For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 12, 2001
Press Briefing by
By Ari Fleischer Index Secret Service-Statement..................................2 Incident on White House Grounds...................3-4 Senate Vote on Exploration in Gulf of Mexico............2-6 Salvation Army-Karl Rove...............................6-12 Medicare Proposal.....................................12-15 the White House Office of the Press Secretary ______________________________________________________________ for Immediate Release July 12, 2001 Press Briefing By Ari Fleischer the James S. Brady Briefing Room
2:11 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good
afternoon. I have two announcements I would like to
make. And there's a rather lengthy personnel announcement,
so we will be putting that out in writing. I will not go
through it.
The Secret Service routinely conducts
sweeps and searches at the White House complex on a 24-hour
basis. At mid-morning today, a Secret Service dog reacted to
a vehicle that belonged to someone attending a White House
event. The dog reacted a second time to that
vehicle. At the time, the Uniformed Division of the Secret
Service contacted the Technical Security Division, which handled the
matter.
The Technical Security Division made a
determination of how many feet surrounding the vehicle needed to be
evacuated. And that area included portions of the West Wing,
the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the North Lawn, including
the press area here. The vehicle was inspected and it was
cleared, and all events resumed at normal pace and schedule at the
White House shortly before noon. The President and the Vice
President were never affected at any time by this incident.
That is my statement on the matter dealing
with the Secret Service this morning.
Let me make a second
announcement. The Senate just recently, this morning, also
in an important victory for Americans who believe in promoting
conservation and exploration of America's energy supplies, voted by an
overwhelmingly bipartisan 67-33 to secure an agreement for the proposal
President Bush made to develop America's energy resources in a
conservation-friendly way in the Gulf of Mexico.
Today's vote is a victory for all
Americans who want to see environmentally-responsible energy production
to help protect consumers from wild fluctuations in energy prices, and
increase America's energy independence on foreign supplies of oil and
gas.
This vote shows that bipartisan consensus
can be reached on the plan to address America's energy
needs. The vote represents yet another example of how
President Bush is working, and will keep his word to balance the need
to address our energy needs with local concerns. The
President worked very hard with officials of all states in the Gulf of
Mexico in developing that plan. And the President is pleased
that an effort to overturn the compromise that he reached was not
agreed to, by a very overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate.
Q Ari, who did the
automobile in question belong to, and what was the nature of the
material that cause the dog to react?
MR. FLEISCHER: The automobile
in question belonged to a staffer of a member of Congress who was here
for a meeting with the President.
Q Who was that?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a matter
for the Secret Service. I'm not going to name whoever it
was.
Q Do you know what
it was that the dog hit on?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's unclear,
Ron. I think the Secret Service might have more specific
information on it. Obviously, what the dog hit on did not
develop.
Q One more
question, and then if I can follow up real quickly. Have you been able
to find out if this is the first time that a portion of the West Wing
has been evacuated?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not
aware. I had not previously been asked that. I'll be happy
to try to find out.
Q The President was
in the Oval Office during the time? The entire period?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the
President was on the patio behind the Oval Office, and then he had
lunch with the Vice President. They were initially out on
the patio, and they had their lunch in the routine office where they
always do; the small dining room just off the Oval.
Q But they didn't
ask him to leave the Oval Office?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q In addition to
your office, there was some suggestion that Condoleezza Rice's office,
because of its proximity to the vehicle, was also
evacuated. Can you confirm that?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated,
the areas that were evacuated included portions of the West
Wing. Those would be all the northern portions of the West
Wing. In other words, any portion of the West Wing that had
glass in the area where the vehicle was found, in the proximity, the
closest proximity to where the vehicle was found. The
vehicle was very close to the gate, so it was a lengthy distance from
the vehicle to the West Wing. Nevertheless, the entire northern
portion of the West Wing was evacuated. That would include the Offices
of the National Security Advisor.
Also, of course, the North Lawn, where
many reporters were. I'd like to thank the reporters for
your cooperation with the Secret Service in agreeing to leave as
quickly as you did. And the Eisenhower Executive Office
Building, as well, the northeastern portions of the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building were also evacuated.
Q Where did you go,
and where did the National Security Advisor go during this period of
evacuation?
MR. FLEISCHER: I went into the
Vice President's office and made some phone calls from there, and then
I met with the President out on his patio.
Q And do you know
where Condi went?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do not.
Q How do they
calculate this area that -- you were saying that they've calculated an
area. We have these things happen from time to time and --
MR. FLEISCHER: The Secret
Service are some of the nation's leading experts in this type of
protection for the people who are fortunate enough to work within these
gates. And they made the determination about how many feet
were necessary to evacuate from within the reach of that
vehicle. And that's the reason why they evacuated these
portions of the White House Complex.
Q What was
different about this incident from other -- we've had other incidents
in the driveway where the guy came out in the Michelin tire-looking
outfit to check things --
MR. FLEISCHER: It was the
reaction to the dogs which are trained in these matters.
Q Ari, that was the
follow-up. Was there another dog brought in for, in effect,
a second opinion, or is there just this one dog? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you
should double-check with the Secret Service. My
understanding, it was a solo canine opinion. (Laughter.)
Q Do you know how
experienced this dog was? Had the dog ever had a false
alarm?
MR. FLEISCHER: You should ask
the Secret Service that.
Q Was the mansion
at all affected by the evacuation?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it was not.
Q Has the car now
been returned, or is the Secret Service still going over it?
MR. FLEISCHER: My understanding
is, everything was cleared, and the owner took the vehicle back.
Q In general, the
cars which have congressional tags, are not checked at the gate; as a
courtesy, they're allowed to drive in. And does this
incident -- would that spark any reconsideration of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, I cannot
get into the manner in which the Secret Service acts for security
purposes at the White House gates. I would simply say, as
with all incidents, the Secret Service is always reviewing actions to
make certain that the White House, the President, the Vice President
and all the guests are safe as always. And so, they always
conduct a review, and --
Q Are those cars
exempt?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, you're
asking questions about specific security matters at the White House,
and you know those are not topics I can talk about.
Q Ari, because of
the scare, is there a thought that there might be a change in how cars,
or what cars are allowed in the Northwest Driveway area?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated,
the Secret Service always reviews their activities to make certain that
they are taking all appropriate steps to protect people within the
gates of the White House and that will be something the Secret Service
if they decide to look at, will look at.
Q Will this have an
effect on the President's decision about reopening Pennsylvania Avenue
to traffic?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's too
soon to say if there will be any effect of this
whatsoever. I don't see a connection.
Q Yesterday, you
said in the gaggle on the Salvation Army story, that if people had
checked deeper, they would have seen that this did not reach the senior
staff of the White House. Did you know then that Karl Rove
and the number two person at the Faith-Based Office had some
involvement in this issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: Keep reading.
Q Okay, "if people
had checked deeper, they would have seen that this did not even reach
the senior staff level of the White House, that the words "firm
commitment" were obviously a misread of the White House." I
know how you're going to parse that sentence, but I would like you to
ask me when you -- answer -- when you gave us that sentence if Karl
Rove was involved.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll give you a
two-part answer. And it's not parsing. It is
literally the meaning of what I said, that the question of whether or
not there was a firm commitment from the White House to the Salvation
Army was an erroneous statement in that memo from the Salvation Army,
and the question of support for the action the Salvation Army sought
never rose up to the level of the senior staff following the review.
As for the question of whether or not Karl
Rove specifically had any contact with the Office of Management and
Budget to pass along the information about the review, I did not know
that at the time.
Q And have you been
able to answer in the brief time since our briefing in your office what
exactly Karl Rove's involvement was beyond the one call to OMB?
MR. FLEISCHER: No
changes. As I indicated to you, I took your question and
we're going to work to try to get you an answer.
Q You have said
that under the civil rights laws that these charities, religious
organizations can discriminate on hiring. Am I wrong there?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, under the
civil rights laws, religious institutions --
Q There's an
exemption -- exemption.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- are not made
to discriminate on the basis of hiring. In other words, if
the Catholic Church decides that priests cannot be married, that is,
under our laws of freedom of religion in this nation, that is a right
of the Catholic Church to decide who can be a priest. And it
is the right, under the Civil Rights Act, as affirmed by a 9-0 Supreme
Court decision, to allow hiring decisions by ministries to be made in
accordance with civil rights laws.
Q I want to know,
can these federally-funded religious charities, which, under the
President's proposed program, can they deny assistance to non-believers
or atheists --
MR. FLEISCHER: As I told you a
half an hour ago, I do not have an answer for that question yet.
Q Well, why don't
you have an answer?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because you
asked a half an hour ago. I didn't --
Q No, I asked you
yesterday.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, yesterday,
you asked -- Helen, as always, I work very diligently to get you those
answers. I do not have it today.
Q I think that's a
very significant thing, don't you?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll try to get
you that answer.
Q And the question
here, that the Salvation Army wanted, was not whether their ministry
had to abide by local anti-discrimination laws, but whether their
federally-funded social service activities had to abide by local
anti-discrimination laws. And the White House was
considering some kind of action to allow them to discriminate against
gays and lesbians in hiring in these federally-funded social service
programs, correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House,
as we indicated yesterday, reviewed the request from the Salvation
Army.
Q And it -- so the
administration was entertaining the possibility of allowing the
Salvation Army to discriminate against gays and lesbians, while at the
same time, taking federal money.
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House
was reviewing the question, whether in this instance a private
organization could hire as a matter which it saw fit. In
this instance, the White House made a decision, as you know, not to
proceed with the Salvation Army request.
Q But in HR-7, the
charitable choice provision, in the current bill that's making its way
toward the House floor, doesn't it also seek to provide dissimilar
shelter from state and local ordinances on this question of religious
institutions, and whether or not they are required to adhere to those
state and federal -- state and local ordinances on the question of
hiring homosexuals?
MR. FLEISCHER: HR-7, passed by
the House Judiciary Committee, affirms the nation's civil rights laws
and the charitable choice laws which have been signed into law by
President Clinton. And that affords religious institutions
the opportunity to hire on the basis of who they believe should be
hired, in accordance with their faith.
Q In accordance
with their religious perspectives?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Which -- and
since 1996, since President Clinton signed that, states and localities
have stepped in with their own interpretation of what has happened.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q HR-7 would shield
these religious organizations from these new ordinances and state laws,
would it not?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not
clear, Major. I think that's a question that Paula asked
yesterday. There are state and local governments that have
taken into their own hands their right to pass ordinances that are
contrary to the federal measure. And wherever there is a
federal statute in conflict with a state conflict -- a state statute,
it often ends up in the courts.
Q Whatever happened
to local control? Whatever happened to municipalities who
believe that people provide social services in their jurisdiction
shouldn't discriminate in hiring this way. Why wouldn't the
administration, as they do on other issues, say, this is up to
localities?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because there's
a federal statute. And what the Salvation Army was asking
for was for the administration to overrule local
control. The administration took no such
action. So local control remains in
place. There's a federal statute on the
books. There are state statutes on the books. And
as is typical in our society, sometimes they're in
conflict. In certain cities they're in conflict.
Q Ari, the request
from the Salvation Army to the Office of Management and Budget was in
the pipeline as of mid-April.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q The Office of
Faith-based Initiatives was aware of it, the White House was aware of
it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q What was the
purpose for the President's senior political advisor getting involved
in this issue a month later, in the middle of May?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the
Salvation Army met with him and asked him to.
Q But if it was
already in the pipeline, why would there be cause to contact another
White House official, more senior than the first one?
MR. FLEISCHER: It happens all
the time. It happens all the time. If you think
that organizations that represent causes in America stop with one White
House aide, you don't understand -- and I know you do -- how
organizations work. They come and they petition their
government for a redress as they see fit. Sierra Club does
it, the Cancer Society does it, the Salvation Army does
it. AARP was here today. Welcome to America.
This is the business of the American people contacting the
representatives in the White House to state their
claims. The White House will always review these
requests. Sometimes they'll agree with these groups,
sometimes they won't.
Q But it has the
appearance of, we're not hearing what we want to hear, let's kick it up
the ladder a little bit.
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, groups
constantly reach out to talk to as many people in the White House as
they can find. For example, today, a representative of CBS
News called several officials in the White House to get comments on
questions. It's not uncommon for everybody to call multiple
people in the White House to try to get action.
Q Are you tracking
my phone calls? (Laughter.) But if I could just
follow one more time --
MR. FLEISCHER: But that's your
job, and that's the right of the American people, including the press,
to contact a variety of people in the White House to try to get answers
to their questions.
Q You have said
repeatedly that there's nothing wrong with listening to people on
various issues. And that may be true, as long as there is no
conflict of interest or any suggestion of a quid pro
quo. Can you say here and now that throughout this entire
issue with the Salvation Army there was not even the suggestion by
anyone at this White House of a quid pro quo, that we will try to get
you this waiver if you support us on faith-based initiatives?
MR. FLEISCHER: Not only can I
tell you that there was never a suggestion of a quid pro quo; in this
case, the Salvation Army asked for something that they did not get --
and the Salvation Army is supporting the President's faith-based
initiative. That's rather proof positive that there couldn't
have been a quid pro quo. Otherwise, why is the Salvation
Army supporting the President's initiative?
Q Ari, who here in
the White House went back to the Salvation Army with the conclusion
that there would be no action?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was somebody
in the Faith-based Office. I don't know if it was John
DiIulio or somebody who works for him.
Q Ari, on the
subject of Karl Rove's involvement, one of the things that's attracted
attention and criticism is the fact that Karl is the senior political
strategist for the President and, yet, he's also deeply involved, and
has been deeply involved in some policy issues. Some people
say that's inappropriate. This, again, illustrates that
nexus of politics and policy in Karl's portfolio. How would
you respond to the criticisms that your senior political strategist --
MR. FLEISCHER: I dismiss it as
utter nonsense from people who know how good and valued a worker Karl
is for the President and for all of us here in the White
House. Karl performs his job in a superb fashion, and Karl
is in charge of inter-governmental affairs and people should bring
business to Karl Rove if they want to have an issue considered, and
Karl will exercise his discretion and judgment.
It's the right of the American people to
bring their matters to the government, to everybody who works here in
the White House, including Karl. Karl does his job.
Q The question is,
is it appropriate, or is it, in fact, a conflict of interest to have
Karl handling intergovernmental affairs and also serving as the chief
political strategist for the President. Is that an
inappropriate mixture of --
MR. FLEISCHER: Of course not.
Q Why isn't it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Why is it?
Q Because it's
mixing policy and politics.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think all the
decisions that the President has made -- the President makes are based
on the merits. And those include a variety of
considerations.
Q Ari, as the
President's spokesperson, would you have liked to have known, should
you have known the full involvement of Karl, and any other senior
officials, yesterday morning when you were asked these questions?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, if
your question is, is there any White House Press Secretary who is ever
able to keep track of every single phone call made by every single
White House employee and every meeting that every single White House
employee engages in, that's an impossibility. What I said
yesterday was in regard to the question of the firm commitment, and
properly so.
Q Do you disagree
that you left, at the very least, a perception that there was no senior
level official involved in this case, at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's
a reminder -- I think it's a reminder that stories can be wrong and
perceptions that stories create can be wrong. And in this case, the
suggestion that senior administration official -- when I said, no
senior administration officials made any such statement about a firm
commitment, it's perfectly clear from what you just read that my
statement was in the context of firm commitments. And that's
exactly right.
Q Can I try one
more on substance? Does the President believe that taxpayer
money should go to any organization -- religious or otherwise -- that
discriminates on the basis of race?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's against
the law.
Q Does the
President believe that taxpayer money should go to any organization --
religious or otherwise -- that discriminates on the basis of sexual
orientation?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is not part
of the civil rights laws.
Q What does the
President believe on that question?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
has -- consistent with all civil rights laws, the President supports
the right of private organizations to hire.
Q So it would be
okay?
Q On the issue of
Medicare that the President was talking about this morning, where do
you go from here? If the President offered some guidelines,
would you try to shape a bill -- would you submit legislation, do you
have a time frame? Also, on prescription drugs, will that
have to be wrapped in an overall Medicare reform packet, or would you
do a prescription drug benefit separately and then do Medicare reform
as time goes on?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
made two proposals today pertaining to Medicare. One is to
bring the fastest way possible of reducing the prices of prescription
drugs to seniors. And given the fact that Congress has not
been able to take any action on Medicare in recent years, it's a good
thing that the administration can act on behalf of seniors without
congressional approval. That way, seniors can get their
discount cards. HHS is working on a plan to get them the
discount cards next year, and I think seniors are going to be very
gratified to receive them.
The President believes that beyond that,
it is absolutely essential for Congress to put partisan politics aside
and come together. That way, a fundamental reform of
Medicare can be made that strengthens the program that includes a
prescription drug benefit for all seniors within the Medicare program.
Q Do you have a
time frame for this, though? I mean, because --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President
would like to see Congress act on this matter in the fall.
Q Will you submit
legislation to Congress, or will you simply say these are our
guidelines, we'll look for a bill that either comes out of the House or
the Senate that meets our guidelines?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's
approach is reflected in the package that he sent to Capitol Hill
today. The President thinks it's best to bring people
together on this issue. The recent history of Medicare has
suggested that people will prefer to fight over it rather than to solve
it, and by sending up the principles that the President outlined today,
it creates a more inclusive environment so Democrats and Republicans
can work together to support substantive reforms to strengthen and
protect Medicare.
Q Ari, the
President today proposed merging A and B.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q As you are aware,
the deductibles for A and B differ. One is about $700, one
is about $400. If you merge these programs, does that
necessarily mean and does the President support a deductible that would
be somewhat higher than $400 and somewhat less than $700, and therefore
would be somewhere in the middle and because more Medicare
beneficiaries use doctor visits as opposed to hospitalization, some
might be exposed to higher deductible costs under this reform.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the
President is committed to working with Congress on a structure with the
deductibles and the copayments that makes the most sense for
seniors. Currently, the current system presents a very big
burden for seniors. As you put it, Major, there is a program
in place right now where seniors under what's called Part A are their
hospital coverage are required to pay $800 every time they go into the
hospital. And that's one of the reasons that more than 10 million
seniors who are on Medicare have had to reach deep in their own pockets
to pay for Medigap insurance is exactly because they are not satisfied
with the premiums and the deductibles and the copayments under the
current Medicare structure. So they have to pay often more than $1,000
a year for additional coverage that can get them additional benefits
and lower copays and deductibles. It's an illustration of the fact
that a lot of seniors would like to see a more modernized structure in
Medicare.
Q Many others just
use -- tend to use Part B more than Part A.
MR. FLEISCHER: Unless, God
forbid, they have to go to the hospital.
Q That's right.
MR. FLEISCHER: And no senior
knows when they're going to have to go to the hospital.
Q That's
right. But those deductibles are lower, and if everyone is
exposed to a higher deductible, a good number of Medicare recipients
could be --
MR. FLEISCHER: But no one says
that everybody will be exposed to a higher deductible.
Q To follow up on
the medical, I know a lot of the family doctors and general
practitioners are very concerned about the President's support of
specialty doctors. Does the President see any merit in
referring patients first to the general practitioners or the family
doctors who can often do the same job as effectively at a less cost?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is exactly
why the President believes that seniors deserves choices in health care
plans. There are some seniors that would prefer to go right
to their general practitioner. There are others that don't
want to be bothered with a general practitioner and they would rather
go to see their specialist. They've worked with these
specialists for many years. They don't want anybody in
between them and their specialist. It should not be the role
of the government to dictate what they do. They should have
choices, so they can best make their own health care plans, as they see
fit.
Q The President
does support the choice?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President --
the Medicare proposals the President announced today promote choice in
health care for senior citizens.
Q The perception is
that the President is really pushing the specialty doctors.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President --
I just don't share that perception. I don't see it.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 2:33 P.M. EDT
|