|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 7, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:35 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give
you an update on the
President's schedule, and then I have an
announcement and a statement.
The President had his usual round of briefings this
morning. He convened a meeting of his Homeland Security
Council. Then late in the morning, the President gave a
speech to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards Ceremony, where
he announced a new 10-point program aimed at corporate
governance. This is a follow-on to an announcement the
President made directing his Secretary of the Treasury to convene a
working group to learn from the lessons of the Enron debacle, to take
whatever actions are possible to help protect investors from any
actions required to tighten up, to protect shareholders and to protect
individuals across the country from any of the ramifications of the
Enron collapse.
He is having his weekly lunch with the Vice
President. And early this afternoon, in the Rose Garden, the
President will meet with Governor Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg and members
of the New York delegation, Democrats and Republicans, to discuss the
importance of the aid package for New York. The President gave his
word about providing aid to New York and the President will always keep
that word and the President has an announcement to make in the Rose
Garden.
Later this afternoon, the President is going to meet with a group
of labor leaders who are coming to the White House. I
anticipate the energy bill that's up before the senate will be a topic
they discuss. And the President will also meet with members
of Congress who are coming to the White House, members of the Senate,
as they consider the energy bill in the Senate. The
President will urge them to take action to provide for energy
independence for our country.
President and Mrs. Bush will welcome British Prime Minister Blair
and his family to their ranch at Crawford, Texas, on April 5th through
7th. The visit is an important opportunity for the President to spend
time with the leader of one of the United States' most important
allies, an exceptionally close partner in the war against terrorism,
and consult against the ongoing campaign against terrorism, as well as
other key foreign policy issues.
Also today, the House of Representatives will vote on a package of
unemployment insurance extensions, as well as tax relief for
corporations to help hire more Americans and to keep Americans who are
worried they might lose their jobs fully and gainfully
employed. This also includes aid that is vital to New York,
including the New York Liberty Zone, which is a provision of tax
incentives to help businesses locate and hire, as well as bond issuance
in New York City to help New Yorkers recover from the attack on the
United States. The President endorses this compromise
proposal that's a scaled-down stimulus package that includes the
unemployment extension that he has sought. He urges the
House of Representatives to vote yes on this package. He
will sign it into law if it is sent to him.
And with that, I'm more than happy to take your questions.
Q Ari, was the President willing to accept a
scaled-down stimulus package because of forecasts that the economic
recovery is underway? It wasn't as crucial to get everything
he wanted?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the President's preference,
by far, is to get the exact package he sent up to the
Congress. But the House of Representatives was able to pass
what the President sought, and a compromise had been reached with a
group of Senate Democrat moderates, as well as Republicans in the
Senate, which could have guaranteed that the package passed and was
sent to the President. It was blocked in the Senate,
however, so the President, as well as the House of Representatives have
now come to the point where we believe it's important to compromise.
And the President thinks it's a good compromise, he'll sign it.
Q Does he agree the comprehensive package
that he was pushing for is less urgent now that the recovery appears to
be underway?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's increasing signs that the
economy is recovery. The President's approach is to err on
the side of America's workers. And that means that people
who are currently clinging to their job, worry whether or not they're
going to be able to keep their job -- that's where the
President is focused on. He wants to help people who have
already lost their jobs by extending unemployment insurance for 13
weeks. But he would still prefer to have an acceleration of all the
individual income tax rate cuts, as the House of Representatives and as
the bipartisan coalition in the Senate preferred to do, and could have
done had it not been blocked by the Democratic leadership in the
Senate.
Given the fact that it's been blocked, the President believes the
House action today is bipartisan, is helpful, and it ought to be the
law of the land.
Q The President has not, himself, said what
you just said -- signs the economy is
recovering. As recently as yesterday he was still saying the
economy seems to be in some degree of trouble. Is he looking
at economic data that others are not, and is he not yet ready to
conclude that the economy has turned a corner?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's part and parcel of what I'm
saying. There's no question when you look at some of the
statistics, there are signs that the economy is
recovering. The President's concern is that this not be a
jobless recovery, and that unemployment typically lags, the economy
starts to come back, but people still don't get hired at the speed at
which the economy begins to recover. And the President is
pleased to see these increasing signs of economic recovery from a
statistical point of view, but he also worries about them from a human
point of view. And that focus is on America's workers.
And there are still people, particularly the manufacturing sector
and the high-tech sector, who are working, but they worry whether
they'll be able to keep their jobs. And that's why the
President's pleased that what the House is doing today includes
provisions that are accelerated depreciation, for example, net
operating loss carry-back provisions, for example. All of
those are helpful to employers, so they can keep their
employees. And that's what the President would sign.
Q One follow-up. The President
has often said Americans don't want an unemployment check, they would
rather have a paycheck. In the totality of this package, do
you think this package is more skewed toward unemployment checks or
paychecks?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's a $40 billion package over 10
years. And the interesting thing about it, as well, in the
immediate years is it actually has a bigger tax bang for the
buck. And that's because of the way the tax provisions kick
in. There is an acceleration in the immediate years of the
tax provisions, and that does give more incentive to businesses to keep
the workers they have and to, hopefully, hire more. And
that's what the package is all about. As the economy
comes --
Q You're talking about depreciation?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's right,
depreciation. There's a depreciation of 30 percent
expensing. And as --
Q That's all in equipment costs, which you
theoretically believe will provide more money to retain or hire
workers?
MR. FLEISCHER: The more money a business has, the more
money they can use for their employees. They don't have to
let people go -- which is what employees are
worried about right now, will they be the next one let
go. That's the big concern America's workers have, even in
these early stages of seeing some good statistics. But it's
a focus on America's workers and a recognition that the best way to
help people is to let them keep their jobs.
Q Has the President decided to send General
Zinni back to the Middle East? And if not, what has to
happen before he will?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, the President is always looking for
an opening, looking for a way to help make a contribution to help the
parties find a way toward peace in the Middle East. The
President is always reviewing that matter. You could say
it's a day-to-day issue, the President is always seeing what can be
done. And that's where it stands.
Q Is there an opening now?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is always looking for an
opening. I can't say -- speak to the
timing.
Q What does the President think of Army
Secretary White failing to divest his Enron holdings after he promised
a Senate committee that he would?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me read to you a statement from the
White House on that.
Secretary White has complied with all Executive Branch ethics
requirements as regards conflict of interest. He has not
worked on any Enron-related matters since day one and, therefore, has
avoided any conflict of interest or appearance of conflict since
joining the Department of the Army. The Armed Services
Committee has traditionally had additional requirements that appointees
are asked to comply with in regard to divestiture. Secretary
White agreed to comply with these standards and has been working toward
meeting them. It takes time to divest in complex financial
arrangements, and Secretary White has worked with both the Armed
Services Committee and the Office of Government Ethics toward that
end.
The administration is confident that, through working with the
committee and with the Office of Government Ethics, that Secretary
White will meet all Committee Requirements.
Q Is the White House concerned about his
contacts with Enron officials in October, just as the company was about
to implode?
MR. FLEISCHER: The statement speaks for
itself. That's the point of view from the White House.
Q Treasury Secretary O'Neill had proposed,
had suggested, that corporate executives should be held accountable for
their negligence in the management of corporations that lose large
amounts of money, by way of making them open to lawsuits on
that. That's what he proposed would be the best way to
toughen and reform corporate management. Why did the
President reject that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants to make certain that
we toughen up provisions against corporations, particularly making it
easier for people to, in effect, be disbarred from corporations and
from boards on which they serve, or forcing them to give back, in
effect, their bonuses if the only reason they got them was as a result
of personal malfeasance in the accounting that allowed them to get that
bonus in the first place.
But the President also, at the same time, wants to make certain
that reforms don't become a haven for opening up lawsuits all across
our society because the President has longstanding held a view that
it's the opening up every matter in our society to somebody suing
somebody is not the best solution to these problems.
Q So is it fair to say, as Senator Daschle
has, that the President's package at the end of the day isn't as tough
as the Treasury Secretary had proposed?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that from a trial lawyer
point of view, they would like to be able to sue as many people as
possible. But, in the end, is that the best way to have a
reform for a system? Is that the best way to enforce
accountability? And the President thinks not. And
it shouldn't surprise --
Q Secretary O'Neill thought so, though.
MR. FLEISCHER: Secretary O'Neill, of course, is part of
the recommendation that was made today. And what happens in
this process is there are a number of people who give their opinion,
who weigh in. They can make their opinions at different
points. Information comes up, it evolves. And it
came together in the decision the President announced today.
Q On this same subject, Ari, the President
in his speech this morning basically made the case that executives,
particularly chief executives, have to go beyond just the legal
requirement, so that people are confident that the overall financial
statements they're seeing reflect their best knowledge of the company.
You just read a statement in defense of Secretary
White. We now know that his own division was one
that -- whose statements, which presumably he was
aware of, turn out to be those most under suspicion in
Enron. Can you try to square these two positions for
us? And understanding that you're creating a new standard
here, do you have somebody in your administration right now who may not
have lived up to the spirit of what the President is discussing?
MR. FLEISCHER: David, anything in particular to Enron, I
would refer you to the Department of Justice. As you know,
they have an investigation under way of all the facts and the specifics
and the particulars dealing with Enron. I don't reach any
conclusions about any one individual. I don't think that
would be appropriate to do.
Q Let me put it in a different way,
then. If those investigations came to a conclusion that
Secretary White knew or should have known about these kinds of issues
within his division, would it still be appropriate for him to be
serving?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has confidence in Secretary
White that he will comply with the ethics requirements that the
Committee has, above and beyond the requirements of the --
Q I wasn't asking about the --
MR. FLEISCHER: What you're asking about is a
hypothetical which, as you know, I don't get into.
Q Back to the Middle East. Does
the President think that his hands-off policy has contributed in any
way to the hopelessness and the rising violence in the Middle
East? And, anticipating your answer, I have a
follow-on. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Why don't you just get it all out of the
way, Helen? (Laughter.)
Q Well, American weaponry is being
used. So why are we so passive in this conflict where people
are dying on both sides?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I just have to disabuse you of your
premise that the United States is hands off, the United States is not
involved. The United States has been deeply
involved. The United States is always deeply involved.
Q How? I mean, the President has
never met a Palestinian. And he
is -- he seems to be so
detached. Let's hear something positive.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has spoken out on this on
any number of occasions. As you know, he just welcomed
President Mubarak at the White House.
Q I know, everybody's for peace.
MR. FLEISCHER: And he's talked with President Mubarak as
he's talked with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Prince Abdullah, and
any number of others in the Middle East about how to achieve peace.
Q Well, you know how that's been
interpreted? As a rejection.
MR. FLEISCHER: But, Helen, the premise of your question
is that the United States is to blame for events on the ground in the
Middle East --
Q No, that's not the premise at
all. I'm just saying --
MR. FLEISCHER: -- and I don't accept that.
Q -- by not participating in any
sort of -- as a mediator, as we've always been
since the '40s, how come -- I mean, of
course -- why are we really not actively
involved?
MR. FLEISCHER: The United States has been, will be and
continues to be. So we disagree on the premise of it.
Q Ari, I want to ask you about Judge
Pickering. You said this morning at the gaggle that you had
been notified that the voting has been postponed. The belief
in town is if the voting had been today, he would have lost because
Democrats are united on this issue and the Judiciary Committee would
not have approved it. How do you expect to get the votes on
the Judiciary Committee if it's delayed for a week, let's
say? Is the President going to try to talk to the
Senate --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President will talk to the
Office of Congressional Affairs and make an assessment about whether or
not any individuals on the Committee can be swayed, and that always
helps determine what the President personally will do. But
at any other number of levels, you can anticipate that members of the
Committee will have communications with the White House and with
others.
You heard the President yesterday and you heard the Democrats from
Mississippi yesterday and leaders from the Mississippi civil rights
community yesterday urge the Senate to vote for Judge
Pickering. The President hopes that's a message that will be
heard and we'll find out over time whether it does.
Q Can I ask you this? Do you
think the Democrats -- I don't know if it's
hypothetical or not -- do you think the Democrats
are trying to send a message to the President in case there's an
opening in the Supreme Court about the type of nominee he would have to
send up?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I can't guess what the Democrat
motives are for changing their vote on the same man that many of them
voted to confirm when he was up for the District Court. They
just have changed their minds about the same man. And I
can't guess what their motives are for that. The President indicated
he thinks there's politics going on.
Q Can I follow up on that,
though? At the meeting this morning, some of the Democrats
indicated that the President should always send up to them choices who
are consensus choices -- that's their words,
consensus. Several of them used that word. Was there any
point where the President felt that Pickering was a consensus choice
for this post?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's fair to say he remains a
consensus choice, and we could find out if the Senate would only
schedule a vote on the floor. But what the Senate Democrats
want to do is create a system in a committee that prevents him from
going to the Floor.
Now, this stands in contrast to other issues in the
Senate. For example, the energy legislation that the
President is going to discuss today with members of the
Senate. The Senate Majority Leader made a decision not to
allow that to go to committee because he thought if it did, it might
likely reflect something that's much closer to the President's view of
energy independence, which enjoys bipartisan support on the Senate
Energy Committee. So in that case, the Committee was not
allowed to proceed, the energy legislation went straight to the floor.
In this case, the Senate is looking for a way again to stop what
the President believes -- and many
bipartisan -- Democrats and Republicans and a
majority likely believe is a man who can get confirmed on the Senate
floor. So it's an inconsistent approach
procedurally. The one consistent thing is, it seems to be a
way to play politics and block the President and the bipartisan
majority who supports the President from having their point of view
achieved and carried out into law. So it's more
representative of the actions of a minority vote that can use politics
for partisanship, as opposed to letting the majority rule prevail.
Q Ari, another angle to
this -- since the administration began, it seems
the nominees the President has picked have had much opposition from
many minority groups, civil rights groups and dealing with issues of
racial bias. What does the administration attribute that to,
especially with Pickering, and in the latest case with the gentleman at
the Department of Agriculture?
MR. FLEISCHER: April, everybody has their right to speak
out and oppose as they see fit. And I wouldn't question or
guess what people's motives are. That's their right, that's
their prerogative. But again, it appears that in the case of
Judge Pickering, there is a slim bipartisan majority that would confirm
him. And so I really think the question is why is there a
partisan minority that is using unusual parliamentary devices to stop
this from reaching the floor of the Senate.
Q So the racial bias thing is unusual?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't speak to that. I don't
question people's motives or why they -- it's
anybody's right in society to speak out as they see fit.
Q Ari, on steel, did the President consult
with any foreign leaders before making his decision on the steel
tariff?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's fair to say he heard from
foreign leaders, yes.
Q Any specifics?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't get into the discussion
specifics --
Q Is he expecting any retribution from
foreign countries at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the action the President took is
permissible under the World Trade Organization rules and under
201 -- Section 201 of the law. And
obviously, Europe has a right to challenge -- or
other nations, including Europe have the right to challenge that under
the WTO rules. There's already been an indication that they
will do so, so that's a matter that will get taken up, likely, by the
World Trade Organization.
Q Ari, as you know, we're approaching the
six-month anniversary of 9/11. I realize the President will
say something, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the way the
American people and the country have changed in the past six months.
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me answer that. The
President hopes that the American people, as we approach the six-month
anniversary of September 11th, will do two
things -- one is look back and look
forward. He hopes that they will look back to the day of
September 11th and remember the lives of those who were lost, and to
remember the families of those who still suffer; and he hopes they'll
also look forward and look at the great sacrifice the men and women of
our military are making to keep the world free from the terrorists who
would bring more harm to our nation if they were allowed.
The President also hopes the American people will look around the
world and recognize how the world has rallied to the cause of fighting
terrorism, and the world stands at one with the United States.
Q Ari, what do you hope to get out of this
meeting with the union leaders today? And how do you rate
your chances of having ANWR in the energy legislation at this point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President will be meeting in
the afternoon with a group of union leaders that includes the
International Union of Operating Engineers, the Marine Engineers,
Beneficial Association, the Teamsters, the Iron Workers, AFL-CIA,
Building Trade, the Seafarers -- a number of
people who aren't exactly bedrock Republicans are coming here to send a
bipartisan message to the United States Senate that America needs
energy independence; that America ought to produce its energy here at
home and not overly rely on foreign supplies of oil; and that it's good
for the economy, it's good for energy independence and it's good for
jobs, for America's workers.
That's the message the President hopes that these union leaders
will be able to help take to the Senate. Certainly, the
President's comprehensive energy plan passed with a nice bipartisan
vote in the House of Representatives. It's another example
of where the President, working with the House, Democrats and
Republicans alike, is creating bipartisan consensus in
Washington. The only question is, will the United States
Senate stand with or against bipartisan consensus.
Q You said AFL-CIO will be part of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q On steel, some analysts in Europe are
perplexed at the timing in the decision in this
regard -- they say it could not only prompt a
trade war of some magnitude, but also it could lead some of our allies
in Europe to question the commitment to the broader goals of the war on
terrorism. Does the administration see any danger of that
happening? A, a trade war; or B, a lessening of enthusiasm
in Europe for the overall goals of the war on terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: The answer is no on both. But
as to timing, the timing is dictated by the rules under Section 201 of
the trade laws. That sets up a statutorily defined period of
time in which the President had to act. So the President had
no choice about the timing of it. Having initiated the 201
investigation to see whether foreign imports of steel were hurting
America's steel workers, that began back in June, I believe, of 2001,
and that required a March date.
Q Why don't you believe there are any
dangers of either a trade war of any magnitude, large or small, or any
lessening of commitment on the war on terror?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President believes that this
was a situation that is permissible under the World Trade Organization
rules, and the World Trade Organization rules are set up to help
nations deal with what's inevitable frictions and differences as we
engage in free trade. But the President also, who is an ardent free
trader, who took on his party in the cause of free trade, who stood up
in Republican primaries, if you recall, to people in his own party, on
behalf of the cause of free trade, believes the best way to have
additional free trade is by enforcing the laws we have on the books.
Q Did the President agree that it was a good
idea for Mike Parker to step down as head of the Corps of Engineers?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me say -- I'm
not going to get into that in any great length, but let me simply say
that the President welcomes a diversity of views in his administration;
he welcomes questions, he welcomes critiques, and that's all part of
the process by which budgets are put together. Once they are
put together, they are a statement of administration policy and the
President does think it's appropriate for his staff to support the
administration's policy.
Q For that matter, another part of the
question is that there's a lesson in here for other administration
officials that you'd better adhere to the President's agenda or you're
in trouble?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm going to leave it as I
said. The President welcomes a healthy
debate. But there's also a matter of once the debate is
settled and the President has proposed a budget, the President does
think it's reasonable for the people who work for him to support the
budget.
Q Ari, your statement a couple minutes ago
saying the Democrats are holding up the Pickering nomination in
committee is quite reminiscent of what some of your Democratic
predecessors at this podium used to say when the
Republicans --
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. That's
correct.
Q So what's changed?
MR. FLEISCHER: What's changed is there's a President who
came from Texas who was not part of the partisan polarization that has
taken place in Washington for years. When the President
talked about changing the tone, he's referring to these constant
battles between the Congress and the President that just seem to switch
parties. And the Democrats did it to the Republicans; the
Republicans did it to the Democrats. The President believes
it's time to stop this. It's not in the national interest
and --
Q Are you saying the Democrats are playing
gotcha here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that both parties have done
it in the past, but that doesn't make it right. And
particularly at the a time when there does look like there are enough
votes on the floor of the Senate for this man's nomination to
proceed. Even if there aren't enough votes in the committee,
it is entirely within the rights of the Senate to allow this vote to
come to the floor with what they call an unfavorable recommendation
from the committee. It's been done before. But in
this instance, because the votes are likely there to pass Judge
Pickering on to the Circuit Court, a parliamentary maneuver is being
used to block his consideration, to block the bipartisan will of the
Senate, even if it is, arguably, a narrow will. But it is a bipartisan
narrow will.
Q So you concede that Republicans did that
during the Clinton years, too.
MR. FLEISCHER: There's no question Republicans did it as
well.
Q Ari, back on the Middle
East. In light of Secretary Powell's remarks yesterday, is
the Bush administration turning up the heat at all on Israel in terms
of violence in the Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I would refer you to what the
President has said when he stood with President Mubarak, and his
statement at that time was perfectly clear and very much what Secretary
Powell said, as well -- that it's very important
to find a way to stop the violence in the Middle East. The violence
doesn't serve either party, either cause. The President
continues to believe that Chairman Arafat can and must do more to stop
the violence. And the President is very worried about the
impact on the Israeli people, on the Palestinian people, but he does
not want the region to get spun up into war. He wants the
region to find ways to reduce the violence. And that's the
President's view.
Q Did the White House view Powell's remarks
as more pointed against Sharon than the President had said in recent
comments?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the Secretary's remarks were
a reflection of just what I indicated the President said.
Q Ari, the Middle
East -- would the administration support a
multination force to attack the terrorist organizations in Palestine,
Lebanon, Syria, that are waging war against Israel?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has long said that there
are not good terrorists, there are no bad terrorists. And
one of the effects of the war against terrorism is that nations that
are engaged in terrorism are taking a second look to determine whether
or not that's an industry they want to remain involved in.
Beyond that I'm not going to go about any steps the President may
or may not take in continuation of furtherance of that policy.
Q The L.A. Times is reporting this morning
that the Pentagon is considering banning all non-U.S. citizens from
computer projects that are unclassified -- things
like payroll and software. Defense contractors say it could
cause job loss and make it difficult for them to do their job. Does
the President support the plan?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard that report, and so I
can't speak to it.
Q On the steel decision, administration
officials said the steel workers, as well as other unemployed, could
have health care benefits through a health insurance tax
credit. But as you know, the House Republicans just dropped
that provision from the stimulus package because it appears too
contentious to receive bipartisan support. Is the
administration open to other avenues for providing health care
benefits?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let's take it one day at a time
here. Let's hope the House today can pass some that is a
compromise. But many things were dropped in the cause of
getting a compromise that can be signed into law. The health
package was something the President supported. So, too, were
across the board income tax rate reductions. There were
other provisions in there that were not able to pass. But
today could be a day of real progress in Washington; the President
hopes so. So let's wait for the vote to see if the House is
putting their votes behind compromise and
bipartisanship. The President hopes they will.
Q Ari, when we had the debate on the
stimulus before it was, as you noted, roughly twice as big as it is now
and there were plenty of people on Wall Street who were questioning the
need for the package at the time --
predicting an economic recovery of which we've now seen, in the
last couple weeks, a lot more evidence. So the question is,
if the economy really is coming back and the package is smaller than it
was before, when there were questions about whether it would provide
any kind of stimulative effect, what would this package really do, in
terms of benefits?
MR. FLEISCHER: Dick, I think you've got to remember what
the President said when he ran for the office. And the
President gave a warning as a candidate that he believes that people in
Washington should not just focus on statistics and letters, like OMB,
CBO. They need to remember the real lives of people who are
affected.
And if there is somebody who is unemployed today, they don't want
to be rehired in June or July, as the economy comes back over
time. They want to be hired today, and so, too, does their
family want them to be hired. If there is somebody who has got a job,
where the boss is announcing they may have lay-offs, they don't want to
be laid off, they want to be able to keep their job.
And, therefore, the President believes that the package that the
House is taking up today represents a good compromise to getting the
job done to helping America's workers. There is not
everything in it that he wanted in it. There's not
everything in it the Democrats wanted in it. There's not
everything the Republicans on the Hill wanted in it. And
that's called compromise, and that's how Washington, over time, needs
to get its work done. There's been a lot of wrangling on
this issue; the President hopes the wrangling has come to an end.
Q Ari, two quick ones on the Blair
visit. Can you tell us what's going to top the agenda there
and why did the President want to meet with Prime Minister Blair in
Crawford as opposed to here at the White House?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing against Washington, he just
happens to like Crawford a lot. I think it's a sign of the
closeness of President Bush and Prime Minister
Blair. They've met on many occasions. They talk
on the phone often. If you recall, Prime Minister Blair, on
his first visit to the United States, was at Camp David; he wasn't at
the White House. And the two have really just hit it off,
have a good relationship.
When the President went to England in June, they met at Chequers.
They met at the Camp David of England, for example. So they
have their meetings not necessarily at their typical meeting
places. The President welcomes him to his
home. He's a good friend and the President
will -- the President enjoys taking leaders to Texas.
Q And the anti-terror campaign will top the
agenda?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the
agenda -- the meeting is a month off. We'll have
a lot more specificity on the agenda closer to it. But I
think it's fair to say the war on terrorism will still be going on, and
the President will talk to the Prime Minister about it at that time.
Q Two things. On campaign
finance, 27 House Republicans wrote to the President a couple days ago,
asking him to veto the House campaign finance bill. And I
wonder if there was any reaction to that.
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen the letter, but the
President has made it clear, he has not changed his view on that
topic.
Q The second thing is on the nomination from
the NIH, are you going to announce that today --
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, I don't speculate about
personnel. When the President has personnel announcements to
make, he'll make them.
Q The fast track bill as it's emerging in
the Senate includes an expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Act. Does the President have a position on that particular
configuration that the Democrats are proposing which does, in fact,
expand the program rather significantly?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's fair to say it's not exactly
clear what provisions, when you get into the detail level, will be
there as the Senate takes up trade promotion authority. This
is legislation the President is committed to. He wants to
work very closely with Senate Democrats and Republicans so that trade
promotion authority can be signed into law.
The Senate has historically been a supporter of trade promotion
authority. In a reversal, the House, which had previously
been against it, has now voted for it. On this one other
issue that the House has not taken action on, the President is going to
work with the Senate so the Senate can do what the House has
done. On the specifics of it, I think it's just too
soon. We'll have to see exactly what the details are.
Q It's pretty clear then that trade
promotion authority or fast track will not be passed by the time the
President heads south for Central America where trade issues are going
to be a prominent part of the agenda. Is that going to be a problem
for the President in terms of the credibility and the kinds of things
that he will be --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has been calling on the
Senate to pass trade promotion authority for months, and the President
does not control the timing or the calendar in the
Senate. So I can't speak to that. That's a question that
the Senate leadership will need to address. The President
would have liked to have had it done yesterday. But he
understands there's timing issues in the senate. He'll work
with the Senate. That's all he can do.
Q He's not going to try to goose them into
moving more quickly?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the timing is up to the
Senate. The President would like to have it done before the
trip. I don't know if that's possible or not. But
the President, most importantly, wants to have it done for America's
workers.
Q Quick question. Does the
administration believe that the Macedonian government, as it claims,
has broken up an al Qaeda ring of non-Balkan terrorists who were
planning to carry out attacks against U.S. interests in the Balkans?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take a look into that and see if
there's anything I can get you on it. And, if so, I'll post
it.
Q One last one, on Pickering, one of the
subtexts of the conversation in the Senate is because the President won
elections so narrowly, he is disqualified, essentially, from nominating
judges who cannot obtain a broad -- a more broad
consensus support than what you've talked about, the narrow bipartisan
consensus that Judge Pickering would receive now. Would you
respond generally to that attitude from Senate Democrats and how it
shapes not only circuit and appellate court justices, but could very
well influence Supreme Court nominees?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think there's no precedent for
that idea. There's nothing in the Constitution, nothing in the statute
that supports that. That would suggest that, in 1984, the
Senate and the House should have done everything Ronald Reagan told
them to do because he won in a 49-state landslide and that's not the
way our system is built.
Q Thank you.
END 1:06
P.M. EST
Return to this article at:
/news/releases/2002/03/20020307-7.html