|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 29, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
1:35 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I would like to thank whoever has put this
picture on the podium of a very young-looking Helen Thomas asking a question to
Richard Nixon. Or at least writing and listening, as Helen is on the side.
MS. THOMAS: He was answering them, too. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, Helen, it looks to me like you're listening.
(Laughter.)
Q Do you see Connie's sunglasses in there?
MR. FLEISCHER: And Connie is wearing sunglasses in this picture. Thank you to
whoever has given me this little bon-bon.
I have no opening statement, other than that. I'm happy to take your questions.
David?
Q Ari, given the reality now with deficits over the next few years, as
Director Daniels has pointed out, is the President prepared to postpone some of
his campaign promises in the area of prescription drugs or reforming
Social Security? And if not, how does he plan to pay for them now that we're in
deficits?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the fact that the economy has slowed to the degree
it has, even before the President took office, and then the recession that began
in March of this year is one other reason why the President reminds the Congress
of the need to do two things this fall -- one is to pass a stimulus so the
economy can get growing again, and so surpluses can return; and also, to be
careful that they don't engage in any excess spending beyond what they've
already agreed to.
Other than that, I think it will be important to take a look at how the economy
does come back next year to determine what else could be impacted as a result of
this. But it is a reminder to people in Congress, it's always important to keep
a watchful eye on taxpayer dollars; it's even more important now.
Q But how is it possible in the near-term to satisfy campaign promises with
regard to spending when the money isn't there anymore?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in terms of the promises the President made, if you want to
offer a specific promise I'll be happy to talk about it issue by issue. But the
President --
Q I named a couple, so why don't you go through them -- Social Security reform,
prescription drugs.
MR. FLEISCHER: Social Security reform, as you know, is a very long-term
commitment on Social Security. That's a matter where the President has said that
he believes very strongly that personal savings accounts are a very important
way to help protect Social Security for today's retirees, but a lot younger
workers is what we're really talking about here, a chance to have a retirement
system that's there.
Q I know the policy. We're just curious about where the money is going to come
from.
MR. FLEISCHER: But that's a long-term funding issue --
Q But it's a long-term problem, according to Director Daniels. He doesn't see
surpluses returning until '05.
MR. FLEISCHER: And the duration of that will be determined mostly by the shape
of the economy. And that's why the President thinks first things first. The most
important thing that can happen this fall is for a stimulus to get passed.
On Medicare prescription drugs, the President will continue to work with
Congress on that topic. But clearly, anything dealing with large spending
increases, particularly creation of new entitlements, has to be done with an eye
toward what is achievable.
Q Senator Daschle says the tax cuts are to blame for this, specifically.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you know, let's just walk through the numbers. When
President Bush took office, the budget in February of this year projected a
surplus of $281 billion. We now know that the fiscal year -- that's for '01. The
fiscal year is now over, and the surplus for the year was $127 billion. In other
words, the surplus dropped by $154 billion this year.
The tax cut, this year, was $40 billion. So obviously the tax cut had nothing to
do with all the drop in the surplus; in fact, the tax cut is one of the reasons
that people think the economy is going to come back. But the fact that the
surplus dropped by $154 billion, while the tax cut was $40 billion, indicates
there was something else going on. That something else, we now know, is a
recession. It is a slowing-down of the economy.
And as the President said repeatedly throughout the campaign, and he reiterates
today, the solution is through growth, and growth is achieved by cutting taxes
and stimulating the economy.
Q Ari, in answering his first question about prescription drugs, you said
anything dealing with large spending increases you have to do with an eye
towards what is achievable. His question was, is your prescription drug plan
achievable?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, that is something that -- the President has sent up
his principles to the Hill. That includes prescription drug coverage for
seniors. It has not moved this fall, obviously, on the Hill. And it is a little
early to predict what the congressional agenda will be like next year, but
obviously, in an era of tight surpluses, people have to keep an eye on spending.
But it remains an important priority for the President to help senior citizens
get affordable prescription drug coverage. Along that point, there was an
interesting court ruling recently with the prescription drug discount card that
the President proposed. If you recall, there was an original court case which,
throughout the President's proposal, because of some procedures had not been
followed, the judge has now come back on that issue and the procedures are now
being implemented under the judge's authority to allow the development of the
prescription drug card, which can help seniors get discounts on their cards.
Their are a few more steps still to be taken, but that is an encouraging
development for seniors, so they can get a reduction on the cost of prescription
drugs.
Q The Democrats have been rather critical of the White House on economic policy
in the last 24 hours, even while the negotiations over the stimulus go forward.
Gephardt was saying, Congressman Gephardt was saying that the President is
mismanaging the economy and, as you talked about, the tax cuts responsible for
the recession, Senator Daschle says Republicans simply don't want to negotiate
on an economic stimulus. What is your response to those charges, and where do
you see the economic stimulus talks now? Where are they, what are the prospects?
MR. FLEISCHER: A couple points. I think that accusations like that make the
American people tired of how business gets done in Washington. People expect
leaders to come to Washington not to point fingers at each other, but to work
together to solve problems. And that's why the President has engaged with the
Senate to help the Senate to do what the Senate is wrestling with and having
difficulty, which is coming to agreement by themselves on a stimulus package.
Last night, Chief of Staff Card, Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill went up to
Capitol Hill to meet with House and Senate leaders, as well as the tax writers
to help the Senate to complete its work. And the President remains very hopeful
that the Senate would be able to pass a stimulus package. But, you know, Jim, I
guess for many a year that's the way business has been done in Washington,
finger-pointing and blaming. That won't stop the President from working with the
Congress to try to get a stimulus passed.
Q Why doesn't the President --
MR. FLEISCHER: Do you have a follow-up? Go ahead.
Q To what extent does that complicate the talks on economic stimulus? Yesterday
Senator Daschle was suggesting that an agreement could be made within a couple
of days. But today Democrats seem to be suggesting that the President is
mismanaging the economy, and one might assume mismanaging the efforts to revive
the economy.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President will just continue to do what he was
elected to do, which was to get the economy -- to keep the economy strong and to
focus on his agenda. So I think the President would rise above and do what the
people elected him to do. This is part of the old Washington where people engage
in name-calling, as opposed to problem-solving.
Q Is that tone reflected in the talks over economic stimulus, or is it a
different tone in these talks?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the talks on economic stimulus that are going on in the
Senate right now are aimed at resolving it. That's certainly what Senator
Daschle pledged to the President when Senator Daschle was here, and I think the
President can't imagine a circumstance where Senator Daschle would do anything
other than what he told the President.
Q Why doesn't the President think that corporations should pay any taxes?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's not what the President believes.
Q Well, what does he believe? He does want to eliminate taxes for corporations,
doesn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The President believes corporations need to pay taxes.
Q Minimum tax?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is an element of the tax code called the alternative
minimum tax, which, by it's definition, alternative means that they are paying
taxes. It's a different way that taxes get calculated under the code. And the
President does not believe that businesses should be penalized for the
investments they make where, unlike anybody else, the tax code allows you to
make deductions; it encourages you to invest in plant and equipment; and if you
invest in what the tax code suggests, you get a deduction.
The President does not think that corporations should be punished for the
investments they make, which is what the alternative minimum tax does. So the
President believes that the corporate alternative minimum tax should be
repealed. That doesn't mean corporations won't pay taxes; they still will.
Q Does the President believe they should get rebates?
MR. FLEISCHER: You asked the other day, Helen -- I'm sorry?
Q He also believes they should get rebates.
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, under the corporate minimum tax, corporations do
receive credits for the amount of taxes they pay, once they have reached a level
at which their taxes are reduced as a result of the minimum tax. Under the
current law, corporations are entitled to those credits. So the question that is
under consideration in the Congress is, after the corporate minimum tax is
abolished what happens to the credits that those corporations have already been
promised and are due as a result of the law.
And yesterday -- or two days ago, Helen, you asked a question about why does the
tax bill contain more tax cuts for corporations than it does for individuals.
Here are the numbers on what the House passed, for example, which demonstrates
what I indicated to you that the majority of the tax cuts go to individuals.
According to what the House passed, which is close to what the President
requested, but not an identical match, there is a reduction of $25 billion in
taxes over 10 years for expensing; $24 billion for the corporate alternative
minimum tax; $21 billion for a provision called Sub-part F, which affects
corporations; and $86 billion over 10 years for individual income tax cuts. So
the reason I walked through the numbers is the majority of the tax cut clearly
goes to individuals under what the House passed. Even more so under what the
President proposed.
Q Ari, there are reports that Abdel Omar Rahman, supposedly an associate of
Osama bin Laden, the son of the blind Sheik Rahman convicted of terrorism in New
York, has been captured in Afghanistan and interrogated by American officials.
Can you confirm any of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have nothing for you on that topic.
Q Are there any preparations underway in Guam for the establishment of the
holding of military tribunals, the prospective military tribunals?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, there are not.
Q And finally, what criteria will the President use in his identification and
selection of individuals for trial by military commission?
MR. FLEISCHER: Under the military order that the President signed, which would
allow in circumstances where the President thinks are necessary for national
security purposes, the trial of non-Americans who are believed to be involved in
terrorism or in the war in Afghanistan, under a military tribunal, the President
will make the designation about who will be subject to a military tribunal. He
will make that determination on the basis of what he believes is in the national
security interest.
Q That's very broad.
MR. FLEISCHER: It is very broad.
Q Just whatever he thinks the national security requires?
MR. FLEISCHER: Under the law and under the Supreme Court precedence, the
President has that authority. And the President has said that --
Q How can he take that authority?
MR. FLEISCHER: He has reserved to himself, as opposed to designating it --
delegating it to the Secretary of Defense or to any other officials, that
responsibility.
Q Case by case?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct, case by case.
Q Ari, on the announcement by the Attorney General offering new immigration
incentives to encourage people to turn in information, how come this -- can't
this be viewed in some way as selling U.S. visas and citizenship in exchange for
information?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, this is an existing program that is already under the
law in terms of -- I think it's referred to as S visas. And the Attorney General
announced a beefing up of the program, and reminding people that this is an
existing program -- we can do more with it -- to help protect people in this
country. And so immigrants who come to this country can enjoy their life in
America, enjoy the freedom of America, as they play a role in helping protect
themselves and their fellow -- other citizens in this country from terror.
Q What is the genesis of it? Did it -- was there sort of a sense that a lot of
people weren't coming forward out of concerns that the Attorney General was
learning about?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the program exists out of a wise recognition that
there are people who may have information about others who are involved in
crimes or activities, and they believe it is their civic responsibility and duty
to help and pass that information along, so justice can be served. It is not
uncommon for governments -- in this case the United States government -- to have
an incentive or a reward program to help people to take such a step. You have
seen that often -- there are similar programs that exist where people who
provide information that leads to the arrest or conviction of people are
eligible for rewards.
This is a program that exists to help people who are coming to America, in terms
of their visa status, so they can enjoy more of the rights and the privileges of
America. And that's why.
Q So people who have broken the law, the immigration law, would get a kind of
amnesty if they trade information on terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The Attorney General was asked that earlier; he indicated it
is not an amnesty. But there are ways under existing programs with the S visa
for citizens to enjoy more of the freedoms and the liberties of America under
the terms of a visa, even though they're not citizens, as a result of any
information that they may share, that they decide to voluntarily come forward
and share because they think it's their civic responsibility to help protect
Americans from crimes they may be aware of.
Q But wouldn't it be possible someone could be in the United States illegally,
and then turn in information to the FBI, and then be given the opportunity to
stay in the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I think you need to ask the Department of Justice how they
would adjudicate any individual instance of somebody bringing information
forward, and what that person's status is as they bring the information forward.
I believe the Department of Justice will tell you that it would be a
case-by-case determination.
Q Ari, since this was an existing program, why now? Why do we have this timing?
For instance, why didn't we hear about this, you know, shortly after some of the
suspects were being rounded up? Is it an indication, for instance, that the
investigation is not going as well as you had hoped it would?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's another sign that the government is continuing
to take steps that it deems helpful and appropriate to catch people, or to
prevent people from engaging in terrorism or other crimes in the United States.
I would remind you similar things were done with the reward money that you have
heard about, for information that would lead to the arrest or conviction of
Osama bin Laden, or the capture of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants.
It's not uncommon to have such programs. And the fact of the matter is people
respond to them. The fact of the matter is the more information that is conveyed
about them, the more people hear about them -- the show "America's Most Wanted,"
for example, often people call up because they think it's part of their civic
duty, and it's a healthy part of involving more Americans and non-citizens, as
well, into helping protect this country. Often people are aware of information,
and they think it's their responsibility to pass it along. The government is
going to help people pass it along.
Q People continue, at least civil rights groups continue to criticize John
Ashcroft for many of the measures he has taken, claiming he is violating a lot
of the justice -- in this country. Is the President in full agreement with
whatever Attorney General Ashcroft has done in this regard since September 11th?
And will the President use his speech today to attorney generals to defend John
Ashcroft's policies?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I don't even think it's a question of defend anybody.
There's no need to defend someone who is doing such an excellent job. And the
President thinks that the Attorney General is doing an excellent job. The
President believes that as a result of the actions of the Attorney General, that
terrorist activity is being disrupted and that the Attorney General is
protecting America and American citizens, as well as all the visitors who come
to our country to enjoy our freedoms.
So the President is very pleased with the activities of the Attorney General.
And you talked about people are raising objections, as their right. It is
absolutely their right, and the actions the Attorney General is taking are
designed to protect their right. Even as they represent a minority of Americans
who are questioning the Attorney General's activities, it is their right and
their duty to express their objections. And the majority agrees with what the
President and the Attorney General are doing, and they are doing it so the
rights of the minority -- can be protected.
Q Is it okay to deny them their civil rights, though -- violate people's civil
rights to protect other people?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, and that is not the case. That has not been done.
Q But Ashcroft, this morning, said that no one has filed a lawsuit against the
violation of civil rights, basically saying that he knows civil rights are being
violated for those being detained in reference to 9/11.
MR. FLEISCHER: April, I went back and looked at the Attorney General's remarks
on the TV show you mentioned this morning after you raised that question
earlier. And the Attorney General did not say what you said he said. The
Attorney General made note of the fact that no suits have been filed, but he did
not say, as you indicated, that rights have been violated. He said just the
opposite. He said, this is all in accord --
Q Read between the lines.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't think that's a fair characterization of what he said.
Q I've got a follow-up.
MR. FLEISCHER: Jacobo gets a follow-up.
Q You know, a lot of the people criticizing General Ashcroft belong to the
Democratic Party. Do you think there's any politics involved, or do you think
they really have a legitimate complaint?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think these are people's principled views and their heartfelt
views. I also submit to you that they represent a minority. And that is their
right, and the actions the Attorney General has taken are designed to protect
all Americans, regardless of their views.
And on the question of the military tribunals, as the Department of Defense
appropriations bill was debated yesterday, there was a Democratic congressman
from Ohio, Congressman Kucinich, who is prepared to offer an amendment which
prevented the use of any money for the creation of military tribunals. He
actually filed his amendment with the House Rules Committee to put it to a vote.
The Democrats asked him not to put it to a vote because they knew that if it was
put to a vote, it would lose in an overwhelming bipartisan display.
So I submit to you that if there was such widespread opposition to what the
President was doing, you might see a test vote in the Congress. And there is a
reason that no test votes have been taken; it is because the bipartisan majority
of the Congress supports what the President has done. So, too, the American
people.
Q Ari, if I could follow up on two things you said. When you said that there was
an existing program, the S visa program, just to clarify on that. Under the
existing program, does one receive favorable treatment for being on a path to a
green card or other immigration status, which has got a very clear set of
criteria, if you give information helpful to the government in a criminal
investigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Department of Justice can provide you with the exact details
on how the programs work. But there are existing programs, and I've walked you
through a couple of them.
Q Okay, and if I can follow up on one other, which is Helen's question on
corporate taxes. You said the President is in favor of there being some
corporate taxes. Does this put him in opposition to his Treasury Secretary, who
has said many times on the record that he believes that corporate taxes are
unwise because they are simply passed along to consumers?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think in the realm of theology, that is a consistent
statement. There are many leading economists who believe that corporate taxes
are passed on to consumers. But the administration has made no changes, has
proposed no changes in the corporate income tax rate, which remains at 34
percent.
Q Could you tell us about the resumption of mail here at the White House? Is
that going to happen --
MR. FLEISCHER: As you recall, there was an interruption of the mail service to
the White House. And I am pleased to report that is coming to an end. The mail
service to the White House will resume as soon as tomorrow.
Q Full service?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Does that mean that precautions have been taken, and you're satisfied?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
Q Ari, on the idea of the individual -- the Disabilities Act, part of the
Education Act, the President had said when he was running for office that he
would work with Congress to fully fund it. It's not fully funded. Is the
President still trying to work with Congress to fully fund it?
MR. FLEISCHER: In the speech that the President gave up in Maine where he
announced the Disability Initiative in 2000, the President talked about the IDEA
program, which is a program designed to help disabled community and education
community. Full funding is an issue that the President discussed. The Congress
has for years discussed full funding, and has never been able to fully fund the
program.
I'm not aware of any discussion right now that it will be fully funded, but the
President has always indicated support for the program. But he has also said
that it needs to be reformed on the path to better funding.
Q On the international conference in Bonn, does the White House expect women to
play a major role in the Afghan coalition government? And if they are not
included, will U.S. aid be cut?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the talks are underway in Bonn, and progress is being made
on the creation of a future government of Afghanistan. I think there is going to
be -- the process is going to continue. No one is looking for an immediate
solution, and it is a fluid series of discussions about the future government of
Afghanistan.
The American position has been made abundantly clear, and that is that the
government of Afghanistan should be a multiethnic government that represents all
the people -- the Pashtuns, as well as the others in Afghanistan -- and it must
include a role for women. But, fundamentally, it is a matter that the Afghani
people have to decide.
Q Ari, back on the subject of the Responsible Cooperator program that the
Attorney General announced today, does it not make the administration
uncomfortable to be promulgating a program that bears at least passing
similarity to what totalitarian societies like East Germany and the Soviet Union
used to do, to say to its people, turn informant and you'll get rewarded?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think, again, the notion of suggesting a moral equivalence
between those people who come to our shores to take advantage of liberty and
freedom, and understanding that they want to provide information to a
freedom-loving government, so that people who seek to violate the rights of
others can be captured -- that that is somehow morally equivalent to the actions
of a Nazi or totalitarian state is a question whose premise I'll never accept.
Q But isn't the essential bargain the same? Turn informant and --
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely not. The essential bargain is only the same if you
believe in moral equivalence between totalitarian governments and the government
of the United States. And I don't.
Q So you're suggesting that it is somehow morally superior if we do it here?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that people here understand that when they help catch
people who are committing crimes, they help to protect freedom.
Q But they're also getting something in return.
Q Ari, the Egyptian Foreign Minister today apparently raised with Secretary of
State Powell some concerns about possible U.S. action on Iraq. Does the
President feel his ability to take whatever action he might feel is needed on
Iraq is constrained by the hesitation of some of our Arab allies?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that there's no way to answer that question without
getting into anything that is premature. The President is focused on phase one
of this war against terrorism, and that is undergoing in Afghanistan. The
President has made his statements about -- and he said this in a speech to the
nation on September 20th -- that in the war against terrorism, you were either
with freedom or you were against freedom. And nothing has changed the
President's view on that.
Q Ari, on the economy again, in the wake of the Mitch Daniels projections, does
the President think that an economic stimulus package could possibly turn those
deficits into surpluses again by the end of his term?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to predict any timing, because there are too
many vagaries in economics to predict timing. There are professional economists
who try to do that, and sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. But
the President does believe strongly, as you heard him say in the Rose Garden
this week, that he supports a package that is stimulative for the economy. And
that is what he is urging the Senate to pass.
He understands there is always a temptation in Congress to put things in a bill
to buy votes, to have increased spending for one pet project or pork project or
another. But the President does not think those things stimulate the economy. He
wants to have a bill passed that is helpful to the economy. The provisions that
the President is asking the Congress to pass are an acceleration of the
individual income tax rate cuts, a tax cut for low and middle income Americans,
increased expensing for businesses to invest in plant and equipment, and an end
to what he believes is the counterproductive corporate alternative minimum tax.
Q Does he think that those numbers might be able to be turned around?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I would refer you to the estimates of private sector
forecasters, who have stated in their growth projections for next year, that in
the absence of a stimulus, there will be less growth next year. Most private
sector forecasters believe that the economy will turn around next year. Again,
the slow-down began in the summer of 2000, GDP in the spring of 2000. It
exceeded five percent; it slowed down into the two percent range in the summer
of 2000; and in the fall of 2000, it dropped into the one percent range and it
stayed there right until the recession began, some 40 days after President Bush
took office.
So by the time the President took office, the economy had been in a long
slow-down. The recession began in March, and private sector forecasters believe
that we will come out of it next year. But without a stimulus, they think we
won't come out of it as fast.
Q Could I follow on that one, Ari? As I understand it, OMB is not actually
issuing new projections that say we're likely to have deficits for three years.
Mitch was simply saying, the way it looks, we're not going to have a surplus
again for two, maybe three years. I mean, these are not official projections,
this is not an official set of numbers, including assumptions about economic
growth.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a good point. The speech that Director Daniels gave was a
speech to the Press Club yesterday, in which he stated that he thought that
would be the case. The projections from the Office of Management and Budget that
will have additional numbers will not be available until early next year. He was
stating what the economy looks like at this time.
Q Historically, most recessions have lasted 11 months or so, and we now know
that this one began in March, meaning -- measuring against historical trends --
we're nearly out of it. Does that undercut your argument for the urgency -- the
urgent need for the stimulus?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, because of the point I just made, about while private sector
forecasters believe that we will come out of recession next year, there is slow
growth, there's almost no growth, and then there is strong growth. Jobs are
created through strong growth. Surpluses are returned through strong growth. But
if the economy only comes back at two percent, it's not very strong growth.
In the absence of a stimulus package, there is a strong possibility, according
to private sector forecasters, that the economy will come back only with low to
perhaps moderate growth. The President would like to see strong growth. That way
more jobs can get created, surpluses are returned, and a stimulus can be
instrumental in achieving that goal.
Q The speech yesterday that Mitch Daniels gave, I trust that the gist of it he
told the President ahead of time, sir, it's not likely that we're going to get
back in the black before the first term is over with. Was the President troubled
by that at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President at all times appreciates candor and
speaking forthrightly with the American people. If you remember, Larry Lindsey
said in the summer that he foresaw the unemployment rate rising to some five
percent. The administration has not hesitated to speak candidly about the facts
and the figures. And I think, frankly, the American people welcome it. They want
to know what the facts are, and that's what the administration has done.
Q But is he troubled by the notion that there might be red ink for the remainder
-- for as far as the eye can see, before he has to meet the American voter
again?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is troubled by the fact that the economy has slowed
down. The President is troubled by the fact that we're in recession. The
President will be even more troubled if the Senate doesn't do anything about it.
Q Ari, is the administration trying to do anything to prevent Enron from
slipping into bankruptcy and putting 20,000 people out of work? And also, has
the President or anyone else in the administration been in touch with Enron
Chairman, who was a big contributor of the President and supporter?
MR. FLEISCHER: On your second question, I don't know the answer to that. On the
first question, as I indicated yesterday, the Treasury Department and others are
monitoring the events concerning Enron. And you may want to check with Treasury
for anything that they have to offer.
Q But they don't see any danger yet in the Enron situation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Treasury is monitoring it.
Q On the economic stimulus package, there seems to be three red flags there,
where neither side seems willing to budge, either in support or in opposition.
And those three areas are homeland security, accelerating individual tax cut
rates, which the Senate Democrats say they won't support, and even in the health
insurance area, Democrats want a COBRA subsidy. The administration considers
that an entitlement. If you don't budge, and if they don't budge on any of those
issues, why are you, or on what basis, is there any optimism that you're even
going to deal?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you said Senate Democrats don't support. And I think that's
a -- it's hard to speak for all Senate Democrats in one breath. There are
differences among Senate Democrats, and there is a centrist coalition of Senate
Democrats who want to, very much, to work to get an agreement, and who believe
that we need more tax cuts and less spending increases. And the President is
working with that group, and will continue to work with that group.
So this, in fairness to the Senate, is approaching the end of a session, we
hope. And it's often at the end of a session where the final agreements are
made, that until there is a real deadline, it's not uncommon for the practice in
the Congress to be, go slow, and then a deadline helps make things speed up. The
President hopes that will be the case this time. And as I indicated, he has met
with Senator Daschle. He received a strong report from Senator Daschle about his
commitment to getting a stimulus done. And the President has dispatched his team
up to Capitol Hill to help make that happen. We'll see if it does.
Q Do you realistically expect that to happen without any give on the
administration side? You seem to be as adamantly in favor of some of the
provisions that they're so adamantly against.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the first step has to be for the Senate to figure
out a process. And once the Senate figures out a process, then I think we'll see
if we can get a substantive agreement.
Q First of all, can you foresee a circumstance under which you get a compromise
that you don't like, to the point where you would just as soon not have a
stimulus bill, given that the only forecasters who say it's really crucial are
-- seem to be government forecasters? Private sector forecasters generally
suggest that it would account for .2 of a percent difference either way.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's -- it remains the goal of the President, and
many members of Congress, to keep at it until they get it done.
Q So bad a compromise you don't want it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the only way that something can get out of the
Senate is if there is a good compromise. The way the Senate is structured, it's
hard to get things done unless there is a compromise. And I think that's the
reason there is such a wrangle in the Senate right now, that Senator Daschle is
supervising, as the leader of the Senate. And that's why his job is a difficult
one. Nevertheless, the House of Representatives has passed a stimulus bill, and
now it's the Senate's turn.
Q Ari, the economic slowdown of late has to do with the healing process from
9/11 -- i.e., people not wanting to fly as much, and people not feeling so sure
about their job security going to the mall. Where do you think the American
public should be right now in the healing process, as far as to help the
economy? I mean, you have these commercials that come on TV with the President
in the midst of the restaurant industry, the airline industry and what have you.
Where should the American public be right now in the healing process to help the
economy?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's something that the President and Mrs. Bush have
concerned themselves with greatly. And from their point of view, they understand
that individual Americans are going to find their own way, as they and their
families see fit, to react to the events of September 11th.
There were some people who hopped right on airplanes just a few days after
September 11th and resumed travel. There are others who have felt comfortable
doing that over a longer period of time. Perhaps there are others who still are
not ready to do that, although I think those numbers are diminishing, and the
President hopes that will continue to be the trend.
The President has tremendous faith in the American people to deal with any type
of adversity and to deal with the consequences of what happened September 11th.
As you have heard the President say often, through that evil has come some good.
And on that point, you talk about the comfort of the nation and the psyche of
the nation -- the President and Mrs. Bush have seen and heard wonderful examples
of families that are staying together -- parents that are spending more time
with their children, people attending to their faith base, whatever their
religion is, with greater intensity. They see that part of the fabric and the
culture of our country that keeps us strong and makes us strong.
I know other Americans, there is anecdotal evidence of people who aren't
traveling, are spending more time nesting -- investing in their houses, and
purchasing things for their homes. So the American people respond in 250 million
different ways, and that is why our country has always been strong, because they
are always free to do that.
Q Ari, the Social Security Commission is meeting today, with a recommendation
expected by year's end. What does the President plan on doing that, once he gets
it? There was talk of initially devoting some time to it in the State of the
Union address. How much of a priority is that for him right now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has always believed that the best way to save
Social Security, particularly so young people can have a system that's there
when they retire, as opposed to paying taxes your whole life and getting nothing
in return, is to have a system that allows a voluntary option of creating
personal retirement accounts, personal savings accounts. The President believes
that we can have a system that fully protects, makes no changes in Social
Security for people who are currently retired or nearing retirement. But he
would like to help young people, so they know there is a system there for them.
The President, I think, looks forward to a healthy discussion across the country
about personal retirement accounts. And people will be for them, be against
them. But he welcomes that debate. He thinks that will be constructive. He
thinks that people may choose to run on it; others may not, that will be their
prerogatives. But he would like to create a climate in which reform can go
forward.
Q Would it be necessary to drum up some enthusiasm for this in Congress next
year? They don't seem all that thrilled about taking it up.
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly it needs the support of Congress if it is to proceed.
There are many priorities that Congress will be taking a look at next year. No
matter what decisions are made, the President will continue to advocate this and
to build the base of support for whatever form and whatever time it can take
place in, so that personal accounts can be created.
Q Ari, the Weekly Standard has an extensive and detailed report this week on the
CIA's having very serious lack of personnel who can speak foreign languages,
especially Arabic languages. My question is, does the White House contend that
this is inaccurate, or is the President asking the CIA to remedy this very
serious problem?
MR. FLEISCHER: I couldn't give you any judgment about that report. I can advise
you that the CIA is working on -- if they haven't implemented it -- a program to
help retired officials be able to come back, who have particular skills that
could be helpful to the CIA, without losing their retirement or the benefits
that they are entitled to under retirement, if they were to return.
Q Right. And in his attending the Mark Twain show tonight the President seems to
be illustrating that even in time of war, we should never lose our sense of
humor. And my question is --
MR. FLEISCHER: You've got me worried now, Les. (Laughter.)
Q -- since his sense of humor, and yours, Ari, seem to me to be very good --
(laughter) -- surely the President believes that the Democrat-dominated
Montgomery County, Maryland, is at least entertaining in their Santa Claus ban,
their smoking-in-your-own-home law, and their attempt to ban all Indian team
names except the Redskins?
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't hear a question. So let's keep going.
Q You wouldn't deny that the President was in any way amused by this, would you,
Ari? He knows about this. He undoubtedly was amused, wasn't he, Ari? You were
amused. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm always amused. Terry?
Q I know, but you were amused at this, weren't you, Ari? Now confess it; weren't
you? Didn't you find it amusing?
Q Yes, come on.
Q You went out of the confession business, Les. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, I will get back to you on the state of my amusement.
Terry?
Q Sorry, okay, this is considerably more serious. You mentioned Representative
Kucinich's amendment, to put to a vote budgetary authorization for military
tribunals. Does the President acknowledge that Congress has the authority to cut
off funding for these tribunals?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Congress has the authority to cut off funding for anything
it so deems. Congress, under the Constitution, has power of the purse strings.
Which is why what's interesting is the opposite -- the amendment that was filed
at the Rules Committee that prohibited the use of money under the Department of
Defense appropriations bill for military trials. And that was what he withdrew,
for a reason.
Q So can the President then foresee, and would he cooperate in, congressional
oversight of the funding, and of the use of that funding, congressional
oversight of these military tribunals?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated this morning, the President viewed the
hearings that are being held on Capitol Hill absolutely, perfectly appropriate
and fitting for Congress to engage in. It is their responsibility under our
Constitution to have oversight over the actions of the administration, of the
executive branch.
It is also the purview of the executive, under our Constitution, to have the
sole authority to issue executive orders and military orders, at his discretion
and in accordance with the national security as he defines it. And he has done
so.
Q But would he -- one more. So would he accept oversight not of the general
principle, but of the actual operations of any military tribunal?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has set forth the terms under which the military
tribunals are being put together, and that is in the form of the military order
that the President signed. That is now being implemented by the Department of
Defense in conjunction with the Attorney General's office.
Q Ari, I have a question in connection with that. Just to get you on the public
record, are you saying that the President of the United States has the right to
decide what a national security crime is under the military tribunal, and what
the punishment should be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Under the --
Q Are you saying that he has that sole authority?
MR. FLEISCHER: Under the military order that the President signed, in accordance
with the laws of the country as upheld by a Supreme Court case, the President
has the sole authority to enact a military order that creates military tribunals
as an option. Under the military order the President signed, the punishment
would be decided by the military tribunal, not by the President of the United
States.
Q Ari, but on that, he sets out some minimum standards for conviction, which I
believe is a two-thirds vote by the panel. And I understand that's the minimum,
and now the details will be filled in by DOD. But does the President think that
is a sufficient threshold in a death penalty case?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's actions speak for themselves in the military
order that he signed. What the military order says is what the President
believes.
Q So a two-thirds vote for the death penalty?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would have to take a careful look at exactly the details of it.
That is what you say it said; I have to go back and take a look at it. But what
the President signed is what he believes.
Q Ari, going back to Don's question about Social Security, is it still realistic
to implement the President's proposal, given the changing fiscal picture and the
kind of deficits that are now being projected? The transition costs of that
program were estimated to be as much as a trillion dollars over the next decade.
Where's that money going to come from?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, when you consider the fact that the President's proposal on
Social Security is a proposal that has impact over 30, 40, 50, 60 years, it's
important to look at it broadly, and that the government is projected still to
enjoy surpluses for ten years, even as we're in the middle of a recession. As we
come out of the recession, it is likely that those projections will be increased
for the size of the surplus.
Whatever decisions are made on Social Security have to be done within the
constraints of budgeting and what money is available. So clearly the amount of
funding available will be part of what the President decides.
But I remind you that if nothing is done on Social Security, and the economy in
a recession, Social Security goes broke faster. So it's not as if nothing can
get done because we're in a recession. It may take time, it may take more time,
but young people still are paying Social Security taxes for a Social Security
program they question will be there. So it still is an important priority of the
President. The timing is an issue that has to be discussed with the Congress.
But it still must be done, in the President's opinion, at some point.
Q Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END
2:17 P.M. EST