For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 24, 2001
Remarks by the President and Secretary Rumsfeld in Announcement of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Crawford Community Center
Crawford, Texas
View the President's
Remarks
10:44 A.M. CDT
THE PRESIDENT: As President of
the United States, I have no more important responsibility than
safeguarding the security of our country and our citizens, and
supporting our friends and allies throughout the world. As
Commander-in-Chief, I have the obligation to make sure America's
military is properly trained, equipped and manned to meet the threats
of today, while also preparing to meet the changing threats of
tomorrow.
When I took the Oath of Office and assumed
the title of Commander-in-Chief, our military faced significant
challenges. I'm proud to report that, thanks to the
leadership of Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld, and the work of our
military and civilian leaders, as well as the cooperation of the United
States Congress, we're making progress.
We've increased pay for our servicemen and
women and funded improved military housing and medical
benefits. I've asked Congress to provide our military an
increase of $39 billion over the original 2001 appropriations. That
will be the largest increase in military spending since Ronald Reagan
was the Commander-in-Chief. This money -- this is our money
our military needs and money our budget allows.
We are not only going to spend more on
national defense, we're going to spend it more
wisely. Secretary Rumsfeld and our military leaders are in
the midst of a comprehensive review of our entire defense structure,
from which will come recommendations to accelerate the transformation
of America's military.
Transformation is a process, not a
one-time event. It's not easy, because it requires balancing
two sometimes conflicting priorities, the need to train and maintain
our forces to meet all our security responsibilities in the world right
now, with the need to research, develop, plan and deploy new systems
and strategies that will allow us to meet our responsibilities in a
much different world in years to come.
Transformation is important because the
decisions we make today, or put off, will shape our nation's security
for decades to come.
I am pleased that my Administration has
assembled an outstanding national security team. I asked Don
Rumsfeld to come to Washington because of his creativity and his
experience, and because I know he is a results-oriented leader who will
get the job done. Don and I will work closely with our new
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who will serve as my principal military
advisor, and who will make sure the military's point of view is always
heard in the White House.
The Chairman, together with the members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will make sure all our armed forces work in
a coordinated and effective way. The Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff is also charged with reporting faithfully to the U.S.
Congress on the state and needs of our armed forces.
In the last several years, our nation has
been ably served by an outstanding military leader and a good man,
General Hugh Shelton. He has done a great job as the most
senior officer in the world's greatest military. I've
appreciated his advice and counsel and our entire nation is grateful
for his service.
Today, I name a new Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, one of the most important appointments a President can
make. This appointment is especially so because it comes at
a time when we need great leadership. Secretary Rumsfeld and I thought
long and hard about this important choice and we enthusiastically agree
that the right man to preserve the best traditions of our armed forces,
while challenging them to innovate to meet the threats of the future is
General Richard B. Myers.
General Myers is a man of steady resolve
and determined leadership. His is a skilled and steady
hand. He is someone who understands that the strengths of
America's armed forces are our people and our technological
superiority. And we must invest in both.
I'm also pleased to announce that General
Pete Pace, current commander of SOUTHCOM, will serve as Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs. General Pace is a proud Marine and
represents a new generation of leadership and military thinking.
I have spent a substantial amount of time
with both these men, and I am convinced they are the right people to
lead our military into the future. Times like these, times
of rapidly changing technology and ever-changing threats, will require
tough choices. This team of strong leaders, Don Rumsfeld,
General Myers and General Pace, knows that our nation must think
differently, and we will think differently to protect and defend
America's values and interests in the world.
To tell you more about our new Chairman
and Vice Chairman, it is my pleasure to welcome to Crawford the
Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld. Mr.
Secretary. (Applause.)
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Mr.
President, thank you very much. Mrs. Bush, General and Mrs.
Myers, General and Mrs. Pace, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. President, you've spoken about the
need to transform our armed forces. You told us to challenge
the status quo and to build a 21st century military that can deter
aggression and help us extend peace well into the next century, this
new one.
Change is hard and changing so vital an
institution as the U.S. Department of Defense is not undertaken
lightly. It takes clarity of vision and unity of purpose,
and it takes leadership.
General Dick Myers is such a
leader. I've had the great good fortune to work closely with
Dick Myers and with General Hugh Shelton these past
months. We have met for hours and hours, days on end,
working and analyzing, discussing, debating. And you get to
know someone pretty well after that kind of effort.
What I have come to know and expect of
General Dick Myers is candor, sound judgment, keen insights, fiber and
good humor. He is from Kansas, a man of the prairie, who has
conquered the skies from service as a fighter pilot in Vietnam to
commander of the U.S. Space Command. His career is the
embodiment of the transformation with which he will be charged as
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. President, I am proud to join you
today to welcome General Myers to the opportunities that we will share
together over the period ahead. No one will have a greater
responsibility than he to turn your vision into a reality for the 2
million-plus men and women who don the nation's uniforms to carry out
their very vital assignments.
General Myers, I am delighted with your
nomination and I look forward to working with you.
It also gives me great pleasure to be here
with General Pete Pace, who the President will nominate to serve as
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From the jungles
of Southeast Asia to the streets of Mogadishu, General Pace has fought
the country's fights -- small and large -- demonstrated an
extraordinary capacity for leadership along the way.
As a former deputy commander of U.S.
Forces in Japan, and as the current combatant commander of the Southern
Command, General Pace brings a commander's perspective to a position
that has responsibility for establishing the war-fighting requirements
of the weapons systems and platforms our forces bring to the fight.
Like General Myers, General Pace is well
suited to meet the transformation challenge we face. Never
before has a Marine officer served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. Peter Pace's background, expertise and insight
will fit well and complement General Myers.
Pete, we welcome you and your nomination
to the Department of Defense's leadership team.
Military command blends warfighting
capacity, intellectual rigor and the willingness and the ability to
lead. I know of no better way to describe General Hugh
Shelton, whose military service to our country is now coming to a
close. Hugh has been a truly fine Chairman. And I
know that General Myers -- as I -- has benefitted greatly from working
so closely with General Shelton.
On behalf of our armed forces, I thank
General Hugh Shelton for his outstanding and his courageous service and
I commend him for his professionalism. Hugh Shelton leaves
behind an institution that I know will be up to the challenges before
it. And these two men, General Dick Myers and General Pete
Pace, the men and women of the U.S. armed forces are in fine hands.
Mr. President, I thank you for all your
support for the men and women of the armed forces, those who willingly
put their lives at risk day after day so that all of the rest of our
fellow citizens can go about their daily lives in peace and
freedom. We thank you, sir.
I would like to ask first General Myers to
take the podium. But before I do, I would like to have Mary
Jo join us up here and be a party to this. (Laughter.)
GENERAL
MYERS: Thank you, Mr. President,
Mrs. Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, General Pace and Lynne, ladies and
gentlemen.
Eighteen months ago, I went to the
Pentagon to help General Shelton, and in that time I've learned a
lot. I learned about vision and leadership from watching him
work. I learned about physical and moral courage from seeing
his example. And I also learned about how rewarding it can
be coming to work and just from being able to call him my friend.
I have figuratively and literally enormous
shoes to fill and Mary Jo and I are indebted to Hugh and Carolyn
Shelton for their leadership.
But I knew when I went to the Pentagon
that it was a great opportunity to serve. So, today, I am
honored by the chance to continue that service. And I am humbled, Mr.
President, that you have asked me to do so as the next Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If confirmed, I very much look forward to
remaining part of this terrific defense team, captained by a dedicated,
visionary and principled Secretary of Defense. And Secretary
Rumsfeld, I thank you for your vote of confidence.
Like the hardworking Americans here in the
heartland of Texas, I am ready to roll up my sleeves and get back to
work to building the kind of military that President Bush envisions,
one that is poised to meet current obligations and emerging
threats. As the President has said, we face tough challenges
ahead and a lot of work remains. But with the help of God,
my wife, Mary Jo, our family and our friends, along with our extended
family of the hundreds of thousands of superb soldiers, sailors, airmen
and Marines and Coast Guardsmen, active and reserve, the task is less
daunting.
I'm absolutely delighted to have General
Pete Pace join us as Vice Chairman. Pete and I have worked
together before. And I can tell you from personal
experience, that Pete will bring tremendous talent, skill and
leadership to the Vice Chairman's position. Pete and Lynne,
we look forward to working closely with you again. And I
think you will all agree that we are fortunate to have him.
It is with that larger family, our
uniformed men and women, along with our DOD civilian counterparts, that
we will conquer those challenges and I look forward to doing just
that. This is going to be great.
Thank you very
much. (Applause.)
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Now I would
like to ask General Peter Pace, the President's nominee for Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to say a few
words. And I would like to ask his wife, Lynne, to join us.
GENERAL PACE: Mr. President and
Mrs. Bush, Mr. Secretary, General Myers, Mary Jo, this is an incredibly
humbling moment in my life, to be nominated by the President of the
United States and the Secretary of Defense to be Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I do not doubt the size of the work load
that lies ahead, but I could not ask to be on a better team than one
led by the gentlemen on this stage, our Commander-in-Chief, the
Secretary of Defense, my great friend Dick Myers, his wife Mary Jo, and
my wife. It's humbling but it's also a thrilling moment and
my heart's beating in my chest right now very hard.
Mr. President, thank you for this honor,
sir. Thank you for your trust and confidence in
me. I promise you, sir, I will not betray that trust, as we
work to keep this nation the best nation in the world and to take great
care of our wonderful young men and women who serve this
country. Thank you, sir. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Thank you, Mr.
President. You mentioned thinking long and hard about these
nominations. I hope to ask you about another long
deliberation.
The United Nations Conference on Racism
convenes in just one week. Do you want your administration
represented there? If so, at what level? And are
the Zionism and reparations agenda items absolutely prohibitive to any
U.S. participation?
THE PRESIDENT: She is referring
to a conference that will be taking place in South
Africa. We have made it very clear, through Colin Powell's
office, that we will have no representative there, so long as they pick
on Israel, as long as they continue to say Zionism is
racism. If they use the forum as a way to isolate our friend
and strong ally, we will not participate.
The Secretary of State is working hard to
resolve that issue. We have made it very clear from the
get-go -- I remember explaining to President Mbeki our position.
As I understand, the reparations issue has
been solved. At least, the last information I had was that
that issue looks like it's been resolved.
But the fundamental question is whether or
not Israel will be treated with respect at the
conference. And if not, then we will assess prior to the
beginning. So I am not exactly sure where we stand at this
moment.
I do know what our administration's
position is. And the position is we will not participate in
a conference that tries to isolate Israel and denigrates Israel.
Q Participate at
any level?
THE PRESIDENT: That's my
feeling.
Q Mr. President, on
Israel, as well, following up on that, today the Israelis pushed
farther into Palestinian territory, attacking two houses in
Hebron. So far the peace talks that were agreed to between
Peres and Arafat haven't happened.
I know you say that the U.S. is engaged by
Egyptians, Palestinians, are calling for more U.S.
involvement. What is it going to take for the U.S. to
actually get more involved, take more action in order to bring about
peace in the Middle East?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's
start with this. In order for there to be any peace talks in
the Middle East, the first thing that must happen is that both parties
must resolve to stop violence. The Israelis have made it
very clear that they will not negotiate under terrorist
threat. And if Mr. Arafat is interested in having a
dialogue that could conceivably lead to the Mitchell process, then I
strongly urge him to urge the terrorists, the Palestinian terrorists,
to stop the suicide bombings, to stop the incursions, to stop the
threats.
At the same time, we have worked very
closely with Prime Minister Sharon to urge him to show
restraint. Terrorism is prevalent now in the Middle East,
and the first thing that all parties who are concerned about peace in
the Middle East must do is work to stop the terrorist activities.
The Israelis will not negotiate under
terrorist threat, simple as that. And if the Palestinians
are interested in a dialogue, then I strongly urge Mr. Arafat to put
100 percent effort into solving the terrorist activity, into stopping
the terrorist activity. And I believe he can do a better job
of doing that.
Q What's your
reaction to the fact that the Israelis are moving into Palestinian
territory again?
THE PRESIDENT: My reaction is I
would hope the Israelis would show restraint on all
fronts. And we continue to urge restraint with both parties,
we are constantly in dialogue.
But it requires two willing
participants. People have got to make up their mind this is
what they want to have happen in order for the beginning of peace
discussions. We've got a framework for a peaceful
resolution: It's called the Mitchell Plan. And our
administration, as has most of the world, embraced the Mitchell
Plan. But in order to get to Mitchell requires there to be a
cessation of terrorist activity. If not a cessation, 100
percent effort to get to a cessation, and we haven't seen that 100
percent effort yet.
And if what you're asking is, do we hear
the Palestinians call for discussions? Of course, we
do. But my attitude is, if they are that interested in
peaceful dialogue, they ought to do everything they can to stop the
terrorist activity that has accelerated in recent
months. And we will see whether or not the will is there.
Q How realistic is
it for you to expect Congress to move forward with your defense
priorities when there is so little money in the budget outside of
Social Security? And is it perhaps naive to expect Congress
to just roll over and abandon their priorities?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would
hope that a congressional priority is strong national
defense. And it will be very interesting to kind of get a
feel for the congressional priorities this fall.
And one of the early tests will be to see
whether or not the leadership will give us a defense number early in
the process. And that's what I've asked Congress to
do. I did so in Independence, Missouri. I repeat
it today.
And we hear a lot of dialogue on the Hill
about the importance of national defense. If that's the
case, give us a number -- at the beginning of the process, not at the
end of the process. Let us know what the defense --
I think it's realistic to ask Congress to
prioritize national defense and education. We've done
so. The budget that Mitch Daniels outlined clearly shows
that we've got the monies available for a good, strong national
defense.
Now, I readily concede, if Congress goes
off on a spending spree in other areas, it's going to create a
competition for defense dollars. And my point is going to be
to the members of the United States Congress and their constituents
that national defense ought to be a funding priority and I expect it to
be. I expect it to be in '01, '02 and '03.
Q So you are using
a veto threat as a way of bringing a hard line into --
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, wait, you
put the word "veto" in my mouth. I have said that I will
work for fiscal sanity in Washington, D.C. And one way for a
President to make -- effect the fiscal condition of our government is
to express displeasure when certain budgets get busted. And
so far we haven't had that, and that's why I praised Senator Byrd and
Congressman Young. We've had a couple of supplementals.
And as the Washington watchers will tell
you, the supplementals have been restrained, they have been within the
budget guidelines. And I appreciate that very
much. There has been some fiscal sanity thus far. Hopefully
-- and I am optimistic there will continue to be some fiscal sanity in
Washington. We'll find out.
And there's going to be a
battle. There's always a battle over whether defense is
getting too much or not enough. Our position is it has been
under-funded and we expect Congress to respond. And our job,
as well, is to present a coherent strategy as to why, why there ought
to be more money. And that's what the Secretary is here to
discuss with me in Crawford today.
You know, there's a lot of discussion
about transformation. Transformation isn't one document, it's not a
moment in time; it's a strategy and it starts with assessing the true
threats facing America today and in the future. And then we
size our forces depending upon the threats that face the
country. And those are the dialogues we're now having.
And one of the jobs of Dick, should he be
confirmed, is to make sure the Congress understands why our force size
-- why we are asking for monies for certain force sizes and how it
relates to keeping the national security of the country in the long
term, as well as today.
Q Mr. President, to
follow up on that, the administration's budget projections show these
fairly thin surpluses outside of Social Security for the next several
years, and the budget that you've been discussing, of course, does not
include missile defense, does not include a number of the conventional
weapons, transformations that your team that you've introduced here
today is going to be working on.
Would it be reasonable to dip into Social
Security and into the Social Security funds to pay for missile defense
and to pay for military transformation, or is there any other
contingency you can imagine that would make it worthwhile to go into
the Social Security funds?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I've said
that the only reason we should use Social Security funds is in case of
an economic recession or war. Secondly, our budget does call for
missile defense expenditures. If I'm not mistaken, I think
it's to the tune of $8 billion. And you might recall, as we
left town, there were some members of the United States Congress saying
that that was way too much expenditure on a missile defense program and
they would like to divert that money to other programs, some within the
defense budget, some outside the defense budget.
And so we do make -- we've also increased
research and development by a significant amount of money,
David. But I think the thing that's important to know is
that Secretary Rumsfeld is taking a long look, addressing -- assessing
all the threats or the perceived threats that could face our country
and how we address those threats.
One of the threats that faces America is
the threat of blackmail as a result of some rogue nation having a
weapon of mass destruction. And that not only is a threat to
our own land, it's also a threat to our forward-thinking foreign
policy. Take, for example, some nation in the Middle Eastern
area developing a weapon of mass destruction and then threatening the
United States if we were to move troops into an area to protect an
ally.
So, in other words, the ability to have a
weapon of mass destruction not only affects our people living in
America, because some of these weapons have now got longer ranges than
ever anticipated, but also affects our foreign policy. It
could be used as an attempt to isolate America and we're not going to
let that happen.
So one of the things you will hear us talk
about is the need to develop an effective missile defense system, and
we do have money in the budget for that. And there is going
to be an interesting dialogue over whether it's too
much. We're going to stand our ground and say the $8 billion
-- I believe it's $8 billion, if I'm not mistaken -- is the right
amount of money.
And you'll see, Dave, as well, as you look
at other parts of the defense budget request, particularly the '02 and
then the add-on '03, which we haven't laid out yet, there's a lot of
money for research and development, which is absolutely
necessary. And one of the reasons Dick Myers is the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs -- nominee -- is because he has had a lot of
experience in space, for example. It's an area that we need
to explore and know more about. He's had a lot of experience
when it comes to the leading edge of technology that is becoming more
and more prevalent in our military. And our budget reflects
the need to fully explore and, at the same time, make sure that today's
military can fulfill the missions. And it's a balancing act, and I
fully recognize it's one, but our budget does reflect that.
Q Mr. President,
looking ahead to those budget fights down the road, though, in '02 and
'03 when you will undoubtedly be asking for more money for missile
defense, many question your economic assumptions, more mixed signals
today. Durable good orders, down. Home sales,
up.
People question whether your 3.2 percent
forecast for growth next year. Even many economists who are
allied with your administration think that's too overly
optimistic. On what do you base it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think -- I'm
sorry Mitch Daniels isn't here to lay out all the forecasts that led to
our assumption. And we're right in the middle as I
understand. We picked the number that seemed reasonable.
Let's -- the facts are, our economy has
slowed down. We had an anemic 1 percent growth over the last
12 months, and that affected tax revenues. And our administration,
instead of wringing our hands, put in place a fiscal stimulus package
that was the first real tax cut in a generation.
And we believe that's going to have a
positive effect on our economy. No question the economy's slowed
down. And therefore Congress must adjust its spending
attitudes. The surest way to make sure that the recovery
doesn't happen in a meaningful period of time or a reasonable period of
time is to overspend.
So my message to the Congress is, I'm
proud of your vote for tax relief, it was the right thing to do because
it responded to economic circumstances that our nation now
faces. But don't go hog wild. I mean,
appropriators appropriate. Don't overspend. And
one of my jobs as the President is to make sure we keep fiscal sanity
in the budget.
Q But if you're off
by just a point or two, Washington will be billions and billions
short.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if I'm off
by a point or two, then Congress can adjust their
sights. See, I'm glad that Congress finally, for the first
time in a long period of time, said we're not going to spend Social
Security except on emergencies. That wasn't the case up
until this administration. It's a useful part of the
dialogue if you believe in fiscal sanity in Washington,
D.C. It set some important parameters.
So we have the tax relief plan, which is
important for fiscal stimulus, coupled with Social Security being off
limits except for -- except for emergency. That now provides
a new kind -- a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And
that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if
you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a
dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been.
Listen, the '02 budget we submitted has
got discretionary spending growing by 6 percent. That's a
pretty significant number. Certainly not as much as some of
the appropriators would like to see in Washington, D.C., but we think
it's a nice, balanced number. It's one that will help meet
the needs and, at the same time, not overspend and therefore affect
economic growth.
Of course, the other side of things is if
the economy gets back to where it was growing, Washington could
conceivably be awash in money, so there's leverage on both sides.
Q On stem cells,
you've said that the 60 stem cell lines can be experimented
on. It now turns out they've been mixed in the laboratory
with mice cells. Under FDA guidelines, they could have no
practical effect. Did you know that when you made this
decision that these possibly couldn't be used?
THE PRESIDENT: Here's what I
knew. I knew that I sat down with the NIH experts, the
people who were -- people who are charged by our federal government to
follow the research opportunities on all fronts, and they feel like the
existing stem cell lines are ample to be able to determine whether or
not embryonic stem cell research can yield the results to save
lives. This is their opinion, and I can think of no better
opinion on which to make my -- base my judgment.
And so I haven't changed my opinion in the
least. As a matter of fact, I read some comments today where
the NIH scientists again confirmed that we've got enough existing stem
cell lines to do the research necessary to determine whether or not the
promise of embryonic stem cells will be met.
Q Sir, did no one
warn you that the animal viruses could invalidate the use of these
cells?
THE PRESIDENT: The NIH came
into the Oval Office and they looked me right in the eye and they said,
we think there is ample stem cell lines to determine whether or not
this embryonic stem cell research will work or not. And I
appreciated their candor and I appreciated their advice.
Root, good to see you my boy.
Q You talked about
the need to --
THE PRESIDENT: How are
you? Used to cover me as governor. Fine lad, fine
lad.
Q You talked about
the need --
THE PRESIDENT: Little short on
hair, but a fine lad. (Laughter.)
Q You talked about
the need to maintain technological superiority. Given some of its
well-known problems, do you think that a part of that would include the
B-22, and do you think that, given some of the budget problems that
have been discussed, that it compromises maybe your ability to go
forward with the B-22, the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter?
THE PRESIDENT: Root represents
Ft. Worth.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I never
would have guessed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
and both the civilians who work with him and the military who works for
him are charged with not only assessing the threats that will face us
but then are charged with not only designing a force structure to meet
those threats, as well as the capital expenditures necessary to meet
them.
There is no question that we probably
cannot afford every weapons system that is now on -- being designed or
thought about. And you should ask the Secretary this
question, if you care to, because he is going to bring to my desk, in a
reasonable period of time, what the Pentagon recommendations are as to
what weapons systems should go forward and which should not.
One of the things that happens inside the
Pentagon is people are encouraged to think outside the box, so to
speak, and help design systems that could or could not affect security
in the long term. And there are many good ideas.
But this administration is going to have
to winnow them down. We can't afford every single thing that
has been contemplated. And when we make decisions, they will
fit into a strategic plan. And we need one. And
there is going to be one and it's coming this fall, starting with -- as
the Secretary will talk about.
Q I will take you
up on your invitation to ask the Secretary --
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask him
next. I'm on a roll here. (Laughter.)
Q Good morning,
sir.
THE PRESIDENT: This will give
him a little time to think of the answer.
Q You've talked
about limits on spending. If your wish came true that the
federal budget is, once again, awash in money, what would your
priorities be? Where would you like to spend --
THE PRESIDENT: Education,
defense and making sure the taxpayers had ample money to make choices
for themselves. You know, I think one of the things we've
got to recognize is that our government should fund priorities but
we've always got to remember where the money came from.
And I can't tell you how proud I am to be
traveling around the country and people say, thanks for the
$600. Now there are some cynics who say $600 doesn't mean
anything to a working family in America. That's not what I
hear. I hear it means a lot to people.
So if we're awash -- and I think our
economy has got very strong underpinnings. We're certainly
going through a correction. But there are some signs we're
improving, some signs, as John accurately noted, still show that
there's an anchor on economic growth. But I believe we'll be
back and be robust and when we are, then we'll deal with the budget.
In the meantime -- in the meantime,
however, it's important for
Congress and the appropriators to realize there's not as much money
around Washington as there used to be, and therefore they need to
readjust their sights. And our priorities are going to be
educating our children and national defense. Those are our
priorities and I hope a lot of Congress comes with me on that.
Q Are you implying
that another tax cut might be --
THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not
implying. I'm saying that if we are awash -- I think you
were implying we might be awash with money, and I hope we
are. I think we've got a very strong economy. Let
me say, we've got a strong economic potential. We could have
a very strong economy again. I think I am going to get trade
promotion authority, which should help. This tax cut will
help. Monetary policy should help.
And when we get economic growth going
again, after the correction in some of our sectors like the high-tech
sector, we may have good money. And if we do, then I want to
always remember where it came from. It didn't come because
of the genius of the federal government, it came because of the genius
and hard work of the American people. But let's wait until
that happens. Let's just hope it happens soon.
Q Mr. President,
you said yesterday that you oppose blanket amnesty for illegal
immigrants from Mexico. But even if you only grant guest
worker status to some illegals, doesn't that amount to rewarding
illegal activity, when other immigrants are struggling to come to this
country legally?
THE PRESIDENT: Colin Powell and
John Ashcroft are taking a hard look at our immigration
policy. They are not only reviewing our policy in our own
working group, they are reviewing the policy with their counterparts in
Mexico. And we have had some very good dialogues, it's been
a very constructive dialogue.
I talked to Vicente Fox about this subject
a couple of days ago and we both agreed that the discussions thus far
have been positive. I do not believe in blanket amnesty.
One of the issues you referred to is an
important issue, and that is how do we make sure that as we facilitate
willing employer hooking up with willing employee, that we don't
penalize those who have been waiting in line legally. And so
our deliberations are taking that into account. And that's a
far cry, however, from blanket amnesty.
I believe that -- strongly believe that if
someone is willing to work and someone's looking for a worker and can't
find anybody, we ought to facilitate the two hooking up. And
so there are ways to make sure that people are rewarded for hard work
without affecting those who have been patiently waiting in line for
legal status.
Q Respectfully,
sir, can I follow up and say --
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a
question or a speech?
Q Well, how do you
respond to those who say you are courting the Hispanic vote with this
outreach?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I respond
by saying that, first of all, I can't think of anything more important
for our foreign policy in our hemisphere than to have good relations
with Mexico. Mexico is our neighbor and we ought to have a
neighborhood that is prosperous and peaceful.
The basis for good foreign policy is to
make sure your own area, your own neighborhood is in good
shape. And I have got a great relation with the President of
Mexico, symbolized by the fact that the first state dinner I'm going to
have is with Vicente Fox and it's going to happen in two weeks.
The history of the relationship between
Mexico and the United States hasn't always been smooth. I
mean, it's been pretty hostile at times. And to me, that
didn't inure to our country's benefit.
We've got good relations, and one of the
things we've got to do is discuss common problems. We've got
problems on our border, we've got problems with drug interdiction,
we've got problems with environmental issues on our border, we've got
water problems and we've got immigration problems. And if
we're going to have good relations with our neighbor, we ought to deal
constructively with the problems, admit there's a problem and figure
out ways to deal with it.
The long term solution, however, for
immigration is for Mexico to be prosperous enough to grow a middle
class where people will be able to find work at home. And I
remind people all across our country, family values do not stop at the
Rio Bravo.
There are people in Mexico who have got
children who are worried about where they are going to get their next
meal from. And they are going to come to the United States,
if they think they can make money here. That's a simple
fact. And they're willing to walk across miles of desert to
do work that some Americans won't do. And we've got to
respect that, it seems like to me, and treat those people with
respect.
Now, I get accused of being political on
everything I do. I guess that's just the nature of being the
President. And what I try to assure people of is, I deal
with problems as I see them. And some people are going to
like the solution and some are not, and we'll just let the chips fall
where they may.
I'm going to let Rumsfeld talk to
Root. Listen, I've got to go get briefed. Okay,
one more. One more. Two more -- make them quick.
Q You said
yesterday that you had no plans to watch the interview last night with
Congressman Gary Condit, that you would --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I followed
through on that.
Q -- but that you
would read about it. And I was wondering if you had and if
you have any thoughts?
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I
haven't read about it yet. I have been briefed on it by
Karen Hughes and Condi Rice, who watched it, and you might ask them
what their opinion is. (Laughter.)
I'm trying to get Condi and Karen some
national exposure. (Laughter.)
Q Sir, seriously
though, if I could follow up, this is -- you've been reluctant to talk
about this issue and 23.6 million Americans watched this interview last
night --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I was one
who didn't.
Q There is enormous
interest in it.
THE PRESIDENT: There was
270-some million Americans and I was one of the 250 who didn't watch
it. Did you watch it?
Q I did, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay,
good. Do I have -- I don't have an opinion yet on it.
I do know that -- I hope that the Levy
prayers are answered. That's my hope. This isn't
about a congressman or about a network. This is about a
family who lost a daughter, and that's what I'm concerned
about. I hope that if she is alive, she's returned
soon. I pray she's alive. That's where my heart
is and that's where my concerns are on this issue.
I'm not worried about the gossip or the
Washington whispers. I am worried about a young girl's life,
and so should America be worried about a young girl's life.
Q But, sir, do you
think the Congressman's evasiveness has --
THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea
about the Congressman. I am not paying attention to the
Congressman. I am paying attention to whether or not this
poor girl is -- is found. And that's what I'm interested
in.
I understand how Washington works, and
there's all kinds of stuff that goes on in
Washington. People are saying this about somebody and
they're saying that about somebody. It's a town of
gossip. And I'm not worried about the gossip; I'm worried
about the facts and there's a girl missing, and our prayers are with
her parents.
I have seen them on TV. I
agonize for the mom and the dad. And that's where my heart
is.
Last question, Martha. No, next
to last. This is the last question but there's two more
answers. Mine and Rumsfeld's.
Q I'll go
fast. Thank you, sir.
You've talked a lot about changing the
tone in Washington. And you've had some success doing
it. But lately there have been some shots across the
bow. The Democrats' ad this week on the
surplus. I'm wondering if you think that the tone in
Washington is changing back to the partisan bickering of the past?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's not
in Crawford. (Laughter.) It's a great tone here
in Crawford. One of the good things about coming out here is
that you get a sense for what people are paying attention to, and they
don't really pay attention to partisan squabbling.
The truth of the matter is, I welcome the
tax debate. I hope that people try to, you know, attack
based upon tax relief for the American people. I think it's
-- you know, if you want to try to position an issue, it's a nice place
to be. Because the counterpoint is, what are you going to
do, raise them? If you're against tax relief, are you then
advocating you're going to raise taxes on the American people, which
would be not only an economic -- it would be really bad for our
economy. But I look forward to hearing the debate, "Mr.
President, I think you're wrong, we should raise taxes on the people,
particularly after they just got their $600 check."
And so I welcome the
debate. But out here in Crawford, people aren't that -- you
know what they're interested in? Their families, whether
it's going to rain, interested in the price of fuel, they're worried
about insurance rates -- they're not too bad in Texas. But
that's what they're worried about. They're worried about
things. They're not worried about the partisan squabbling
that has kind of sullied the Washington scene at times.
And, frankly, I haven't seen any of the
ads. Of course, I didn't watch the show.
All right. Mr.
Secretary. Jay Root asked a very penetrating
question. You've forgotten what it is --
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: But I know
the answer.
Q You know the
answer? I could just be quiet. But let me just
ask, on the B-22, is it a viable program or, given its problems, do you
think it's just not going to survive?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: The issue
with respect to weapons systems is there are several things that are
required by Congress. One is the presidential budget to be
offered in the first part of next year, and there is a process that
precedes it in every department to produce that budget that the
President then pulls together.
The other is a so-called Quadrennial
Defense Review, and another is the Nuclear Posture
Review. Those are all going on. And through an
iterative process with the services, the budget for the 2003
presidential budget is being built and those kinds of decisions get
made.
As the President suggested, we are
balancing some risks. There are operational risks with
respect to near-term threats. There are also risks of not
transforming, of not modernize the force at a rate that makes sense, or
of not taking proper care of the men and women in the armed forces, and
the risks that you run then of not having the people you need to see
that the United States of America can continue to contribute to peace
and stability in the world.
So it is that complicated process of
balancing those risks that will lead the services to come back with
their recommendations, which we then will all consider and take into
account in our recommendations to the President.
With respect to the specific aircraft
you're talking about, we all know it's been a troubled
program. It has had enormous difficulties and -- but it has
not come to the point of a decision, and it will in the coming period
of September and October.