For Immediate Release Office of the
Press Secretary November 29, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
- Deficits/President's
campaign promises
- Economic
stimulus/Senator Daschle
- Alternative
minimum tax
- Abdel
Rahman capture
- Military
tribunals
- Immigration
incentives
- Civil
rights of detained persons
- Resumption
of mail delivery
- Disabilities
Initiative
- Afghanistan/coalition
government
- Iraq
- Enron
- September
11th/healing process
- Social
Security Commission/recommendations
- CIA/personnel
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
|