[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: GEORGE W. BUSH (2001, Book I)]
[April 5, 2001]
[Pages 365-370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With the American Society of 
Newspaper Editors
April 5, 2001

    The President. My fellow Texan--[laughter]--by way of other States. 
[Laughter] It's good to see you again, Rich; thank you. I've had a great relationship with Rich in 
Austin, Texas. He occasionally opined in ways I didn't care for, but I 
always knew he was honest and open. He had his priorities straight: his 
country and his family. It's good to see members of his family here. I 
see you lowered your standards by inviting others from the Austin 
American-Statesman here to Washington today--[laughter]--particularly 
Herman. [Laughter]
    At any rate, it's my honor to be here. It turns out every President 
since Warren Harding has spoken to this group. I found that interesting. 
Harding came here because he was a newspaperman himself. The rest of us 
just wanted to pander. [Laughter]
    Of course, with a lot of attention you get as the President, you 
often occasionally get criticism, and I understand that. You know, I 
admit, I take it pretty well; after all, I was in baseball. But I wish 
some of the stories had come out differently.
    And so, in the spirit of constructive criticism, I thought I'd make 
some suggestions to you as to some of the headlines I'd like to see in 
the future: ``Cheney Cloned''--[laughter]--``President Has Nothing To Do 
at All Now.'' [Laughter] ``Two Million Overlooked Ballots Suggest Bush 
Won California.'' [Laughter] ``Sri Lanka President Chandrika Kumaratunga 
Stumped By Name of U.S. President.'' [Laughter] ``Gephardt Says Bush Tax 
Plan `Just Makes Sense'.'' [Laughter] And finally: ``Sammy Sosa Returns 
to the Rangers''--[laughter]--``Says: `I Want To Go Home'.'' [Laughter]
    But I'm really not here to tell you your business. It's your job to 
tell everyone how to run theirs--[laughter]--and you do a pretty good 
job at it. Few American figures are more legendary than the hard-bitten 
but idealistic news editor. And I'm aware of that. After all, I've sat 
through what seems like hundreds of editorial boards.

[[Page 366]]

But I think of people like Benjamin Franklin or Horace Greeley or Meg 
Greenfield, who we all dearly miss.
    As you know, we've had a series of votes recently on a proposed 
budget. And that's what I'd like to talk about today. Sometimes the 
Washington filter makes it hard for me to get my message directly to 
people. And since I view you as people--[laughter]--I'd like to go 
directly to you.
    The House passed a budget last week. Tomorrow we'll hear the final 
say on the Senate budget. The House and I agree: We need commonsense 
policies to safeguard Social Security and accelerate economic growth. 
And I hope the Senate joins us.
    I've written a budget based upon my vision of an active and 
responsible Government. Now, I recognize Government has got important 
work to do; yet, active Government must also be focused and effective. 
Education is my top priority, and frankly, it ought to be your top 
priority, as well. After all, an industry which depends on the ability 
of people to read needs to be involved in education. Children who fail 
to master reading are going to be left behind in America, and we had 
better do something about it.
    I know Rich Oppel has heard me talk a 
lot about waging a war on illiteracy. It was a focus of mine when I was 
the Governor of Texas. It will be a focus of mine as President, and that 
focus also will be the focus of the First Lady, 
as well.
    My budget reflects the commitment to education. It increases--it has 
an 11 percent increase in the Department of Education. We triple funding 
for reading programs. We have got a big focus on early childhood 
development.
    In my budget, we double the Medicare budget by the year 2011. We 
introduced a new prescription drug program. We finish the job of 
doubling medical research at the National Institutes of Health by 2003. 
Basic research gets big increases, as well.
    My budget pays for ambitious new programs to mobilize faith-based 
and community groups, which fight poverty and addiction. We expand the 
Women's, Infants', and Children's nutrition program by $94 million this 
year--next year--the Federal contribution to drug treatment by 100 
million, Head Start by 125 million, and programs to fight child abuse 
and neglect by $267 million.
    We propose to put 900 million into the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, the biggest conservation budget in U.S. history. Over 5 years, 
we'll devote 4.9 billion to repair and improve our national parks--
again, the biggest increase in park upkeep in our Nation's history.
    We provide housing vouchers to 34,000 additional low-income families 
and assist 130,000 others with the downpayment on their first home. We 
support 1,200 new and expanded community health centers to double the 
number of patients served in those important institutions.
    It's an ambitious agenda, and it doesn't come cheap. The total 
budget is 1.96 trillion in the year 2002. You know, when you hear all 
the litany of things we're spending money on, some people are beginning 
to wonder whatever happened to all the penny-pinching Republicans. But I 
don't think this budget's too big for the critics, nor do I think it's 
too small. As I'm sure you can guess, I think it's just about right.
    We've prepared a budget with great care. I understand to budget is 
to choose, so I made choices. We identified priorities: education and 
health care, research, military pay, conservation, community and faith-
based organizations. I gave those priorities the funding they needed, 
while keeping overall discretionary spending at a responsible rate of 4 
percent growth. The result is a budget that keeps our national 
commitment to Social Security and Medicare, and increases the Federal 
budget by $100 billion from 2001 to 2002. A $100 billion increase in 
spending ought to be sufficient.

[[Page 367]]

    Let me give you some idea of just how much money 100 billion is. 
When you adjust for inflation, it is more than all we spent on the 
Marshall plan--the 5 years' worth of spending on the Marshall plan--100 
billion is more than that. It's enough money to run our Government and 
meet our priorities. The House understood that, and the Senate needs to 
hear that, as well.
    Secondly, the percentage increases in spending of the past few years 
cannot be sustained. In fiscal 2001, Congress appropriated 8 percent 
more in discretionary spending than it did in 2000. At 8 percent 
increase, Federal appropriations will double in 9 years. Eight percent 
spending increases will burn through the surplus. My budget allows for 4 
percent. And that's more than inflation, by the way, and that's more 
than the average increase in wages in the past few years. And my 
attitude is, if the taxpayer can get by on a 4 percent increase, so 
should the Federal Government.
    And finally, we need significant tax relief--I mean, significant tax 
relief--and we need it now. A Democratic Congress passed the Kennedy tax 
cut, even though there was a deficit, because the country needed it. A 
Republican Senate and Democrat House passed Ronald Reagan's tax relief, 
even though there was a deficit, because the country needed it. Our 
country needs tax relief now, and we have a surplus. I don't think 
there's any excuse for providing real, meaningful tax relief. We only 
used about one surplus dollar out of four. My tax relief plan is smaller 
than President Kennedy's or President Reagan's, but it's just as 
urgently needed.
    I sent Congress a reasonable budget. It gives the Federal Government 
over 100 billion to spend on important priorities. It pays down debt at 
a record pace. It leaves room for tax relief. It will help restore 
economic growth. It's a budget in line with the values of the American 
people, as you know from trying to cover it.
    The budget process is a long and winding one. An observer of 
Washington legislative processes once said, ``It's never over until it's 
over, and it's never over.'' It's especially true of how we pass our 
budgets. No one vote is decisive. There will be a vote today. There will 
be one tomorrow. I urge the Senators when they cast the vote tomorrow to 
remember, there's a lot of people in our country who are beginning to 
hurt, a lot of folks who are paying higher energy bills, a lot of people 
have got consumer debt. I urge the Senators to prioritize. But always 
remember that the surplus is not the Federal Government's money. The 
surplus is the people's money. And once we meet priorities, we ought to 
share it with the people. It's not only the right thing to do for our 
economy; it's the right choice to make, to trust people with their own 
money.
    The debate about the economic approach has been a vigorous one, and 
it should be. I think it's healthy for our country to debate these 
issues. People of different parties, and as I have discovered, some of 
my own party, think we ought to spend more than I think we ought to do 
and have smaller tax relief. But so far, it seems like everybody has 
shown good will and good intentions, and for that, I'm grateful.
    Since I took office a little more than 10 weeks ago, I've personally 
met with a lot of Members of the United States Congress. I was surprised 
to realize the other day that I've met with more than 278, and I hope a 
lot more come down to the White House. You know, I haven't convinced 
them all, and they haven't convinced me. But we've been able to make our 
points without making enemies. And it's a good start to changing the 
tone here in Washington, DC, and that's what's needed, a more civil 
discourse.
    I understand civility doesn't make good copy. I understand it 
doesn't make good copy to say, so-and-so may not agree, but they respect 
each other. It's much easier to print the mean word or the pointed 
attack. And your reporters are just doing their job.

[[Page 368]]

    But the truth of the matter is, all of us can work to make America a 
little more civil, can herald a civil discourse. It's important. Ours is 
the greatest democracy in the world. Ours is the greatest country in the 
world. And those of us who are responsible for shaping the dialog must 
always remember that it's--people are watching. The more civil we can be 
in Washington, the more civil we can be in our newspapers, the more 
likely it is democracy will continue to flourish.
    Thank you for what you do. I sometimes wish I could shape it a 
little differently, but I appreciate free press, just like you 
appreciate free speech. And that's just what I've given you today, a 
free speech. [Laughter]
    I'll be glad to answer any questions you have.

[At this point, the question-and-answer session proceeded.]

Nominations to the Judiciary

    Q. I was wondering if, in the spirit of civility and conciliation 
you were talking about, whether you think that when it comes to 
appointing members to the Federal bench, and especially if there are 
vacancies to the Supreme Court, that you should try, before appointments 
are made, to engage in a bipartisan conversation with Democrats in the 
United States Senate who have already indicated that they might be 
taking a very hard line if they believe you're sending up nominees that 
are philosophically extreme? Or do you feel that you are like any other 
President and should operate on the principle of: You propose, and let 
them dispose?
    The President. The latter. We're going to pick the most qualified 
people we can find, people that share my philosophy about strict 
constructionism on the Court. I'll be mindful of confirmation. I don't 
particularly want a big fight in the Senate. And so we'll be putting 
out--we'll be gathering intelligence as to whether or not a person can 
be confirmed or not. I may decide to send somebody up that will create a 
tough fight. I don't know. I haven't gotten there yet.
    But of course, I pick somebody, I want them to get confirmed. And so 
we'll be mindful of that. Obviously, I've made a lot of other--another 
decision about whether or not we ought to have screening agencies or 
screening groups, people to screen our people, and I decided not to do 
that. We'll get a lot of opinions, and not one opinion is more important 
than another, as far as my administration is concerned. And so we'll 
pick the people, and the Senate can hopefully confirm them.

China and the U.S. Navy Aircraft Incident

    Q. Do you believe it's appropriate for the Chinese to be questioning 
our airmen that have been downed? And also, what do you believe the 
Chinese have put at risk with their actions?
    The President. I appreciate you bringing up the subject. I want to 
make this clear. First, I regret that a Chinese pilot is missing, and I 
regret one of their airplanes is lost. And our prayers go out to the 
pilot, his family. Our prayers are also with our own service men and 
women. And they need to come home.
    The message to the Chinese is: We should not let this incident 
destabilize relations. Our relationship with China is very important, 
but they need to realize that it's time for our people to be home. We're 
working all diplomatic channels to affect our priority. There's 
discussions going on. And we'll continue to do so. My mission is to 
bring the people home.
    And as to whether or not we'll have good relations, my intention is 
to make sure we do have good relations. But the Chinese have got to act, 
and I hope they do so quickly.
    Yes.
    Q. Following up on that, are there any circumstances in which you 
would offer an apology to the Chinese? And secondly, are

[[Page 369]]

you having any second thoughts about your decision to go to China later 
this year?
    The President. I have no further comments on the subject. That won't 
count as a question. [Laughter]

First Amendment Freedoms

    Q. Sir, as you know, at the heart of this newspaper organization is 
its passion for preserving and enhancing the Nation's access to 
information. Would you take this moment to articulate your own view of 
first amendment freedoms and give us a sense of the fundamental message 
that you will send to your administration as it makes decisions on 
whether to open or close access to Government information?
    The President. Yes. [Laughter] There needs to be balance when it 
comes to freedom of information laws. There's some things that when I 
discuss in the privacy of the Oval Office or national security matters, 
that just should not be in the national arena. On the other hand, my 
administration will cooperate fully with freedom of information requests 
if it doesn't jeopardize national security, for example. The interesting 
problem I have--or for me, as the President, is what's personal and 
what's not personal. Frankly, I haven't been on the job long enough to 
have been--to have had to make those choices.
    I'll give you one area, though, where I'm very cautious, and that's 
about e-mailing. I used to be an avid e-mailer, and I e-mailed to my 
daughters or e-mailed to my father, for example. And I don't want those 
e-mails to be in public--in the public domain. So I don't e-mail any 
more, out of concern for freedom of information laws but also concern 
for my privacy.
    But we'll cooperate with the press, unless we think it's a matter of 
national security or something that's entirely private.

China-U.S. Relations

    Q. I hope you will respond to this question. It's on the Asia 
subject, but general.
    The President. I might. I'm not sure yet. [Laughter]
    Q. In my region, we have strong economic interests in Asia as an 
export market. Would you please comment on the balance that you think 
should be struck between our strategic interests and our economic 
interests in Asia, including China?
    The President. I believe that China ought to be a trading partner of 
ours. I think it's in our economic interests to open up the Chinese 
markets to U.S. products--to U.S. agricultural products. I not only 
believe it's in our economic interest, I believe it's in our interest to 
promote U.S. values. And I believe the marketplace promotes the values. 
When people get a taste of freedom in the marketplace, they tend to 
demand other freedoms in their societies. And so, I'm an advocate of 
China's entering into the WTO, and I'm hopeful that the current 
situation ends quickly and our people come home.
    China is a strategic partner--I mean, strategic competitor. But that 
doesn't mean we can't find areas in which we can partner, and the 
economy's a place where we can partner.
    And we've got some differences with China, long-term differences. 
Spreading of weapons of mass destruction is an issue that we need to 
work with the Chinese on, as well as other nations in that part of the 
world. Human rights is an issue. But I believe trade will encourage more 
freedoms, particularly when it comes to individual liberties. But the 
marketplace is--the marketplace unleashes the opportunity for people to 
make choices. And so I will continue to push for trade with China, and--
--
    Q. Still willing to take a few more?
    The President. Yes, sir.

Airline Travel

    Q. All of us here flew in for this conference. Most of us had delays 
of one type or another. Earlier this week----
    The President. Most of you--sorry?

[[Page 370]]

    Q. ----had delays at airports. Earlier this week, there was a report 
issued which was critical of the airline industries and the mounting 
problems with service and people getting around the country. I guess my 
question--coming from northwest Indiana, where the debate is whether to 
have a third Chicago airport or not--what's your administration going to 
try and do to solve this ongoing problem?
    The President. Well, one thing we need to do is expand the number of 
runways all around America. And as you know, there's a lot of 
environmental regulations, some of them meaningful, some of them not, 
that prohibit the expansion of runways. And step one is to increase 
accessibility, which will then make it easier to increase competition.
    As to your question about whether or not there ought to be a third 
airport in the Illinois area--I mean Chicago area, I haven't made up my 
mind yet.
    Q. I'm getting the signal from your----
    The President. Getting the hook? Thank you for having me.

Note: The President spoke at 1:17 p.m. in the Grand Ballroom at the the 
J.W. Marriott hotel. In his remarks, he referred to Richard A. Oppel, 
president, American Society of Newspaper Editors, who introduced the 
President; Ken Herman, reporter, Austin American-Statesman and Cox 
Newspapers; and Chinese pilot Wang Wei.