For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 15, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
- Travel, personnel announcements
- Northern
Ireland/Good Friday Agreement
- Speech
topic/Orlando
- Campaign finance
reform
- Black Berets/President's
view
- China/visit by the
President?
- North Korea
talks
- Economy/administration talking it down
- West Coast energy
situation
- Fast track
authority
- Bankruptcy
legislation
- Visit of Prime
Minister Mori
- Missile defense/
Russia's view
- Press
conference?
- Ian Paisley
visit
- Troop reduction in
the Balkans?
- Aid to Andean
countries
- Carbon dioxide
emissions
2:40 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: It looks like a sell-out crowd today. Something
must be going on. A couple announcements. One, I
have a travel update I want to report. The President will
travel to Orlando, Florida on Wednesday, March 21, to speak to the
American College of Cardiology's annual convention. And that
will be a day trip, for your planning purposes.
Q Is
Cheney going? (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: Are you? (Laughter.)
I have a
statement by the Press Secretary on a personnel related
item. The President announced on February 6 his intention to
nominate Richard Haass for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of
service as the Director of Policy Planning at the Department of
State. And today the President is announcing his further
intention that among Mr. Haass' other responsibilities he take the lead
on U.S. engagement in support of the Northern Ireland peace process.
The United
States will continue to support full implementation of the Good Friday
Agreement and stands ready to assist the process in any way that the
British and Irish governments and the parties deem useful.
And with
that, I'm pleased to take questions.
Q What's
the subject of the speech in Orlando?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It will be health related. We'll have
a little bit more information on it closer to the event itself.
Q Campaign
finance reform -- today?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President will, later today, sign and send a
letter up to Capitol Hill which will enclose a statement of principles
on the President's dedication to enacting campaign finance reform
legislation into law. That will go up sometime this
afternoon. As soon as it goes up and the Hill receives it,
we will distribute it.
Q Coverage
of the signing?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No coverage of the signing.
Q Ari,
is the President through with Senator McCain? Is he not
talking with the Senator on campaign finance anymore? Is he
supporting only Senator Hagel's bill?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the President is working with a number of
people on Capitol Hill on campaign finance reform, because he thinks
very strongly that this is the year we can actually get it
done. And toward that effort, he is working to build common
agreement around his principles with a variety of senators on the Hill,
including Senator McCain and Senator Hagel and other senators as well.
Q So
McCain-Feingold is not dead? There can be a compromise that
would build in the President's plan, Senator Hagel's plan and
McCain-Feingold?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's focus on campaign finance reform
this year is on making things live. He doesn't want anything
to be dead, he wants to have an agreement. And that's why he
thinks this is the year it can finally be done. It's been one of those
issues that has been talked about for so long by politicians in both
parties, and for some reason, somehow, it never gets done. I
think the dynamic has changed this year. The President is
determined to take advantage of that, and to get it signed into law.
Q He
is definitely in touch with Senator McCain?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He is in touch with a number of people on the
Hill that includes Senator McCain. We're going to work with
Senator McCain.
Q When
is the last time he talked to Senator McCain about the issue?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I would have to find out for you --
Q Since
the meeting --
MR.
FLEISCHER: You know, the President very often picks up the
phone and talks to members of Congress, or actually at night has them
over to the Residence for dinner and for other meetings, and we don't
make all of those meetings and contacts public. But you can
assume on a very ongoing, regular basis, the President is talking to
members on the Hill. But Senator McCain is aware of what we are doing
on this issue and has been kept in very close touch.
Q Ari,
as you know, the Chief of Staff of the Army wants to issue black berets
to all troops by the 14th of June, the anniversary of the Army, which
has caused something of a firestorm among veterans of the elite
units. And Minnesota Governor Ventura says when he talked to
the President at dinner here, he asked the President to block that
move. And someone from the Governor's office later reported
back that it was a "done deal." Is it a done
deal? Is the President going to intervene? And
how does he personally feel about the issue?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Ivan, as it was reported at the time when that
issue was raised at the National Governors Association meeting, and it
was reported by the press, the President indicated that he would ask
Secretary Rumsfeld to look into it. He has asked the
Secretary to do so, and Secretary Rumsfeld is currently looking at that
matter.
Q How
does he personally feel about it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He feels, personally, that Secretary Rumsfeld
will look into it.
Q Ari,
a couple of issues related to campaign finance. Senator Torricelli has
a bill that would require stations to provide the lowest possible rate
for TV ads, not preemptable. And secondly, McCain has a
proposal for free air time. What's the White House view on
either of them, on both of those?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me suspend on that. I want to let
the -- I think it's more proper to let the statement of principles go
up to the Hill, and have you evaluate those once they are sent up
there. I just want to suggest that again, the President
wants to get an agreement reached this year. And that's why
he will send the principles up. They will address many of
the questions that you have. But there's also room in those
principles to reach an agreement. And that's going to be the
President's focus.
Q How
do you reach the principle?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me -- go ahead, Helen.
Q Go
ahead, I'm sorry.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I was going to say, if you recall, during the
campaign, the President said, and still believes, that we should have a
ban on soft money coming from corporations, coming from
unions. He does not believe that we should -- that the
system should be filled with soft money coming from those
groups. He believes in full disclosure. He thinks
it's terribly important that there be full and instant disclosure by
candidates, by various parties and political campaigns. He
thinks the sun should shine in, and that applies broadly to all
groups. He believes that people should give money
voluntarily, not involuntarily.
That's an
important provision as well. So that's the core of what the
President has talked about during the campaign. The
principles that he sends up to the Hill will be reflective of that
core.
Q These
were drawn from his own experience in running, or how were they
developed?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that, from the President's point of view,
it was drawn from his experience in governing, his experience in
running, and the considerate approach he took to how best to reform a
system that he believes is in need of reform.
Q Paycheck
-- is not one of the four principles?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I've just discussed involuntary giving.
Q Is
that negotiable? Because many on the Hill believe if that's
core requirement, there's no chance for campaign finance reform.
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's the President's view, and I think this
view is becoming increasingly shared by others, that this is the year
to get it done.
Q Including
paycheck?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Including involuntary
contributions. The President does not believe that anybody
should have money taken out of their paycheck without permission to be
used for political purposes, no matter what they belong to -- a labor
union or any other entity. He does not think that's
right. He doesn't think that's fair. And he's
going to work to put together a coalition to support his principles,
that can be enacted into law.
Q So,
shouldn't employees have the same right? I mean, if your
corporation is --
MR.
FLEISCHER: You will see his principles shortly.
Q On
China, do you have anything to say on the President's trip to China or
on the comments made by Zhu Rongji, and on the contradictory
statements, you have the Chinese Premier saying that the President
agrees that Taiwan is part of China; at the same time, you've got China
building up its arms against Taiwan.
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is very pleased to have received
the invitation to visit China, and we are considering how we can
respond at this time. And as soon as we have a formal
response, of course it will be conveyed to the Chinese government, and
then we will let you know shortly thereafter. But he's very
pleased to have received the invitation.
Q Oh,
so it's not definite that he's going.
MR.
FLEISCHER: He's very pleased to have received the
invitation.
Q Are
the Chinese mistaken in saying that he had accepted?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I've answered the question.
Q In
North Korea, is the President concerned about the cancellation of
Cabinet-level talks with the South?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As you've heard, the President, in his
discussions with President Kim -- with President Bush and his
discussions with President Kim -- he supports President Kim's efforts
to bring peace and bring stability to the region. And he
will continue to be supportive of those efforts. He has
expressed his own personal skepticism about the intentions of the
government of North Korea, and that's where the matters stand.
Q It
does appear that the cancellation of these talks may relate to some of
the comments that have been made by administration officials, including
the President. Does the President feel any responsibility
for this?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that the situation is developing in the
Korean Peninsula, and there will be other events that follow as
well. And the President made his position clear to President
Kim and President Kim understands that President Bush is supportive of
his efforts.
Q Ari,
the President, in seven weeks-plus, now, has called most world
leaders. Has he talked to the President of
China? And on this invitation for a state visit, what are
the factors in play here that will be weighed?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, of course, it's always proper to notify the
people who invite you to a meeting before you notify the
press. I know that sounds novel. But again, once
--
Q You've
not notified -- accepted formally?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I've answered the question earlier; there's no
change in my answer on the question. Once we have something
to report, we will.
Q But
So are you saying China is lying?
MR.
FLEISCHER: But again, the President's pleased to have been
invited.
Q Has
he talked to the President, leader of China?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Has he had any recent
conversations? As you know, the Deputy Premier will be here
next week and will be meeting with the President.
Q So
the answer is no?
Q Is
the President pleased that China announced that it will talk about a
missile defense?
MR.
FLEISCHER: He is. The President thought that was
helpful. It's another sign that, around the world, people are taking
President Bush seriously and understand that the United States, under
President Bush will move forward with the development an the deployment
of a national missile defense. And the reaction around the
world has become increasingly supportive in various measured ways, and
the President is pleased by that.
Q Will
the Chinese willingness to talk about this be a factor in his decision
on arms to Taiwan and what kind of package to put together?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No.
Q Ari,
Senator Daschle and Congressman Gephardt came out this morning armed
with some charts and quotes, and they basically are accusing the
President and Vice President Cheney of talking down the economy,
scaring consumers, contributing to the dropping consumer confidence and
creating the economic downturn, all to build support for his tax
plan. Do you have a response, a, to that? And
then I have a follow-up.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Number one, the President believes the most
important thing for policymakers, either in the Congress or in the
White House, is to be accurate, and not to withhold information from
the American people, but to accurately and fully describe to the
American people the state of the economy. That way, we can
help improve the state of the economy.
The
President has submitted a plan to the Capitol, to Congress, that he
believes is an economic recovery plan to help create growth in the
economy. It's worth noting, of course, that any time
somebody has statements to make, we hope they contribute to solving the
problem.
Certainly,
the last time the nation was experiencing an economic slowdown, there
were many Democrats on the Hill in 1991 and 1992 who did not hesitate
to point out the softness in the economy at that time. We
would hope that nobody would engage in one type of rhetoric back in
1991 and 1992 and a different type of rhetoric now.
Q Just
a follow-up on that. Is there any shift, though, or change
in the administration's approach in light of what we've seen in the
markets this week in terms of questioning or reevaluating what the
President says publicly and what you all say privately about the
economy?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President continues to believe that all
recent reports make it even more important for Congress to pass his
plan. He thinks it's terribly important that people in both parties
send a signal to the public that we understand the difficulties that
people are going through with the current weakness in the economy, and
that it's very important for people to hear that message from the
government.
He hopes
that nobody would turn a blind eye to the economic difficulties in this
nation at a time when people need to know straight facts from the
government leaders.
Q If
I could just follow one more time, though. Just like you
say, there's a psychological benefit to giving a tax cut, even if the
dollar sign impact won't be so large in the first year. But,
psychologically, if people know a tax cut is coming, they will spend
more. Isn't there a psychological impact by taking about the problems
of the economy that people say, oh, I shouldn't spend money on this
car, or I had better save, and that could contribute to some of the
warning signs we're seeing now?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President believes very deeply that there
will be a real-world and psychological impact of a negative nature if
people in government do not share accurate information with the
American people. And the President is going to continue to
talk about the economy. The President has expressed his belief that
the long-term factors in the economy are going to be strong, and he has
said that repeatedly, and his budget reflects that factor, of course.
But again,
going back to 10 years or so ago, the last time there was softness in
the economy, there were many leading Democrats who pointed out that
softness in the economy. And they did so on the basis of the
evidence and the accuracy of the information at that
time. It's always important to be accurate.
Q And
the last time we had that kind of softness in the economy, the budget
took a tremendous hit. The deficits in the '90s, early and
mid-'90s really stemmed from that recession. Given the
difficulties in --
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's not accurate. The deficits stem
from many factors of a long-term nature well before the '91 and '92
recession.
Q Given
the difficulties in this economy and the sell-off from the market, is
the President reconsidering his tax cut in light of the potential
smaller surpluses that would result from a weaker economy?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I mean, the interesting facts are that the
surplus continues to grow larger even with the softness in the
economy. And for the first four months of the current fiscal year, the
surplus is $32 billion higher than last year, even though growth is
significantly less than last year for the comparable period.
So the
facts are, frankly, just the opposite of that. The surplus
continues to grow larger, and the estimates that President Bush has
made in his budget are very conservative, as far as the amount of
revenue projected to come in.
And
interestingly, one other factor on that, too -- of course, if you
looked at the last budget submitted by the previous administration,
they projected growth for this current fiscal year to be 3.5 percent in
2001. I noted this morning some officials from the previous
administration were suggesting that it was somehow -- they were
questioning some of the economics of what the President was
saying. Of course, again, the President believes it's
important to be accurate.
The last
budget submitted by the previous administration projected growth to be
3.5 percent. Our budget is a very -- much more realistic,
much more accurate budget.
Q How
do you know that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That it's more realistic and accurate?
Q How
do you know it's more accurate?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, growth does not appear to be on track for
3.5 percent this year. And the blue chip economic -- the
blue chip private estimators are much closer to the administration's
estimate. Our estimate was 2.4 percent, and for the course
of the year, it looks like it's going to be much closer to 2.4 than
3.5, for example.
Q Doesn't
it follow that you're not going to get the kind of tax payments in the
out years that you're getting now?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, you have to look at what is exactly taking
place in the economy.
Q What's
taking place now reflects the tax payments that are due and coming in
this year.
MR.
FLEISCHER: There was softness in the economy in the fourth
quarter. The fourth quarter came in much --
Q Yes,
but not like this.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Oh, it sure did. Fourth quarter
projections came in at about 1.1 percent, much lower than previously
estimated. But revenues continue to come in at twice the
rate of the previous year. And our budget underestimates
revenues by a significant effect.
Q But
isn't it true that a lot of the increase in the tax revenues over the
past several years came from capital -- taxes on capital gains
realizations --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Not true.
Q --
and options income --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Not true.
Q --
and just as there was irrational exuberance in the market, isn't it
possible there's irrational exuberance in surplus projections?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The premise of your question, I have to say, is
off. The capital gains realizations represents a very small
sliver of revenues in this country.
Q Plus
options income.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Still, it's a small sliver of
revenues. That is not the bulk of revenues in this country.
Q There
is no irrational exuberance in the surplus projection.
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the surplus projections in this
administration are indeed very conservative.
Q Try
one more crack at this, Ari. Do you -- you're basically
saying that a world exists now where growth can continue to decline and
surpluses will continue to grow. Surely that can't last
forever.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think it's a reflection of the fact that
previous surplus estimates were wrong, and they were wrong in the
direction of being so conservative that growth
continues. Even with diminished growth, surplus revenues
continue to pour in at a rate higher than expected.
Not to
extend the seminar on economics, I'm sure we have bored all of whoever
is no longer watching this briefing. But that is the
economic reality of how revenues are coming in. And for the
last five years in a row, revenues have come in far higher than all the
estimators projected.
For the
last five years in a row the question has always been, what are you
going to do if those estimates are too high? That hasn't
happened yet, for the last five years. Yet, always it's the
same question. So you could equally ask the question, what are you
going to do if those estimates are too low and more revenue comes
in. That remains, frankly, more of a likelihood than revenue
coming in at a lesser degree.
Q So
why use that, Ari, that the revenues have been stronger when the
economy has been weaker?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because the estimators are being too
conservative. They are estimating revenue at a far less rate
than has actually come in. And even with growth diminishing,
the pattern continues. The revenue estimators, both at the nonpartisan
CBO and at the Office of Management and Budget have missed the mark on
revenues on the too pessimistic side, the too conservative side.
I
understand the nature of the questions coming in, but what happens if
they're wrong? I think in all due respect, you also have to
ask the question, what happens if they're wrong again on the
pessimistic side. That has been the recent history. It
appears on the basis of the first four months of the year that recent
history will repeat itself, even with the slowdown.
Q But,
Ari, with regard to the last few days, the tremendous gyrations on the
market may indeed indicate that there really is no predictability in
the markets at this point, and maybe we're facing something much more
serious than you or the Clinton budget had predicted.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the tremendous gyrations in
the market have taken place on several occasions in the last several --
many years.
Q But
they're coming at an ever quicker rate. And wouldn't it be
better to have a buffer?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The market has been known for its gyrations.
It's been part of a pattern in the market going back many years.
Q But
wouldn't it be better, to follow up on that, Ari, wouldn't it be better
to have a buffer in terms of the unpredictability, rather than to give
that buffer away in a tax cut and not have it if things got much
worse? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the President believes very strongly
that if you leave all that money on the table in Washington and you
call it a buffer, that buffer will be spent. That is the
history of the politicians. And the surplus is, in fact,
$1.4 trillion smaller for the next 10 years than it would have been
because of government spending, agreements made by the last Congress
and the last President to increase government spending.
So the
President rejects that idea. He has a reserve built into his
budget, and he believes very strongly that if you do not cut taxes,
even after paying the debt, after increasing money for education and
Medicare and Social Security, if you do not cut taxes, that additional
money will be spent.
Q A
question about the West Coast energy crisis. Gordon Smith, a
Republican, this morning asked the President to reverse his opposition
to wholesale price caps. Is there any chance the President
will do that, or would he turn the decision over to his FERC
appointee?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, as Secretary Abraham made clear in his
testimony on the Hill this morning, the President does not support
price controls. He thinks price controls have not worked,
will not work, and do not work.
Q Under
any circumstance you would not reconsider that decision?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I just explained the President's point of view.
Q --
with the slowdown of the economy, do you think it will be more
difficult for the President to get fast track authority from Congress?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't know that you can -- I've not heard any
discussion about a tie between the difficulties in the economy and the
prospect for fast track. The President is very committed to
securing trade promotion authority, which is the new name for what fast
track was previously called -- trade promotion
authority. The President wants to move forward on
that. It's always been a difficult issue on Capitol Hill.
The margins are very tight. But the President is committed
to getting it done.
Q Do
you think we're going to see a real effort by the President before the
Summit of the Americans, in the next few days, when?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The White House has not announced a time table
yet. We'll keep you informed.
Q Going
back to Gephardt and Daschle, what they were saying, I don't think
anybody's suggesting that the President ought to withhold
facts. But when he makes statements like, there are dark
clouds on the economic horizon, and the economy is sputtering, those
are really statements of opinion, based on all the political calculus
involved. Are you suggesting he did not seek to have a
problem that his tax cuts could solve?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of any economist who would differ
with what the President is saying. The President thinks what
is important is to be accurate, not political, and his statements have
been accurate. And again, I draw you back to 10 years
ago. And if you take a look at the statements that were
being made by various Democrat officials 10 years ago, you'll see they
too were accurately describing the state of the economy then, harboring
no such reservations about the statements they were making at the
time.
Q So
he did not, gin up, if you will, the darkness of what he saw, so as to
help sell his tax plan?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As I'm sure you're aware, the decline in the
Nasdaq began in March of 2000. President Bush had just
barely emerged from the primaries in March of 2000. The
economic slowdown also can be traced back factually and accurately in
time. So to suggest that the President's words could have
caused any of these actions, when the economic slowdown actually begun
in a period some time ago, is as wrong as wrong can be.
Q If
you're talking about the decline in the Nasdaq, which, frankly, the Fed
was probably trying to encourage -- I'm talking about the GDP
slowdown.
MR.
FLEISCHER: That, too, began in the summer quarter of 2000.
And in June, July and August of 2000 is when GDP estimate began getting
revised downward in a rather sharp fashion. And that
continued to the point -- we just discussed it -- for the fourth
quarter -- or the first quarter of this fiscal year, which is November,
December and January of last year. Before the President even
took office, growth diminished even further.
And there
is a history to these matters. There are economic facts that
speak, and speak clearly. The President believes that it is
the job of a leader to speak accurately, and not to hide or withhold
information from the American people. He also thinks it's
terribly important that people in a position of power show the American
people that they care, that they hear their pleas, they hear the needs
of people who are paying high energy bills, who are struggling in this
economy, and the job of the government is to hear their
pleas. President Bush does.
Q Daschle
and Gephardt went so far as to suggest that corporate leaders who have
been listening to the economic talk coming out of the White House have
prompted a number of the thousands of layoffs that we've been seeing in
the past couple of months. What is your reaction to that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Would that be true in 1991 and 1992, when
Democrat leaders made similar statements, because at that time the
economy was weakening? I think what you see are accurate
measures of the economy.
Q Ari,
following up on that, the President yesterday was talking about -- this
just struck me as one of his first comments on this -- but he seemed to
balance out his comments about the difficulties of the economy with
other ones talking about the fundamentals, and there are some things
that are still good about the economy, and so on. Does he
plan to do more of that balancing out in the future?
MR.
FLEISCHER: You've heard the President say repeatedly that he
believes that the long term prospects for the economy are good, and
that's reflected in our budget. And the President will
continue to say that. He always has. Let me
stress again: The President believes that it is the job of a
leader, regardless of what party you're in, to talk about accurately
about the state of the economy. And he will continue to do
so. And I know of no private sector economist who disagree with the
President's descriptions of the economy. And we would hope
that all politicians of all parties would hear what is happening in
this country and not turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to it.
Q Can
you promise that the President would continue to talk about problems
with the economy if it's still bad in 2004?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's a hypothetical, if I understand the
definition of hypothetical.
Let's get
someone new here.
Q If
there's a cap on the homestead exemption, is that a deal-killer?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is not talking in terms of veto.
The President -- the statement the President put out in connection with
that bill, as you know, the President reiterated his support for the
compromise measure which had previously passed. But he is
not talking about language.
Q Is
he considering at all the direction in the legislation today?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Actually, we're very encouraged by the direction
of the bankruptcy legislation, and we'll continue to work with leaders
on the Hill. The President is looking forward to the
presentation of a bill that he can sign.
Q There
is a large body of opinion, too, that believes that even a
$1.6-trillion tax cut may not have an immediate impact to stimulate the
economy. Should that prove to be right, what is plan B?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President does believe that it will stimulate
the economy, and that's one of the reasons he was heartened when the
House of Representatives made the tax cut retroactive. The
President believes that when people know that they will have more money
in their paychecks each and every pay period for the next many years,
it's real-world. It's a real-world sign of consumer
confidence, a real way to boost the economy. The President has a plan,
and he hopes the Congress will pass it.
Q Ari,
about the meeting with Prime Minister Mori on Monday, are they going to
talk about the strength of the two economies and the recent development
in the stock markets?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We'll have some type of read on the agenda a
little closer to the meeting. I'm not prepared to do that
right here.
Q Are
they going to have that tomorrow?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It could be earlier next week.
Q The
meeting is Monday.
Q May
I ask something about NMD? You welcome other countries'
willingness to talk to the United States about that program --
MR.
FLEISCHER: About which program? Missile defense?
Q About
missile defense.
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q But
the Russian official that was visiting recently, Mr. Ivanov, he's
saying there is basically nothing to talk about this point, that the
Americans are not giving any specific proposals, any specific
ideas. Not even as specific as the Russians gave to Lord
Robertson from NATO in Moscow. So the question probably is
how soon do you expect to give something concrete and specific for
discussions?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As you know, the President has ordered a review
of missile defenses as well as other reviews, including the quality of
life in the military and our overall strategic needs in the military,
and that review is under way.
But I would
refer you, and I will remind you of what President Bush said when the
Russians made their announcement about sharing nuclear missile defenses
with Europe. The President said he was heartened to hear
about that. So that's why I've indicated to you that the
President is heartened to see this increasing talk around the world
about the need for defensive systems. Prime Minister Blair
said that, President Kim said that. The Russians and the
Chinese also talking about development of missile
defenses. And the President believes it's a reinforcement of
what he has talked about.
Q That's
not actually an issue. It has not been an issue all along --
I mean, developing and creating missile defense. The issue
here is breaking the old treaty.
MR.
FLEISCHER: And as I indicated to you, the President has
ordered the review to take place.
Q Ari,
is the President considering another formal press conference?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We'll let you know when there's another one
scheduled --
Q Ari,
the Catholic League is protesting the President's decision to invite
Ian Paisley to the celebration tomorrow, comparing it to inviting
Yasser Arafat to a Hanukkah party. Is the President
sensitive to these concerns of this major Catholic organization.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Actually, Mr. Paisley is coming here as a
representative of the various parties who all support the Good Friday
Agreement. And his decision to attend the meeting tomorrow
has been hailed by the signatories to the Good Friday Agreement as a
positive step.
Q Ari,
some of my brethren are reporting that the President has ordered up to
an 80 percent U.S. troop reduction in Bosnia. Is that
true? And if so, how is it going to work?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's an erroneous report.
Q It's
our understanding that this is being looked at, and will go to NATO.
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President -- as you know, there was recently
a 750 troop withdrawal, part of the regular draw down from the troops
on schedule. But the President has made clear that he will
continue to consult with our allies in the region prior to taking any
action, and that we will honor our commitments.
Q Right,
but it will go to NATO -- that's what's reported.
MR.
FLEISCHER: It's erroneous to say -- that report was
erroneous. Consulting with our allies will of course
continue to go on.
Q Erroneous
in what respect?
MR.
FLEISCHER: To say that we have a plan for --
Q The
report was that there was a proposal to withdraw up to a certain number
of -- contingent on submitting it to NATO.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think you're confusing two
issues. One, we will continue to consult with our allies and
NATO about United States plans for its troop commitments
abroad. But to say that we have -- we have a plan to draw
down the troops to that level is not accurate.
Q But
we may have a proposal which we would take to NATO, consult with them,
and then see it done, as things usually are when we go to NATO.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Do you want to weigh in on anything else?
MS.
COUNTRYMAN: The report was incorrect in characterizing the
six month review process as a first step in a withdraw.
Q Which
means that it is not a first step, there may be a second step?
MS.
COUNTRYMAN: Right, it's not a first step. We're
not stepping toward withdrawal at this point.
Q Well,
a proposal, nonetheless --
MS.
COUNTRYMAN: The U.S. intends to review the force posture
with NATO allies. It reviews it every six
months. As Ari said, as a result of a previous six-month
review, we determined that some forces and some military weaponry in
Bosnia was no longer needed to do the mission, and we removed it.
Q So
the next proposal will go to NATO when it's ready?
MS.
COUNTRYMAN: NATO does conduct a six-month
review. All allies are consulted in the six month review of
force posture. And we don't have any intention of taking a
first step toward withdrawal, as that CBS report indicated.
Q Without
consulting NATO?
MS.
COUNTRYMAN: Right now, there is no plan for a military
withdrawal from the Balkans.
Q --
will announce on the Hill that there is a budget of $730 million for
the Andean strategy to help countries like Peru and Ecuador with the
spillover of Colombia. The President feels that it's enough
money to help those countries, even though Ecuadoran government are
asking a loan of $150 million for the border aid?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me take your question. Either
somebody here will get back to you, or State will. They'll
take you're question.
Q The
President has seen the movie, Traffic?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q The
President has saw the movie, Traffic? The movie, Traffic?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Oh, has he seen the movie, Traffic? I
don't know.
Q Ari,
there's been a general consolidation or reduction in the number of
special envoys. But today we have one appointed for Northern
Ireland. Can you elaborate a little --
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's not the title. He's not a
special envoy. That's not his designation. He -- in
addition to his duties at the State Department, he will assume the role
of helping to coordinate the policies in that area. But the
title of Special Envoy is not an accurate title.
Q Ari,
there's an article in the Los Angeles Times this morning that said that
a top energy executive called while the President's speechwriters were
trying to top off his address to the joint sessions of Congress, with a
request which basically said, ask Bush to drop a line from his speech
restating his campaign pledge to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Who
was that? Can you confirm that someone did place that call,
and who was the industry --
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, that's the first I've heard of that and I
have no information on that. I know that was not a matter
that was discussed with the President in preparation of his speech.
Q But
someone may have called?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't know who calls our speechwriters.
Q Are
those reports erroneous that the line about carbon dioxide was in his
speech and it was taken out, that's erroneous?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's correct. It was never in his
speech. I indicated that to somebody at the time, when I saw
that.
Q Ari,
in view of what you've just said about the missile defense, would you
find it helpful if international visitors would stop talking about this
issue until you complete the review? (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: I would never presume to tell international
visitors what to say upon their international
visit. (Laughter.)
Q Ari,
speaking about international visitors, the Irish tomorrow, in addition
to seeing Bertie Ahern, what other things are planned here; any
discussions about the specifics of how to push the peace process
forward?
MR.
FLEISCHER: In the President's remarks today at the luncheon
with the Prime Minister, the President talked about how the United
States was going to be a partner in peace. He said that we
stand ready to help. He praised President Clinton and the role that
President Clinton played in bringing other nations to the point where
they are now.
And he said
that the Good Friday Agreement remains the best hope for a lasting
peace. That's what the President said in his remarks up on
the Hill. And, as you heard when the President discussed
when he was with Prime Minister Blair, he said that we stand ready; if
you need our assistance, we will provide it. But he
believes, essentially, that now is a time for the parties to the
negotiation to complete their work and we'll stand ready to be of
assistance.
Q Depending
on how you read the -- which account you read or who you talk to, on
the CO2 question, the President either explicitly reversed himself on
the campaign promise, or the original promise was a mistake made by
some aide who stuck it into his speech and apparently the President
didn't know that CO2 was not deemed a pollutant up until then. Which
is it? MR.
FLEISCHER: There are several things that have happened.
But, clearly, describing CO2 as a pollutant is not in accordance with
the terms of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act does not
include CO2 as a pollutant. And the President has said, and
will continue to go beyond any previous administration's anti-pollution
strategies by targeting for mandatory reductions three
pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen and mercury -- nitrogen
oxide and mercury. So, even with this, there's still going
to be an unprecedented attempt by this administration to create
mandatory reductions in those pollutants. And the Clean Air
Act does define those three as pollutants.
Including
CO2 as a pollutant should not have been done. That was a
mistake made during the course of the campaign. And
subsequent to that, you also have then --
Q --
corrected it after he made that statement, because many people talked
about it as a breakthrough.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Actually, it was barely talked
about. Most people following the speech talked about the
President's proposal in that same speech to open a section of ANWR up
for development, to increase American domestic supplies of
energy. I do believe that if more attention had been brought
to that matter of CO2 at that time it would have been noted at that
time. Then
in December of 2000, the Clinton administration Department of Energy
came out with a study that said, to have mandatory reductions of CO2
would lead to large increases in the price of
electricity. And given where California is today and where
our nation may be facing in terms of high energy bills and a looming
energy crisis, the President does not think it would be wise to
proceed.
Thank you
very much.
Q One
follow-up. Does the President personally believe that carbon
dioxide emissions lead to global warming?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Evidence does suggest that CO2 does play a role
in global warming. But the's separate from it being a
pollutant.
Thank you.
END 3:15
P.M. EST
#21-03/15
|