
is a very light question. Since this is the seventeenth,
eighteenth day of the new Administration, I wonder if the President
ever hits the White House gym? It's a very nice gym and we
know that he did his workout every day in Texas, so what's going on?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has a workout facility in his house
and he works out at home.
Q So
he's back to his old exercise routine?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I hate to look at it as old. No, he
works out. Typically at the end of the President's business day, he
will go back to the Residence, go for a run, work out. He
has some exercise equipment over there. He has ordered some
weights. He likes to keep in shape. He runs a
seven-and-a-half minute mile. He hopes to keep being able to
run that.
Q He
used to run outdoors in Texas. Does he plan to do that
here?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He does. He has run once outdoors that
I've noted at least. That was on the track. And
then he will be running at other locations around Washington on a
periodic basis.
Q When
does he begin that? When the weather gets a little nicer?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Probably when the weather gets a little nicer and
whenever he can get out.
Thank you.
END 12:40
P.M. EST
|