For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 28, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Personnel announcements
- Environment/balancing interests
- Tax cut/Democrats' proposal
- Campaign finance reform
- Kyoto treaty/President's position
- Suit against chemical executives
- Marijuana/medicinal use
- Chancellor Schroeder visit/meeting agenda
- Middle East/new violence
- Cloning of human beings
- Visit of His Majesty King Juan Carlos of Spain
- Capital of Israel/President's position
- Joint Committee on Taxation/death tax repeal
- Next news conference
- Aid to Yugoslavia/War Crimes Tribunal
12:10 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have two personnel
announcements that I'll be making. Then we have a third
personnel announcement -- we will have a special guest star to make
that announcement.
My two
announcements -- the President intends to nominate John E. Robson to
be President of the Export-Import Bank. And the President
intends to nominate Anna Maria Farias to be Assistant Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
I'd like to
introduce Scott McClellan to make the third announcement.
MR.
MCCLELLAN: The President intends to nominate Mark B.
McClellan to be a member of the Council of Economic
Advisors. He is currently an Associate Professor in the
Department of Economics and the Department of Medicine at Stanford
University. McClellan is an attending physician at the
Stanford University Health Services and the director of the program on
health outcomes research at Stanford Medical School. He
served at the Treasury Department from 1998 to 1999 as Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Economic Policy.
Originally
from Austin, Texas, he is a graduate of the University of Texas at
Austin; received his Masters of Public Administration from Harvard
University; received his MD from the Harvard-MIT Division of Health,
Science and Technology; and earned his PhD in Economics from MIT. And
he is also the father of my two and a half year old nieces, Ellie and
Alex. (Laughter.)
Q Does
he ever fight with you? (Laughter.)
MR.
MCCLELLAN: We can talk about that
later. (Laughter.)
Q Is
this nepotism? (Laughter.)
MR.
MCCLELLAN: Bipartisanship. (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: Brotherhood.
Q During
the campaign, when he introduced Christine Todd Whitman to America as
his nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency, the President
promised to balance the competing interests of commerce and the
environment. And yet we have seen a string of what
environmentalists perceive as setbacks to their agenda. I'm
wondering what the administration believes it is, in fact, balancing
here, when environmentalists see no balance at all and he keeps lining
up with industry on the questions of polluting.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me remind you that the President has also
taken actions on diesel fuel trucks which were hailed by the
environmental community. The President's position on
national monuments which were designated by the previous
administration, leaving those national monument designations in place,
has also been hailed by the environmental community. And the President
is finding balance in his environmental policies and he is doing
exactly what he said he would do as a candidate. And the
President has gone beyond the proposals made by either President
Clinton or Vice President Gore in calling for mandatory reductions of
three pollutants under the Clean Air Act, so that we can reduce
pollutants in the air. And those are sulphur dioxide,
mercury, and the third nitrogen oxide, all of which goes beyond the
pronouncements made by the previous administration.
Q Ari,
with respect, there are some people who don't quite see it that way,
and they were out there this morning, talking about some of the
rollbacks in arsenic, his reversal on carbon dioxide. And I
know your explanation on that, so I'm not asking for that
again. But they said that the President came to town saying
that he would change the climate in Washington; we didn't know that it
was the actual climate that he was talking
about. (Laughter.) And I'm wondering if the White
House is concerned that they're giving the Democrats a very big stick
with which to whack the President with between now and a year
November.
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, and I think you remember during the course of
the campaign there was also some hyperbole on the side of those who
oppose the President. And I think what you've heard this
morning is a continuation of that partisan hyperbole. It
happens in Washington.
But, no,
the President is going to continue to pursue a balanced policy when it
comes to the environment. That's what he's said he would do;
he intends to do it. On the arsenic question that you raise,
of course, let me remind you that Administrator Whitman said at the
time of the announcement that she will be moving forward to lower the
amount of arsenic in the water. It's a question of what is
the proper level to which it should be lowered, from the 50 parts per
measurement in place today, to a lower level. And there's
also regional concerns that she had, so we don't have a
one-size-fits-all national level, when there are certain regions of the
country, such as Arizona and other places in the Southwest where there
are higher, naturally-recurring levels of arsenic in the water that
should be reduced, but if you reduce them to too great a point, you're
going to force people to lose the municipal source of
water. It's a real problem in the Southwest.
So she will
be moving forward on a new standard to have reasonable levels that are
based on science and on some flexibility for states or for regions
where the level that was pronounced by the previous administration
would have done real harm to people's ability to get drinking water.
Q So
you're saying that the proclamations that we saw on the Hill today are
just nothing but more of that partisan hyperbole that we saw during the
campaign?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I've already addressed the question.
Q The
Democrats never said that they would replace, substitute the tax cut
with a rebate. They say they support the idea of a tax cut,
just the size, the proportions, the figure and such issues are
debated. So why does the President think that the rest of
the tax plan would just die if he would not push through quickly the
whole thing through Congress?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, as the President just told a group of
congressional leaders who he met with in the Cabinet Room, he views
what Senator Daschle proposed as healthy. He thinks it's
just one more sign of how the conversation in Washington every day
seems to come closer and closer to what President Bush proposed.
Now you
have Senator Daschle not only supporting the President's call for
retroactivity, but for reducing the 15 percent rate down to 10 percent
rate, all of which the President proposed. So the President
welcomes Senator Daschle's statements. But the President is
going to continue, as he said yesterday, to call for a permanent tax
relief package, because the President will oppose anything that leaves
too much money in the hands of the politicians to spend.
Q Why
wouldn't he just cut the whole package into two parts? So the first,
the urgent part, would be on his desk by April, as the Democrats say,
and the rest of the tax plan could be worked out expeditiously, but in
negotiations, further negotiations --
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President believes it's urgent to provide
permanent tax relief, not one-time-only tax relief. And the
President would not support anything that would keep taxes high or
leave too much money in the hands of politicians because he fears
they'll spend it later.
Q On
campaign finance reform, will the President sign McCain-Feingold, as it
now stands? Or, in light of the fact that his support for
the Hagel amendment failed, will he push for another kind of compromise
in the Senate?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, obviously, the bill before the Senate is a
moving target. It is changing. Obviously, there
was an important vote this morning on a tabling amendment dealing with
increasing the hard money contributions allowable. And so
the McCain-Feingold, as it was originally written, is evolving and will
continue to evolve. And the President is pleased to monitor
it. He's
going to work with Senator McCain, he's going to work with Senator
Hagel, he's going to work with other senators, because he believes that
we need to reform the current system and he wants to sign a bill and
sign one this year. And that's the message he's sending loud
and clear to members of Congress in both parties, that the President
cannot be counted on to veto it, because he thinks we need to reform
the campaign finance laws.
Q Let's
see if we can get you to be a little bit more
specific. Hagel was specific. And the White
House, to the extent that it wanted to get into this fight, backed that
and its set of principles. That was the major fight -- you
know it, the President knows it. That amendment
failed. So the guts of McCain-Feingold as they're moving
forward are intact and appear stronger now than they were
before. So can't you be a little bit more specific about
what the President is prepared to sign today, now?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, again, I can tell you what the President
has said, and that is, he is sending a message to people in both
parties that they should not count on him to veto campaign finance
reform because --
Q What
does that mean?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It means exactly what he said.
Q No,
but it doesn't, you're not giving clarity. What is he
for? I don't want to know what he's against. I
don't want to know what he's not going to veto. What will he
do?
Q What
will he sign?
MR.
FLEISCHER: You saw his principles, and you talked about
Senator Hagel's proposal. Let me remind you that the
President's principles included a ban on corporate soft money, a ban on
union soft money. The Hagel position, of course, would have
limited it to $60,000, those categories.
So you say
Hagel represented the President's position, I want to remind you the
President has called for a ban, as McCain-Feingold does, of corporate
and union soft money. The President differs with
McCain-Feingold on allowing individuals to be able to contribute.
But it's
the beginning of the process still; campaign finance reform is still
moving through the Senate; the original McCain-Feingold is being
changed, as we speak, by the votes of the Senate by
majorities. The House has yet to speak on the
matter. And the President has sent the signal that he wants
to send, that he cannot be counted on to veto it because he wants to
reform the system. It's too early yet to say precisely what
he will sign, but he's sending very clear signals about he does not
believe we need to veto campaign finance reform because he wants to
reform the system.
Q Will
the President sign anything that does not include the non-severability
clause?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not going to go down any specifics on
Sherman-esque statements like that, because that's not the President's
approach. As you see, the President put forth several
principles and the non-severability is one of them. He
believes that's important because if you take a look at --
Q How
important does he believe it is?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, it's one of several principles that the
President has promulgated. But he's indicating flexibility
because he wants to get the job done. What people on the
Hill need to hear from this President is this year, campaign finance
reform involves real bullets. It very well may
happen. And he wants to be able to sign campaign finance
reform. In the past, people had free votes, they knew that
they could posture on campaign finance reform because it didn't
matter. Those days are over. The President is
looking for action.
Q Real
bullets, but a lot of people say non-severability is the time bomb that
will eventually kill this, if not now, down the road, and if the courts
kill it, everybody gets a bye because the voted for campaign finance
reform and said those bad guys in the courts, they killed the bill, not
us. MR.
FLEISCHER: From the President's point of view, that's an
interesting reflection, because, of course, what's brought us the
current state of campaign finances in America was severability, was the
fact that the Supreme Court struck down in the Buckley v. Valeo
decision, parts of campaign finance reform. So the current system,
which everybody says is terrible and has to be reformed, is because you
have a half-system in place. It was not the complete
reform. And one of the reasons was because the Supreme
Court, back in the '70s, struck down a portion of it, leaving
unintended consequences on the table. And now, people are
trying to clean up what's been left on the table as a result of
severability.
Q Ari,
is he relying on Republicans in the Senate or the House to kill
campaign finance so that he doesn't have the dirty his hands by vetoing
it? MR.
FLEISCHER: No. The President's made it perfectly
clear that he wants to be able to sign a good campaign finance reform
proposal this year.
Q And
does he think Tom DeLay is an obstructionist, given his vow to kill it
in the House?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is committed to reform, and he has
walked through on the principles of abolishing corporate -- he and Tom
DeLay have differences over this, and the two of them have talked about
it directly. The President wants to abolish corporate soft
money. The President wants to abolish union soft
money. Those are the President's positions.
Q Did
you ever straighten out all the muddled answers on Kyoto?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Ask a question, and I'll try to give you an
answer.
Q The
question is, where do we stand on Kyoto? Have we pulled
out? What is -- is there movement now to pull out and so
forth?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was
not ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0
against ratification of it. Also on that measure, whether
it's enforced or not -- as you know, under the Kyoto agreement, 55
nations need to submit it, enforce it to their various
governments. Only one nation in the world has done
so. There are 54 more to go. So the treaty cannot
even possibly even be in effect. So there's nothing to
withdraw from because there is no treaty in effect.
The
President has been unequivocal. He does not support the
Kyoto treaty. It exempts the developing nations around the
world, and it is not in the United States' economic best
interest. The President has directed his Cabinet Secretaries
to begin a review so we can, as a nation, address a serious problem,
which is global warming. That Cabinet-level review is
underway, and the President looks forward to receiving the results.
Q Does
he think it never should have been signed?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I've not asked him that question. It
was signed prior to him becoming President, so it's a moot question.
Q Has
he read the treaty?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody in government who reads
every page of every treaty except for a very, very few
people. But the President is well aware, of course, of
what's in the treaty.
Q Is
it his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from Kyoto?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's what Helen just asked, and I said there's
nothing to withdraw from. The treaty is not in
effect. But he opposes the treaty. He's made that
plain.
Q But
we have made a commitment. I mean, you said there's nothing
to withdraw from. You make a certain commitment when you
sign a treaty.
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the commitment on the treaty is dependent on
ratification. As you know, the Senate voted 95-0 against
ratifying it. It also is dependent on actions taken by the
international community. When only one out of 55 nations
required to put the treaty into effect has acted, it's a signal
worldwide that others agree with the
President's position on the treaty.
Q Ari,
in the closing days of the Clinton administration there was an effort
to negotiate an understanding with European nations about some of the
Kyoto protocols dealing with emissions, and those failed. It
was a frustrating failure for the Clinton
administration. Did this administration look upon that and
say, well, if those negotiations, if Clinton failed, there's no way
that we can make any progress; therefore, you're much more pessimistic
about working anything out with Kyoto?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't know about that time frame,
Major. I know this has been the President's consistent
position from the campaign forward. And the concern is that
most of the world was exempt from the treaty and the treaty as it
currently is written is not in the economic interests of the United
States, as well.
Q Why
not?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because of the huge costs involved that are
disproportionate to the benefits, particularly when most of the world
is exempt.
Q Well,
would he favor making the rest of the world subject to the treaty or --
MR.
FLEISCHER: You need to await the results of the
Cabinet-level review that the President has directed.
Q Did
you see the Bill Moyers special on the chemical industry Monday night?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I did not.
Q It
was a two-hour special --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I was in Billings, Montana.
Q --
that makes allegations that the chemical industry over the past 20
years knew it was exposing workers to hazardous chemicals, and as a
result these workers died. He actually interviewed some of
the workers before they died, and their spouses
afterwards. There's a criminal prosecution in Italy, a
consumer case, where there are manslaughter charges brought against 31
chemical executives for exposing workers to these same
chemicals. Would the President support a manslaughter
prosecution against chemical executives in this country for that kind
of behavior that was exposed on Monday night?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's not a topic I've discussed with the
President and I won't comment on shows I haven't watched, so I can't
tell you.
Q On
Kyoto, Ari, was there any discussion, and what did the White House
believe the wisdom was of approaching this by saying, we're going to
throw this whole treaty out, we're going to start from scratch, as
opposed to going in and discussing with our allies ways of changing the
treaty to meet the President's concerns?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think you should withhold until you are
filled in on what the Cabinet-level review will show. The
Cabinet-level review is going to be broad, it's going to look at what
the President views as a serious problem, which is global
warming. So until they complete their review I think it's
premature to judge what will be in it.
Q Why
didn't the White House wait until the Cabinet-level review was done
before deciding what to do on the treaty?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because the President has always opposed the
treaty. It's a question of what can we do based on sound
science and a balanced approach as a nation to take action against
global warming. That's why the President opposed the Kyoto treaty and
that's why he has directed the Cabinet-level review to take place.
Q That
doesn't explain why you couldn't have gone in and said, look, there are
parts of this treaty -- obviously, the developing world is not
included, and also we think it's too hard on us for economic growth, so
let's figure out ways to change it. And can you give us some
specifics on the economic cost to the U.S.? What is it
particularly that the President is concerned about in terms of the
economic cost?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, I have addressed the President's concerns
about the treaty. And as for solutions for global warming,
once again, you have to wait for the review of the Cabinet-level
review. But the President does believe that working with our
friends and allies and through international processes, we can develop
technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches
that can combat global climate change.
Q I
don't understand. Why not work for change this treaty?
That's what people were originally trying to do? Why not put
this on the table and work with those countries --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because the President opposes this treaty in its
present form. And I think until you see the results of the
Cabinet-level review, it's premature to speculate about exactly what
steps the administration will make. But, obviously, any time
a treaty has to be submitted by 55 of the signatory nations in order
for it to go in effect and only one nation has submitted it, it's an
indication that other nations agree with the United States.
Q Well,
let's be clear. I mean, is this treaty from the United
States' viewpoint, dead, or -- because he opposes it doesn't mean that
you have abandoned it, necessarily -- has this treaty been abandoned by
the United States?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against in
the Senate, it's a clear sign that there is little support, if any, to
--
Q What
nation ratified it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Romania submitted it for it to be in effect --
Romania did.
Q Did
you ever find out if President Bush supports medical marijuana?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes, let me -- I have something on
that. You remind me of the campaign. The
President is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, including for
medicinal purposes and he strongly supports the current federal law
that's in place.
Q Why?
Q Why
not trust the people?
Q Give
us a reason as to why.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I've not discussed it at length with him about
his reasons why, so I can only tell you that is his position.
Q Ari,
on medical marijuana, several times during the campaign early on he
said he was in favor of letting states decide for themselves about
marijuana. Has he changed that position?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the President's position is always on state
referenda and things like that. That is a process question
where the states have the right to follow their own
processes. But as the President has said, and as you know --
as discussed by campaign spokespeople with you directly during the
campaign -- the President opposes it, he supports federal
law. On the personal level, he opposes medical marijuana,
but he supports the federal law.
Q Ari,
what's on the agenda tomorrow when Mr. Schroeder comes? Will the two
leaders, for example, talk about alternatives to Kyoto?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that -- I'm not going to speak for the
Chancellor when he is here, but the President expects to talk about the
strong, lasting bilateral relationship we have with
Germany. We're going to talk about -- I anticipate that the
President will talk about missile defense, ESDP, NATO enlargement and
other European security issues. But the President will
always be receptive to talking about any issue that is on the
Chancellor's agenda, as well, of course.
Q Ari,
on the Middle East, how would you classify the administration's
relationship now with Ariel Sharon and with Yasser Arafat, in view of
the violence and the strong administration request to Arafat to preempt
the violence?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President spoke to Prime Minister
Sharon last night about the most recent violent incidents in the Middle
East. The United States strongly condemns the violence that
has taken place. There is no excuse, no justification for
the bombings that recently took place in Israel. And the
President again reiterates his call for the violence to
end. And that way we can move forward to secure a direct
conversation between the parties in the Middle East so that they can
reach an agreement that they, the two parties, support.
Q Did
he talk to Arafat?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No.
Q Ari,
there is a hearing going on, on the Hill today, on the subject of
cloning of human beings. Does the President or the
administration have a view on cloning of human beings?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President opposes the cloning of human
beings.
Q And
he thinks there should be a federal statute or federal -- I mean, how
would he -- is there any policy movement towards that end that he
thinks are necessary or appropriate?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President believes that the moral and ethical
issues posed by human cloning are profound and cannot be ignored, even
in the quest for scientific discovery. And, frankly, there
is a general consensus around the scientific community and many other
places that supports what the President has said. The
President believes that any attempt to clone a human being would
present a grave risk to both -- to the mother and the
child. He opposes it on moral grounds. And there
is a presidential directive already in place that prohibits federal
funding for cloning of humans, and the President supports that.
Q What
about a statute or something barring the cloning -- that only
prohibits, as I understand it, the cloning of humans with federal
funds. Would he support a statute to make it unlawful to try
to clone a human being in this country?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President will work with Congress on that,
because the President believes that no research -- no research to
create a human being should take place in the United States.
Q Ari,
what about the cloning of human cells for purposes other than to
actually create a human being? (Laughter.)
Q Replacement
parts. (Laughter.)
Q Stem
cells.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, you know the President's position on stem
cells.
Q No,
I know his position on embryonic stem cells. I don't know
his position on cloning.
MR.
FLEISCHER: But that's not a cloning issue. You
just heard the President's position on cloning of
humans. That's the President's position.
Q What
about cloning human cells?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of the distinction between the
issue of cloning human beings and cloning human cells.
Q Big
distinction. Big distinction. Could you check
that?
Q --
is it true that today, His Majesty, the King of Spain Juan Carlo, and
his wife, are going to be received by the President and the First
Lady. And in view of that, are you aware that the Hispanics
has created a Latino army of -- in order to support the faith and
community initiative of the President, because they want to create a
unity in this country for America's -- prosperity, peace and national
security? Do you say the President supports these kinds of
endorsement of the Latino -- in which the Latino people -- there are
people like me -- what is your response?
MR.
FLEISCHER: If I understand, there are two questions there.
One, the President is meeting for tea with the King of Spain at 4:30
p.m. this afternoon. And as you rightly point out, many
descendants of Spain who live in the United States and are part of the
Hispanic community in this country are strong supporters of the
President's faith-based initiative. The President is going
to continue to reach out to those people and to build additional
support, but he's very proud and pleased to have the support of the
Hispanic community in large part for his faith-based initiatives.
Mr.
Kinsolving has his hand up.
Q The
President, today, proclaimed April as National Child Abuse Prevention
Month. Does he believe it was right or wrong for The New
York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN to refuse
to report the five-hour rape and murder of a 13-year-old -- by adult
homosexuals while they all reported extensively the murder of adult
homosexual Matt Shepard who propositioned and fondled two thugs in a
bar? How do you feel about that, Ari?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Les, it's not the habit of the President of the
United States to tell the networks or the papers what they should and
should not cover.
Q Does
he think it was right or wrong? I mean, what is his
opinion?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I have not discussed that specific question with
the President.
Q Bill Safire and The New York Times quotes candidate George Bush last May
saying, quote, "As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of
moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its
capital." Did he keep that promise? And
precisely, what, if anything at all, has been done to move our
ambassador to Jerusalem since January the 20th, or will your courteous
and charming evasion indicate, Ari, that not a damn thing has been
done, and that this campaign was broken?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I thought I was in the middle of a compliment for
a moment. (Laughter.)
Q Go
back. Go back.
Q What
has been done -- specifically, what has been done? Can you
name one single thing?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Upon taking office, the President has discussed
this matter with his national security team. And the State
Department is taking a look at this and looking at the timing of
it. And it begins with the process --
Q A
two-month look --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Obviously, the situation in the Middle East is
very difficult right now. The President is cognizant of
that. But the President has discussed this matter with his
security team and Secretary Powell has said that they have received the
President's direction, and the question is the process.
Q The
joint tax committee, which you have quoted recently in support of the
President's plan, in the last couple of days came up with an estimate
that the estate tax repeal could cost more than $600 billion, I gather
because of loopholes and transactions that would occur. I
wonder if you could comment on that if you think that --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm delighted you asked me
that. (Laughter.) The estimate by the Joint Committee on
Taxation on repeal of the death tax assumes an immediate, full repeal
of death taxes, which, of course, is not the President's
proposal. The President has proposed a phased-in repeal of
the death tax over an extended period of years. If I recall
from the President's position, it was, I think a six, seven, eight-year
phase-in -- it was a multiyear phase-in. So it's an apple
and an orange.
Of course,
it's going to cost more if you do it overnight. But that's
not the President's proposal. The President's proposal is a
lengthy phase-in. So it's not proper to compare the two.
Q Did
you ever get any information on the Office of Women's Initiatives and
Outreach?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. Since we gaggled this morning,
I've been in meetings with the President and then with the
congressional leaders, so I haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet.
Q And
when does the President plan to have a news conference?
MR.
FLEISCHER: You never know.
Q I
mean, is he planning to actually have -- as far as I can tell, the only
one he's really done is when he came down here on short notice, pretty
early on.
MR.
FLEISCHER: He always reserves the right to come down here on
short notice. And he very well may.
Q Will
he actually plan to have a formal news conference?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, the President considers every day he takes
the questions from the press, which he does on a virtually daily basis,
a way to take your questions.
Q Not
today.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Notice emphasis on "virtually."
Q So
the answer to that would be no, he doesn't plan to have one anytime
soon?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President considers when he comes down here
and takes questions a formal news conference. Of course,
when he was with President Fox in Mexico, the two stood up, took
questions. Prime Minister Blair, the meetings in the Oval
Office with foreign leaders. The President continues to be
accessible, and that will be his approach.
Q No
solo news conference in the East Room, with chairs and the formal
set-up?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me fill you in a little more on
that. What the President thinks is important is to be
available to answer reporters questions, regardless of what room he
happens to be in. He doesn't think the American people
really care a wit about whether he's in the East Room or in the press
briefing room. The President prefers an informality about
certain things. What's important is that people have an
opportunity to ask questions. And I think when you look at
how many questions the President has taken from the press since day one
of his administration, he's readily available.
Q I
was going to say what Sonja said. It's been almost 10
weeks. We've had one formal press conference.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Actually, that news conference was about four
weeks ago. So it was not 10 weeks, it was four weeks ago.
Q Still,
we've had one in almost 10 weeks. And normally -- I'm not
trying to compare him with other Presidents, but normally we would
expect at least once a month. I don't know if that's the
President's feeling. I know he takes a lot of questions.
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's pleased to be accessible, and
he'll continue to be so. Not all the Presidents always took
questions at daily events the way the President does.
Q Sorry
about this, but for those of us who missed the gaggle, on the Women's
Office, allowing that to expire, was the question why are you letting
it expire, and you don't know that.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I just said I haven't been able to get to the
bottom. Sonja asked me a question last week about the
status, and I just haven't been able to get to the bottom
yet. I have to get to the bottom of it, John.
Q The
President has a Saturday deadline to certify that Yugoslavia is
cooperating with U.N. War Crime Tribune with the Hague or to suspend
aid. Does the President think that the new Yugoslav
government is cooperating with the War Crimes Tribunal?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As you properly indicated, there is a deadline
upcoming, and you will receive your answer prior to the deadline.
THE
PRESS: Thank you.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 12:39 P.M. EST
#25-03/28
|