    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2001, Book II)]
    [August 24, 2001]
    [Pages 1018-1027]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1018]]

    The President's News Conference in Crawford
    August 24, 2001

    Nominations for Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

        The President. Be seated, please. For those of you who didn't stand,
    stay seated. [Laughter]
        As President of the United States, I have no more important
    responsibility than safeguarding the security of our country and our
    citizens and supporting our friends and allies throughout the world. As
    Commander in Chief, I have the obligation to make sure America's
    military is properly trained, equipped, and manned to meet the threats
    of today, while also preparing to meet the changing threats of tomorrow.
        When I took the oath of office and assumed the title of Commander in
    Chief, our military faced significant challenges. I'm proud to report
    that, thanks to the leadership of Secretary of Defense Don
    Rumsfeld and the work of our military and
    civilian leaders, as well as the cooperation of the United States
    Congress, we're making progress.
        We've increased pay for our service men and women and funded
    improved military housing and medical benefits. I've asked Congress to
    provide our military an increase of $39 billion over the original 2001
    appropriations. That will be the largest increase in military spending
    since Ronald Reagan was the Commander in Chief. This money--this is our
    money our military needs and money our budget allows.
        We are not only going to spend more on national defense, we're going
    to spend it more wisely. Secretary Rumsfeld and our military leaders are in the midst of a
    comprehensive review of our entire defense structure, from which will
    come recommendations to accelerate the transformation of America's
    military.
        Transformation is a process, not a one-time event. It's not easy,
    because it requires balancing two sometimes conflicting priorities: the
    need to train and maintain our forces to meet all our security
    responsibilities in the world right now, with the need to research,
    develop, plan, and deploy new systems and strategies that will allow us
    to meet our responsibilities in a much different world in years to come.
    Transformation is important because the decisions we make today, or put
    off, will shape our Nation's security for decades to come.
        I am pleased that my administration has assembled an outstanding
    national security team. I asked Don Rumsfeld to come to Washington because of his creativity and his
    experience and because I know he is a results-oriented leader who will
    get the job done. Don and I will work closely with our new Chairman of
    the Joint Chiefs, who will serve as my principal military adviser, and
    who will make sure the military's point of view is always heard in the
    White House.
        The Chairman, together with the members of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff, will make sure all our Armed Forces work in a coordinated and
    effective way. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is also charged
    with reporting faithfully to the U.S. Congress on the state and needs of
    our Armed Forces.
        In the last several years, our Nation has been ably served by an
    outstanding military leader and a good man, General Hugh
    Shelton. He has done a great job as the
    most senior officer in the world's greatest military. I've appreciated
    his advice and counsel, and our entire Nation is grateful for his
    service.
        Today I name a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, one of the most
    important appointments a President can make. This appointment is
    especially so because it comes at a time when we need great leadership.
    Secretary Rumsfeld and I thought long and hard about this important
    choice, and we enthusiastically agree that the right

    [[Page 1019]]

    man to preserve the best traditions of our Armed Forces, while
    challenging them to innovate to meet the threats of the future, is
    General Richard B. Myers.
        General Myers is a man of steady
    resolve and determined leadership. His is a skilled and steady hand. He
    is someone who understands that the strengths of America's Armed Forces
    are our people and our technological superiority. And we must invest in
    both.
        I'm also pleased to announce that General Pete Pace, current commander of SOUTHCOM, will serve as Vice
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. General Pace is a proud marine and
    represents a new generation of leadership and military thinking.
        I have spent a substantial amount of time with both these men, and I
    am convinced they are the right people to lead our military into the
    future. Times like these, times of rapidly changing technology and ever-
    changing threats, will require tough choices. This team of strong
    leaders, Don Rumsfeld, General
    Myers, and General Pace, knows that our Nation must think differently and we
    will think differently to protect and defend America's values and
    interests in the world.
        To tell you more about our new Chairman and Vice Chairman, it is my
    pleasure to welcome to Crawford the Secretary of Defense, Don
    Rumsfeld.
        Mr. Secretary.

    [At this point, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Chairman-designate Gen. Richard B. Myers, USAF, and Vice Chairman-designate Gen. Peter
    Pace, USMC, each made brief remarks.]

        The President. Thank you.
        Sonya [Sonya Ross, Associated Press].

    United Nations Conference on Racism

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned thinking long and hard
    about these nominations. I hope to ask you about another long
    deliberation.
        The United Nations Conference on Racism convenes in just one week.
    Do you want your administration represented there? If so, at what level?
    And are the Zionism and reparations agenda items absolutely prohibitive
    to any U.S. participation?
        The President. She is referring to a conference that will be taking
    place in South Africa. We have made it very clear, through Colin
    Powell's office, that we will have no
    representative there, so long as they pick on Israel, so long as they
    continue to say Zionism is racism. If they use the forum as a way to
    isolate our friend and strong ally, we will not participate.
        The Secretary of State is working hard
    to resolve that issue. We have made it very clear from the get-go--I
    remember explaining to President Mbeki our
    position. As I understand, the reparations issue has been solved. At
    least, the last information I had was that that issue looks like it's
    been resolved.
        But the fundamental question is whether or not Israel will be
    treated with respect at the conference. And if not, then we will assess
    prior to the beginning. So I am not exactly sure where we stand at this
    moment.
        I do know what our administration's position is. And the position
    is, we will not participate in a conference that tries to isolate Israel
    and denigrates Israel.
        Q. Participate at any level?
        The President. That's my feeling.
        Yes.

    Situation in the Middle East

        Q. Mr. President, on Israel, as well, following up on that, today
    the Israelis pushed farther into Palestinian territory, attacking two
    houses in Hebron. So far the peace talks that were agreed to between
    Peres and Arafat haven't happened.
        I know you say that the U.S. is engaged, but Egyptians, Palestinians
    are calling for more U.S. involvement. What is it going to take for the
    U.S. to actually get more

    [[Page 1020]]

    involved, take more action in order to help bring about peace in the
    Middle East?
        The President. Well, let's start with this: In order for there to be
    any peace talks in the Middle East, the first thing that must happen is
    that both parties must resolve to stop violence. The Israelis have made
    it very clear that they will not negotiate under terrorist threat. And
    if Mr. Arafat is interested in having a dialog
    that could conceivably lead to the Mitchell process, then I strongly
    urge him to urge the terrorists, the Palestinian terrorists, to stop the
    suicide bombings, to stop the incursions, to stop the threats.
        At the same time, we have worked very closely with Prime Minister
    Sharon to urge him to show restraint. Terrorism
    is prevalent now in the Middle East, and the first thing that all
    parties who are concerned about peace in the Middle East must do is work
    to stop the terrorist activities.
        The Israelis will not negotiate under terrorist threat, simple as
    that. And if the Palestinians are interested in a dialog, then I
    strongly urge Mr. Arafat to put 100-percent
    effort into solving the terrorist activity, into stopping the terrorist
    activity. And I believe he can do a better job of doing that.
        Go ahead.
        Q. What's your reaction to the fact that the Israelis are moving
    into Palestinian territory again?
        The President. My reaction is, is that I would hope the Israelis
    would show restraint on all fronts. And we continue to urge restraint
    with both parties; we are constantly in dialog.
        But it requires two willing participants. People have got to make up
    their mind this is what they want to have happen in order for the
    beginning of peace discussions. We've got a framework for a peaceful
    resolution. It's called the Mitchell plan. And our administration, as
    has most of the world, embraced the Mitchell plan. But in order to get
    to Mitchell requires there to be a cessation of terrorist activity. If
    not a cessation, 100-percent effort to get to a cessation, and we
    haven't seen that 100-percent effort yet.
        And if what you're asking is, do we hear the Palestinians call for
    discussions? Of course we do. But my attitude is, if they are that
    interested in peaceful dialog, they ought to do everything they can to
    stop the terrorist activity that has accelerated in recent months. And
    we will see whether or not the will is there.
        Yes. Then David [David Sanger, New York Times], then some of the TV
    people.

    Federal Budget Priorities

        Q. How realistic is it for you to expect Congress to move forward
    with your defense priorities when there is so little money in the budget
    outside of Social Security? And is it perhaps naive to expect Congress
    to just roll over and abandon their priorities?
        The President. Well, I would hope that a congressional priority is
    strong national defense. And it will be very interesting to kind of get
    a feel for the congressional priorities this fall.
        And one of the early tests will be to see whether or not the
    leadership will give us a defense number early in the process. And
    that's what I've asked Congress to do. I did so in Independence,
    Missouri. I repeat it today.
        And we hear a lot of dialog on the Hill about the importance of
    national defense. If that's the case, give us a number--at the beginning
    of the process, not at the end of the process. Let us know what the
    defense--I think it's realistic to ask Congress to prioritize national
    defense and education. We've done so. The budget that Mitch
    Daniels outlined clearly shows that
    we've got the monies available for a good, strong national defense.
        Now, I readily concede, if Congress goes off on a spending spree in
    other areas, it's going to create a competition for defense dollars. And
    my point is going to be, to the Members of the United States Congress

    [[Page 1021]]

    and their constituents, that national defense ought to be a funding
    priority, and I expect it to be. I expect it to be in '01, '02, and '03.
        Q. So you are using a veto threat as a way of bringing a hard line
    into----
        The President. Wait, wait, you put the word ``veto'' in my mouth. I
    have said that I will work for fiscal sanity in Washington, DC. And one
    way for a President to make--effect the fiscal condition of our
    Government is to express displeasure when certain budgets get busted.
    And so far we haven't had that, and that's why I praised Senator
    Byrd and Congressman Young. We've had a couple of supplementals.
        And as the Washington watchers will tell you, the supplementals have
    been restrained. They have been within the budget guidelines, and I
    appreciate that very much. There has been some fiscal sanity thus far.
    Hopefully--and I am optimistic there will continue to be some fiscal
    sanity in Washington. We'll find out.
        And there's going to be a battle. There's always a battle over
    whether defense is getting too much or not enough. Our position is, it
    has been underfunded, and we expect Congress to respond. And our job, as
    well, is to present a coherent strategy as to why, why there ought to be
    more money. And that's what the Secretary
    is here to discuss with me in Crawford today.
        You know, there's a lot of discussion about transformation.
    Transformation isn't one document. It's not a moment in time. It's a
    strategy, and it starts with assessing the true threats facing America
    today and in the future. And then we size our forces depending upon the
    threats that face the country. And those are the dialogs we're now
    having.
        And one of the jobs of Dick, should he
    be confirmed, is to make sure the Congress understands why our force
    size--why we are asking for monies for certain force sizes and how it
    relates to keeping the national security of the country in the long
    term, as well as today.
        Dave.
        Q. Mr. President, to follow up on that, the administration's budget
    projections show these fairly thin surpluses outside of Social Security
    for the next several years, and the budget that you've been discussing,
    of course, does not include missile defense, does not include a number
    of the conventional weapons, transformations that your team that you've
    introduced here today is going to be working on.
        Would it be reasonable to dip into Social Security and into the
    Social Security funds to pay for missile defense and to pay for military
    transformation, or is there any other contingency you can imagine that
    would make it worthwhile to go into the Social Security funds?
        The President. Well, I've said that the only reason we should use
    Social Security funds is in case of an economic recession or war.
    Secondly, our budget does call for missile defense expenditures. If I'm
    not mistaken, I think it's to the tune of $8 billion. And you might
    recall, as we left town, there were some Members of the United States
    Congress saying that that was way too much expenditure on a missile
    defense program, and they would like to divert that money to other
    programs, some within the defense budget, some outside the defense
    budget.
        And so we do make--we've also increased research and development by
    a significant amount of money, David. But I think the thing that's
    important to know is that Secretary Rumsfeld is taking a long look, addressing--assessing all the
    threats or the perceived threats that could face our country and how we
    address those threats.
        One of the threats that faces America is the threat of blackmail as
    a result of some rogue nation having a weapon of mass destruction. And
    that not only is a threat to our own land; it's also a threat to our
    forward-thinking foreign policy. Take, for example, some nation in the
    Middle Eastern area developing a weapon of mass destruction and then
    threatening the United

    [[Page 1022]]

    States if we were to move troops into an area to protect an ally.
        So, in other words, the ability to have a weapon of mass destruction
    not only affects our people living in America, because some of these
    weapons have now got longer ranges than ever anticipated, but also
    affects our foreign policy. It could be used as an attempt to isolate
    America, and we're not going to let that happen.
        So one of the things you will hear us talk about is the need to
    develop an effective missile defense system, and we do have money in the
    budget for that. And there is going to be an interesting dialog over
    whether it's too much. We're going to stand our ground and say the $8
    billion--I believe it's $8 billion, if I'm not mistaken--is the right
    amount of money.
        And you'll see, Dave, as well, as you look at other parts of the
    defense budget request, particularly the '02 and then the add-on '03,
    which we haven't laid out yet, there's a lot of money for research and
    development, which is absolutely necessary. And one of the reasons Dick
    Myers is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--
    nominee--is because he has had a lot of experience in space, for
    example. It's an area that we need to explore and know more about. He's
    had a lot of experience when it comes to the leading edge of technology
    that is becoming more and more prevalent in our military. And our budget
    reflects the need to fully explore and, at the same time, make sure that
    today's military can fulfill the missions. And it's a balancing act, and
    I fully recognize it's one, but our budget does reflect that.
        Yeah, John [John King, Cable News Network].

    National Economy/Federal Spending

        Q. Mr. President, looking ahead to those budget fights down the
    road, though, in '02 and '03, when you will undoubtedly be asking for
    more money for missile defense, many question your economic
    assumptions--more mixed signals today: durable good orders down, home
    sales up. People question whether your 3.2 percent forecast for growth
    next year--even many economists who are allied with your administration
    say they think that's too overly optimistic. On what do you base it?
        The President. I think--I'm sorry Mitch Daniels isn't here to lay out all the forecasts that led to our
    assumption. And we're right in the middle, as I understand. We picked
    the number that seemed reasonable.
        Let's--the facts are, our economy has slowed down. We had an anemic
    one-percent growth over the last 12 months, and that affected tax
    revenues. And our administration, instead of wringing our hands, put in
    place a fiscal stimulus package that was the first real tax cut in a
    generation. And we believe that's going to have a positive effect on our
    economy.
        No question the economy's slowed down, and therefore Congress must
    adjust its spending attitudes. The surest way to make sure that the
    recovery doesn't happen in a meaningful period of time or a reasonable
    period of time is to overspend.
        So my message to the Congress is: I'm proud of your vote for tax
    relief; it was the right thing to do because it responded to economic
    circumstances that our Nation now faces. But don't go hog wild. I mean,
    appropriators appropriate. Don't overspend. And one of my jobs as the
    President is to make sure we keep fiscal sanity in the budget.
        Q. But if you're off by just a point or two, Washington will be
    billions and billions short.
        The President. Well, if I'm off by a point or two, then Congress can
    adjust their sights. See, I'm glad that Congress finally, for the first
    time in a long period of time, has said, ``We're not going to spend
    Social Security, except on emergencies.'' That wasn't the case up until
    this administration. It's a useful part of the dialog, if you believe in
    fiscal sanity in Washington, DC. It set some important parameters.

    [[Page 1023]]

        So we have the tax relief plan, which is important for fiscal
    stimulus, coupled with Social Security being off limits except for--
    except for emergency. That now provides a new kind of a fiscal
    straitjacket for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's
    incredibly positive news if you're worried about a Federal Government
    that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past 8 years, and it
    has been.
        Listen, the '02 budget we submitted has got discretionary spending
    growing by 6 percent. That's a pretty significant number. Certainly not
    as much as some of the appropriators would like to see in Washington,
    DC, but we think it's a nice, balanced number. It's one that will help
    meet the needs and, at the same time, not overspend and therefore affect
    economic growth.
        Of course, the other side of things is, if the economy gets back to
    where it was growing, Washington could conceivably be awash in money,
    and so there's leverage on both sides.

    Stem Cell Research

        Q. On stem cells, you've said that the 60 stem cell lines can be
    experimented on. It now turns out they've been mixed in the laboratory
    with mice cells. Under FDA guidelines, they could have no practical
    effect. Did you know that when you made this decision, that these
    possibly couldn't be used?
        The President. Here's what I knew. I knew that I sat down with the
    NIH experts, the people who were--people who are charged by our Federal
    Government to follow the research opportunities on all fronts, and they
    feel like the existing stem cell lines are ample to be able to determine
    whether or not embryonic stem cell research can yield the results
    necessary to save lives. This is their opinion, and I can think of no
    better opinion on which to make my--base my judgment.
        And so I haven't changed my opinion in the least. As a matter of
    fact, I read some comments today where the NIH scientists again
    confirmed that we've got enough existing stem cell lines to do the
    research necessary to determine whether or not the promise of embryonic
    stem cells will be met.
        Q. Sir, did no one warn you that the animal viruses could invalidate
    the use of these cells?
        The President. The NIH came into the Oval Office, and they looked me
    right in the eye, and they said, ``We think there is ample stem cell
    lines to determine whether or not this embryonic stem cell research will
    work or not.'' And I appreciated their candor, and I appreciated their
    advice.
        Root [Jay Root, Fort Worth Star-Telegram], good to see you, my boy.

    Weapons Systems

        Q. You talked about the need to----
        The President. How are you? Used to cover me as Governor. Fine lad,
    fine lad.
        Q. You talked about the need----
        The President. Little short on hair but a fine lad. [Laughter]
        Q. I am losing some hair.
        You talked about the need to maintain technological superiority.
    Given some of its well-known problems, do you think that a part of that
    would include the B-22, and do you think that, given some of the budget
    problems that have been discussed, that it compromises, maybe, your
    ability to go forward with the B-22, the F-22, and the Joint Strike
    Fighter?
        The President. Root represents Fort Worth.
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I never would
    have guessed.
        The President. The Secretary and both
    the civilians who work with him and the military who works for him are
    charged with not only assessing the threats that will face us but then
    are charged with not only designing a force structure to meet those
    threats, as well as the capital expenditures necessary to meet them.

    [[Page 1024]]

        There is no question that we probably cannot afford every weapons
    system that is now on--being designed or thought about. And you should
    ask the Secretary this question, if you
    care to, because he is going to bring to my desk, in a reasonable period
    of time, what the Pentagon recommendations are as to what weapons
    systems should go forward and which should not.
        One of the things that happens inside the Pentagon is, people are
    encouraged to think outside the box, so to speak, and help design
    systems that could or could not affect security in the long term. And
    there are many good ideas.
        But this administration is going to have to winnow them down. We
    can't afford every single thing that has been contemplated. And when we
    make decisions, they will fit into a strategic plan. And we need one.
    And there is going to be one, and it's coming this fall, starting with--
    as the Secretary will talk about.
        Q. I will take you up on your invitation to ask the Secretary----
        The President. You can ask him next.
    I'm on a roll here. [Laughter]
        Q. Good morning, sir.
        The President. This will give him a little time to think of the
    answer.

    President's Priorities

        Q. You've talked about limits on spending. If your wish came true
    that the Federal budget is once again awash in money, what would your
    priorities be? Where would you like to spend----
        The President. Education, defense, and making sure the taxpayers had
    ample money to make choices for themselves. You know, I think one of the
    things we've got to recognize is that our Government should fund
    priorities, but we've always got to remember where the money came from.
        And I can't tell you how proud I am to be traveling around the
    country, and people walk up and say, ``Thanks for the $600.'' Now, there
    are some cynics who say $600 doesn't mean anything to a working family
    in America. That's not what I hear. I hear it means a lot to people.
        So if we're awash--and I think our economy has got very strong
    underpinnings. We're certainly going through a correction, but there are
    some signs we're improving. Some signs, as John accurately noted, still
    show that there's an anchor on economic growth. But I believe we'll be
    back and be robust, and when we are, then we'll deal with the budget.
        In the meantime--in the meantime, however, it's important for
    Congress and the appropriators to realize there's not as much money
    around Washington as there used to be, and therefore, they need to
    readjust their sights. And our priorities are going to be educating our
    children and national defense. Those are our priorities, and I hope a
    lot of Congress comes with me on that.
        Q. Are you implying that another tax cut might be----
        The President. No, I'm not implying. I'm saying that if we are
    awash--I think you were implying we might be awash with money, and I
    hope we are. I think we've got a very strong economy. Let me say, we've
    got a strong economic potential. We could have a very strong economy
    again. I think I am going to get trade promotion authority, which should
    help. This tax cut will help. Monetary policy should help.
        And when we get economic growth going again, after the correction in
    some of our sectors like the high-tech sector, we may have good money.
    And if we do, then I want to always remember where it came from. It
    didn't come because of the genius of the Federal Government; it came
    because of the genius and hard work of the American people. But let's
    wait until that happens. Let's just hope it happens soon.
        Yes, sir.

    [[Page 1025]]

    Immigration Policy

        Q. Mr. President, you said yesterday that you oppose blanket amnesty
    for illegal immigrants from Mexico. But even if you only grant
    guestworker status to some illegals, doesn't that amount to rewarding
    illegal activity, when other immigrants are struggling to come to this
    country legally?
        The President. Colin Powell and John
    Ashcroft are taking a hard look at our
    immigration policy. They are not only reviewing our policy in our own
    working group; they are reviewing the policy with their counterparts in
    Mexico. And we have had some very good dialogs; it's been a very
    constructive dialog.
        I talked to Vicente Fox about this subject a
    couple of days ago, and we both agreed that the discussions thus far
    have been positive. I do not believe in blanket amnesty.
        One of the issues you referred to is an important issue, and that
    is, how do we make sure that as we facilitate willing employer hooking
    up with willing employee, that we don't penalize those who have been
    waiting in line legally? And so our deliberations are taking that into
    account. And that's a far cry, however, from blanket amnesty.
        I believe that--strongly believe that if someone is willing to work
    and someone's looking for a worker and can't find anybody, we ought to
    facilitate the two hooking up. And so there are ways to make sure that
    people are rewarded for hard work without affecting those who have been
    patiently waiting in line for legal status.
        Q. Respectfully, sir, can I follow up and say----
        The President. Is this a question or a speech?

    Mexico-U.S. Relations

        Q. Well, how do you respond to those who say you are courting the
    Hispanic vote with this outreach?
        The President. Well, I respond by saying that, first of all, I can't
    think of anything more important for our foreign policy in our
    hemisphere than to have good relations with Mexico. Mexico is our
    neighbor, and we ought to have a neighborhood that is prosperous and
    peaceful.
        The basis for good foreign policy is to make sure your own area,
    your own neighborhood, is in good shape. And I have got a great relation
    with the President of Mexico, symbolized by the
    fact that the first state dinner I'm going to have is with Vicente Fox,
    and it's going to happen in 2 weeks.
        The history of the relationship between Mexico and the United States
    hasn't always been smooth. I mean, it's been pretty hostile at times.
    And to me, that didn't inure to our country's benefit.
        We've got good relations, and one of the things we've got to do is
    discuss common problems. We've got problems on our border; we've got
    problems with drug interdiction; we've got problems with environmental
    issues on our border; we've got water problems; and we've got
    immigration problems. And if we're going to have good relations with our
    neighbor, we ought to deal constructively with the problems, admit
    there's a problem, and figure out ways to deal with it.
        The long-term solution, however, for immigration is for Mexico to be
    prosperous enough to grow a middle class where people will be able to
    find work at home. And I remind people all across our country, family
    values do not stop at the Rio Bravo. There are people in Mexico who have
    got children who are worried about where they are going to get their
    next meal from. And they are going to come to the United States if they
    think they can make money here. That's a simple fact. And they're
    willing to walk across miles of desert to do work that some Americans
    won't do. And we've got to respect that, it seems like to me, and treat
    those people with respect.
        Now, I get accused of being political on everything I do. I guess
    that's just the nature of being the President. And what I

    [[Page 1026]]

    try to assure people of is, I deal with problems as I see them. And some
    people are going to like the solution, and some are not, and we'll just
    let the chips fall where they may.
        I'm going to let Rumsfeld talk to
    Root. Listen, I've got to go get briefed. Okay, one more. One more. Two
    more--make them quick.

    Representative Gary Condit

        Q. You said yesterday that you had no plans to watch the interview
    last night with Congressman Gary Condit, that you would----
        The President. Yes, I followed through on that.
        Q. ----but that you would read about it. And I was wondering if you
    had and if you have any thoughts?
        The President. Actually, I haven't read about it yet. I have been
    briefed on it by Karen Hughes and Condi
    Rice, who watched it, and you might ask
    them what their opinion is. [Laughter] I'm trying to get Condi and Karen some national
    exposure. [Laughter]
        Q. Sir, seriously though, if I could follow up, this is--you've been
    reluctant to talk about this issue, and 23.6 million Americans watched
    this interview last night----
        The President. Well, I was one who didn't.
        Q. There is enormous interest in it.
        The President. There was 270-some million Americans, and I was one
    of the 250 who didn't watch it. Did you watch it?
        Q. I did, indeed.
        The President. Okay, good. Do I have--I don't have an opinion yet on
    it.
        I do know that--I hope that the Levy prayers are answered. That's my
    hope. This isn't about a Congressman or about a network. This is about a
    family who lost a daughter, and that's what I'm concerned about. I hope
    that if she is alive, she's returned soon. I
    pray she's alive. That's where my heart is, and that's where my concerns
    are on this issue. I'm not worried about the gossip or the Washington
    whispers. I am worried about a young girl's
    life, and so should America be worried about a young girl's life.
        Q. But sir, do you think the Congressman's evasiveness has----
        The President. I have no idea about the Congressman. I am not paying
    attention to the Congressman. I am paying attention to whether or not
    this poor girl is--is found. And that's what
    I'm interested in.
        I understand how Washington works, and there's all kinds of stuff
    that goes on in Washington. People are saying this about somebody, and
    they're saying that about somebody. It's a town of gossip. And I'm not
    worried about the gossip. I'm worried about the facts. And there's a
    girl missing, and our prayers are with her
    parents. I have seen them on TV. I agonize for the mom and the dad. And that's where my
    heart is.
        Last question, Martha [Martha Brant, Newsweek]. No, next to last.
    This is the last question, but there's two more answers, mine and
    Rumsfeld's.

    Changing the Tone in Washington, DC

        Q. I'll go fast. Thank you, sir.
        You've talked a lot about changing the tone in Washington, and
    you've had some success doing it. But lately there have been some shots
    across the bow--the Democrats' ad this week on the surplus. I'm
    wondering if you think that the tone in Washington is changing back to
    the partisan bickering of the past?
        The President. Well, it's not in Crawford. [Laughter] It's a great
    tone here in Crawford. One of the good things about coming out here is
    that you get a sense for what people are paying attention to, and they
    don't really pay attention to partisan squabbling.
        The truth of the matter is, I welcome the tax debate. I hope that
    people try to, you know, attack based upon tax relief for the American
    people. I think it's--you know, if you want to try to position an

    [[Page 1027]]

    issue, it's a nice place to be, because the counterpoint is, what are
    you going to do, raise them? If you're against tax relief, are you then
    advocating you're going to raise taxes on the American people, which
    would be not only an economic--it would be really bad for our economy.
    But I look forward to hearing the debate, ``Mr. President, I think
    you're wrong. We should raise taxes on the people, particularly after
    they just got their $600 check.''
        And so I welcome the debate. But out here in Crawford, people aren't
    that--you know what they're interested in? Their families, whether it's
    going to rain, interested in the price of fuel, they're worried about
    insurance rates--they're not too bad in Texas. But that's what they're
    worried about. They're worried about things. They're not worried about
    the partisan squabbling that has kind of sullied the Washington scene at
    times.
        And frankly, I haven't seen any of the ads. Of course, I didn't
    watch the show.
        All right. Mr. Secretary, Jay Root
    asked a very penetrating question. You've forgotten what it is----
        Secretary Rumsfeld. I never would
    have guessed. But I know the answer.

    Weapons Systems

        Q. You know the answer? I could just be quiet. But let me just ask,
    on the B-22, is it a viable program, or given its problems, do you think
    it's just not going to survive?
        Secretary Rumsfeld. The issue, with
    respect to weapons systems, is there are several things that are
    required by Congress. One is the Presidential budget to be offered in
    the first part of next year. And there is a process that precedes it in
    every department to produce that budget that the President then pulls
    together. The other is a so-called quadrennial defense review, and
    another is the nuclear posture review. Those are all going on. And
    through an iterative process with the services, the budget for the 2003
    Presidential budget is being built and those kinds of decisions get
    made.
        As the President suggested, we are balancing some risks. There are
    operational risks with respect to near-term threats. There are also
    risks of not transforming, of not modernizing the force at a rate that
    makes sense, or of not taking proper care of the men and women in the
    Armed Forces, and the risks that you run then of not having the people
    you need to see that the United States of America can continue to
    contribute to peace and stability in the world.
        So it is that complicated process of balancing those risks that will
    lead the services to come back with their recommendations, which we then
    will all consider and take into account in our recommendations to the
    President.
        With respect to the specific aircraft you're talking about, we all
    know it's been a troubled program. It has had enormous difficulties
    and--but it has not come to the point of a decision, and it will in the
    coming period of September and October.
        The President. Thank you all very much.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 10:44 a.m. at the
    Crawford Community Center. In his remarks, he referred to President
    Thabo Mbeki of South Africa; Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian
    Authority; Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel; President Vicente Fox
    of Mexico; and Bob and Susan Levy, whose daughter, Chandra, had been
    missing since April 30. The President also referred to the Report of the
    Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, chaired by former Senator George
    J. Mitchell, issued April 30. Reporters referred to former Prime
    Minister Shimon Peres of Israel and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.
    The transcript released by the Office of the Press Secretary also
    included the remarks of Secretary Rumsfeld, Chairman-designate General
    Myers, and Vice Chairman-designate General Pace.