White House Daily Briefing

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

February 9, 2001

PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER

The James S. Brady Briefing Room

2:21 P.M. EST

Q: Ari, you said that the President is considering reducing
unilaterally America's nuclear arsenal. If so, is that an attempt to
ease the opposition from the NATO countries to the national missile
defense, and is it also to try and convince Russia to allow - or not
to oppose, if you will, the modification of scrapping the ABM Treaty?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a reaffirmation of what the President denounced
in a very public event in May of 2000, in a speech at the National
Press Club, where he reflected on the possibility of the United States
setting its nuclear levels of deterrence at a level that we would set,
not as a result of treaties, but as the result of a decision that the
United States makes, that is the level appropriate to protect our
national defenses. I refer you to his remarks from that speech.

Q: Just one follow-up, please. You say considering, you used the word
"considering," but is there a stronger word you'd like to use? Is it
almost a done deal that he's going to reduce --

MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's what the President said, that we should
consider that, and we should do so in consultation with our allies.

Q: One of the other things he said during the campaign to veterans'
groups and others was that help is on the way, for the military. He
criticized the Clinton administration's handling of military
readiness, and now that he's saying he's not going to propose any more
spending than President Clinton has proposed, there are those on
Capitol Hill and some in the Pentagon talking to reporters who feel
misled. Are they wrong?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President said help is on the way, and help is on
the way. And the help will be delivered in the manner exactly as the
President said during the campaign. There will be a pay raise above
and beyond the pay raise that was provided in the previous
administration. That's additional spending beyond what President
Clinton proposed for the military. There will be improvements in
housing, as well, pending the review that is underway, per the
President's direction to the Secretary of Defense, additional help
will be on the way.

And that's exactly what the President laid out in the campaign. And
we're very pleased with the reaction to it. And I think what you're
seeing here is a President who not only does what he promised to do
during the campaign, but he's going to make big picture, big spending
decisions in a careful, thoughtful way, and Secretary Rumsfeld is
leading that effort to help.

Q: Are you pleased with the reaction of members, hawkish member of
Congress and members and people in the Pentagon who want more money
now? And they say that if they don't get it now, the military will not
be ready, as the President promised it would be?

MR. FLEISCHER: And let me remind you that an appropriation bill was
recently signed into law, just a couple months ago. And one of the
items that the President wants to bring to Washington is fiscal
discipline. And that is another reason why he has talked about no
supplemental immediately.

Q: Well, what would you say to those members, and others in the
defense community, who feel that there was perhaps a wink and a nod
from a Republican about to take office that would take care of the
military's immediate needs?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that many of them paid very close attention to
the speech he gave at the Citadel, where he announced in September of
1999 that this is exactly what he would do. And he's doing it. And I
think the Pentagon will be very pleased to have a Commander-in-Chief
who does exactly as he says.

Q: Some of them apparently weren't paying attention.

Q: But, Ari, what if circumstances are different? What if the Pentagon
now is finding itself $5 billion to $7 billion short, and if it
doesn't get that money now, it's saying it has to cut flying hours or
training exercises. So what if it makes a compelling case to the White
House that it needs this money, or it's going to have to take steps A,
B and C? What would you say?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has discussed this with the Secretary of
Defense, and the Secretary of Defense of course has discussed this
with his top commanders, and there's no disagreement.

Q: No disagreement in the sense that the commanders say they don't
need this money?

MR. FLEISCHER: The commanders understand the President's position.
He's made it clear. He has said no immediate supplemental.

Q: How long - just one second, I'm sorry - how long - an assessment
of this review before any additional funds could be directed to the
Pentagon?

MR. FLEISCHER: We'll inform you as events warrant.

Q: Ari, The Washington Times quotes Maryland's Senator Paul Sarbanes
on Tuesday, when he told a reception for businesswomen at the Capitol,
and he tells Senator Mikulski, "You're the first woman elected to the
Senate in your own right, in other words, not on the body of your dead
husband." And my question is, does the President, as a gentleman who
is always gracious to ladies, believe Senator Carnahan deserves an
apology from Senator Sarbanes, or not? MR. FLEISCHER: That is the
first I've heard of such a statement and I don't think --

Q: It was quoted yesterday in The Washington Times.

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't see the President getting involved.

Q: But you're a gentleman, Ari, surely, you believe the Senator should
apologize. (Laughter.) Don't you believe he should apologize? Really,
Ari? You're a gentleman.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, if the President won't get involved, I certainly
won't. Jim Angle.

Q: Actually, that was my question. (Laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Friday in the press
room. (Laughter.)

Q: I'm only kidding.

MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to Mr. Kinsolving.

Q: The President said he's ordering this review, as I believe you've
indicated, we expect the review to be completed by summer, sometime?

MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.

Q: What that suggests is the President is perfectly willing to spend
the money and talked about it during the campaign, but wants the
review first, that would suggest that after the review is complete,
then you would be looking more seriously at a supplemental.

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me remind you of the words the President used when
he announced this in September of '99. He talked about how he was
going to direct the Pentagon to conduct a force structure review, and
he said, following that statement, that this will likely require more
money, but we will spend it and approach this manner in a wise way.

So the President does understand that there are needs and he looks
forward to addressing them. But we will do so in a wise and careful,
thought out way, which is why Secretary Rumsfeld is conducting the
review.

Q: Is there any sense of whether or not once that review has been
conducted, whether you would want to move quickly on that, wait until
the following February to put it in the next budget, or simply ask
Congress, who will probably still be working on a military budget by
then, to add it in?

MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, I'm not going to prejudge that event. That will
depend on what the review finds, what its recommendations are and what
the Secretary of Defense recommends.

Q: But would you expected the President to act quickly --

MR. FLEISCHER: I won't prejudge. Let's just - we'll wait for the
review.

Q: On the same subject, Ari, can you confirm that Andrew Marshall* has
been tasked to look at the military report back within a week? And how
does that fit in the broader scheme on the review? Why do you have
this very preliminary report back and then the longer review?

MR. FLEISCHER: There are a number of people who are involved in the
review at Secretary Rumsfeld's direction, and I think the Pentagon can
explain to you the procedures they're going to use for their review.
That's internal to the Department of Defense.

Q: On police profiling real quick, President Bush today said that he
wants to study this issue. Is he aware that former President Clinton
had a study on this same exact issue, but he never completed the
report? Will he go back to the prior administration and try to go
through their findings on this at all?

MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly, if there was anything that was done by the
prior administration that can help solve the problem, we're going to
take a good, hard look at it. This is not an issue that should know
any partisanship, and it shouldn't matter. If good work was done, if
good research was done, if there's a way to bring people together to
find an answer to something that is vexing a large number of
Americans, it doesn't matter what the source is; the President's going
to have an open mind and want to look at it.

Q: Do you know whether it requires legislation or an executive order?
There was a lot of talk in the campaign between Senator Bradley and
Mr. Gore, at least, about the fact that he could have simply marched
down the hall and told President Clinton to sign an executive order.
Have you done a study to see what kind of action would be required to
take any sort of --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that, as is typical with any decision, there
are a number of tools that are available, and I'm not going to
prejudge what those tools could be, and that's one of the reasons
we're going to take a look at this issue inside the administration.

Q: Now that Secretary Colin Powell is going to the Middle East, does
President have any plans to go at some point, and does he intend to
meet with Prime Minister Sharon who actually comes here next month?

MR. FLEISCHER: Any questions about that will be announced as we
formulate trips. And so we'll have additional information at later
times throughout the year, as well as any scheduling meetings, too.
Nothing to report today.

Q: How does the President define the Secretary's charge on this trip?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think Secretary Powell addressed that today and his
reasons for why he's going.

Q: In the Rose Garden, the President said that the federal government
is now taking 21 percent of GDP, up from 18 percent over 16 years. CBO
says it's 18.2 percent. Do you have any idea why there is such a large
disparity between those numbers?

MR. FLEISCHER: I wish you had told me, I had my book right there on my
desk. I'll take a look at the numbers and see, but I think the figure
is what the President indicated. There are different ways of measuring
the - what taxes you're considering, for example. Are you measuring
income taxes, are you measuring all taxes, are you measuring state,
local and federal taxes. Any time you're talking about budget numbers
and statistics, there are many different ways to measure.

The measure the President thinks is relevant is what percentage of
taxes are people paying.

Q: He said federal shares.

MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to look at his words.

Q: Ari, on this question of military spending and budget again. Under
Goldwater/Nickles, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the President's
primary military advisor. And, yet, we're getting reports that
Secretary Rumsfeld has told the Joint Chiefs, in effect, don't end-run
me. Is the President going to be receptive to the Chairman coming to
him and talking about his own particular needs, even in parallel to
the Secretary of Defense?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President hosted a meeting just this weeks with the
CINCS and people spoke around the table, and the President is going to
listen to a number of people, part of his national security team. And,
of course, Secretary Rumsfeld is Secretary of Defense.

Q: Any update on the Robert Pickett letter? Has the President read
that letter?

MR. FLEISCHER: I would refer you to the agents involved. I haven't
talked to the President about it.

Q: Did you get a copy and you're aware that you have a copy of the
letter?

MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't looked for it.

Q: How quickly you move on this request from Governor Davis for
environmental protection?

MR. FLEISCHER: The administration is very well aware of the need to
move promptly to help California. The letter is under review as we
speak. A number of Cabinet Secretaries are reviewing it and reviewing
their options with it. As soon as we have something to report, we
will. But we are aware of the sensitivities and the need to move.
We're pleased to help California any way we can, and as soon as we
have something to report, we will.

Q: Can I follow on that? What is your understanding of what Davis is
asking for in that letter?

MR. FLEISCHER: An expediting of permitting, which covers a number of
agencies, and covers a number of issues. It involves construction in
some instances; it involves existing plants and the amount of energy
there and able to produce under the law; it deals with credits,
pollution credits as they're known as; it deals with back-up
generators being brought on to line.

The letter was broad; it encompassed many different options to help
California through its energy problems.

Q: Would it, among other things, lift or loosen environmental
restrictions?

MR. FLEISCHER: The request from Governor Davis did involve a request
to lift, or relax environmental restrictions.

Q: Does it indicate temporarily, until the crisis is done or is there
--

MR. FLEISCHER: The letter --

Q: The letter doesn't mention environmental, or is that inherent in
the request to speed up the --

MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, it's by definition.

I don't believe the letter had a duration attached to it. It asked for
the administration's assistance in expediting permitting by all
appropriate federal agencies - it said during this emergency was the
terms of the letter.

Q: It's not going to happen today? Can you tell us that?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's not likely to happen today.

Q: Can you explain that? The letter asks for expediting certain
licensing procedures. Why is that --

MR. FLEISCHER: Expediting permanent.

Q: - why is that a loosening of environmental restrictions?

MR. FLEISCHER: By definition, it is. The way the system works in terms
of energy production under the Clean Air Act, is you're entitled to
pollution credits. And you can run extra generating capacity at
certain times of the year, and then you drop your capacity if you have
sufficient credits to do so.

Very often - in this case, in California - they are running out of
credits, and they're asking for a relaxation of the crediting
procedures so they can continue to run energy, produce energy. It's by
definition how it works under the Clean Air Act.

Q: Ari, the wire services report that more than 250 people in Oklahoma
applied to the Federal Bureau of Prisons to watch the May 16th Timothy
McVeigh execution, which the Bureau is considering televising by
closed circuit. My question is, since the President believes in
capital punishment as a deterrent, why should its deterrence be
limited to closed circuit rather than network television late at
night?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a matter for the Bureau of Prisons to resolve.

Q: But, I mean, what does the President believe? They would certainly
follow the President's belief. Doesn't he believe that deterrence
should be widespread, or does he believe it should be hidden?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President does believe in deterrence, and he also
--

Q: Okay, then, he wouldn't mind it being on national television as
long as it's late?

MR. FLEISCHER: And he also believes that there are decisions to be
made by the relevant agencies - in this case, that decision is the
Bureau of Prisons'.

Q: The phone calls the President's made this week to Sharon and
Arafat, did you say that this is the most personal involvement the
President has had thus far in the question of Middle East peace?

MR. FLEISCHER: In terms of phone contact with those foreign leaders,
this was his first opportunity since the election to talk to those two
leaders. In terms of the President and what he is doing inside the
White House, I would not share that. The President is actively
involved and engaged in foreign policy, in the Middle East.

Q: In what ways on Middle East peace until now? I mean, it was - we
had the impression before that everything was sort of up in the air
awaiting the outcome of the election because there wasn't much you
could do.

MR. FLEISCHER: In terms of waiting for Prime Minister-elect Sharon to
form his government, that is, of course, correct. But in terms of --
you said the President's activities and the President's involvement --
I remind you that each day, the President begins with an overnight
intelligence briefing and with foreign policy briefings, foreign
policy updates, and that's part of our ongoing foreign policy.

Q: One more question on the subject of single moms. There was a woman
here named Deborah something-or-other who was from Arlington Heights,
Illinois, who introduced the President the other day, and she said
that she would get $1,000 back. Do you or anybody in your office know
what she earned?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, of course, if you have two children you would
stand to get back $1,000, and that's because the President's proposal
doubles the child credit from $500 to $1,000.

Q: As long as she's paying at least $1,000 tax.

MR. FLEISCHER: Precisely.

Q: More on taxes, actually. Ari, what's your reaction, a couple of
moderate Republicans have expressed some concerns thinking the $1.6
trillion package is too large. Senator Jeffords of the Finance
Committee said he wouldn't support it. Senator Olympia Snow said,
unless there are safeguards in it, she couldn't support it. I think
Senator Chafee also said it's too large. What's your concern about
that?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think it matters what party somebody belongs
to. The President has set that level of tax cut because he thinks it's
the right tax cut level to set. And, of course, as a conservative
Democrat from Georgia who has said the President's level is the right
level and he supports it.

So I think what you're going to see is us work very hard with members
on the Hill to get that tax cut enacted into law by building
coalitions who will support it, vote for it and let it pass.

Q: But, obviously, as you know, with a sharply divided Senate, I mean,
if three moderate Republicans already sort of speaking out, does that
affect your confidence going into the debate?


END 2:48 P.M. EST