[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Number 13 (Monday, April 2, 2001)]
[Pages 536-543]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

March 29, 2001

    The President. Good morning. I first want to say how pleased I am 
that the House yesterday passed on a realistic, commonsense budget to 
the Senate. I appreciated the vote. They did the right thing. It's a 
budget that meets our Nation's priorities. It's also a budget that 
leaves ample room for meaningful, real, long-lasting tax relief. I look 
forward to working with the Senate to get a budget passed.
    I'm also deeply concerned about the escalating violence in the 
Middle East. It is claiming the lives of innocent civilians on both 
sides. The tragic cycle of incitement, provocation, and violence has 
gone on far too long.
    Both sides must take important steps to calm the situation now. The 
Palestinian Authority should speak out publicly and forcibly, in a 
language that the Palestinian people--to condemn violence and terrorism. 
It should arrest those who perpetrated the terrorist acts. It should 
resume security cooperation with Israel.
    The Government of Israel, for its part, should exercise restraint in 
its military response. It should take steps to restore normalcy to the 
lives of the Palestinian people by easing closures and removing 
checkpoints. Last week Prime Minister Sharon assured me that his 
government wants to move in this direction, and I urge Israel to do so.
    I'll be meeting with Egypt's President Mubarak next Monday, and 
Jordan's King Abdullah the week after, to seek their help in defusing 
the tensions. Egypt and Jordan are two of our most important partners in 
the region, and their role is crucial.
    I've asked Secretary Powell to call Chairman Arafat today and 
contact other leaders to urge them to stand against violence. Our 
diplomats in the region are fully engaged in this effort.
    Our goal is to encourage a series of reciprocal and parallel steps 
by both sides that will halt the escalation of violence, provide safety 
and security for civilians on both sides, and restore normalcy to the 
lives of everyone in the region. A lasting peace in the region will come 
only when the parties agree directly on its terms.
    This week I vetoed an unbalanced U.N. resolution, because it tried 
to force the adoption of a mechanism on which both parties did not 
agree. My approach will be to facilitate the party's work in finding 
their own solution to peace. We seek to build a stable foundation for 
restoring confidence, rebuilding security cooperation, and resuming a 
political dialog between the parties.
    I'll be glad to answer some questions.
    Ron [Ron Fournier, Associated Press].

Campaign Finance Reform Legislation

    Q. Mr. President, the Senate, as you know, is finishing up 
legislation to ban all soft money. What do you think of the bill, 
particularly the ban on individual contributions that you forcefully 
opposed in the campaign? And specifically, sir, would you sign it?

[[Page 537]]

    The President. This is a bill in progress. It's a bill that 
continues to change, and I'll take a look at it when it makes my desk. 
And if it improves the system, I'll sign it. I look forward to signing a 
good piece of legislation.
    Q. Could you sign a bill that bans individual soft money 
contributions?
    The President. I'll look at the whole bill, and I'll make my 
determination as to whether or not the bill improves the situation. And 
I appreciate the hard work that's being done on the legislation. And I'm 
going to wait until I see the final version.
    Yes, Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International].
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President Sorry.

Russia/Weapons of Mass Destruction

    Q. Mr. President, is your administration reviewing U.S. aid to 
Russia to stop the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons? 
Are you considering reducing that aid, and if so, why?
    The President. Well, we're reviewing all programs, those related to 
de-escalating potential nuclear problems. We want to make sure that any 
money that is being spent is being spent in an effective way--have the 
obligation to the taxpayer is to make sure that the money, for example, 
going to the Russian program, part of Nunn-Lugar, for example, is 
effective. And so we're putting a full review on the programs.
    And we fully intend to continue to cooperate with the Russians. It's 
in our Nation's best interest to dismantle--work with Russia to 
dismantle its nuclear arsenal. I was pleased to see that Senator Nunn, 
one of the authors of the Nunn-Lugar bill, agreed with our approach to 
take a look to make sure the programs are efficient. And we will 
continue to do so.
    Helen.

Environmental Regulations

    Q. Mr. President, in the last few weeks you have rolled back health 
and safety and environmental measures proposed by the last 
administration and other previous administrations. This has been widely 
interpreted as a payback time to your corporate donors. Are they more 
important than the American people's health and safety? And what else do 
you plan to repeal?
    The President. Well, Helen, I told people pretty plainly that I was 
going to review all the last-minute decisions that my predecessor had 
made, and that is exactly what we're doing. I presume you're referring 
to the decision on arsenic in water. First of all, there had been no 
change in the arsenic--accepted arsenic level in water since the 
forties. And at the very last minute, my predecessor made a decision, 
and we pulled back his decision so that we can make a decision based 
upon sound science and what's realistic. There will be a reduction in 
the acceptable amount of arsenic per billion after the review in the 
EPA.
    Q. How about stopping the black lung benefits for families? This is 
sort of--to increase some of the benefits of these miners?
    The President. We will work with members of the delegation and make 
sure people are properly treated. Ours is going to be an administration 
that makes decisions on science, what's realistic--commonsense 
decisions.
    For example, circumstances have changed since the campaign. We're 
now in an energy crisis. And that's why I decided to not have mandatory 
caps on CO<INF>2</INF>, because in order to meet those caps, our Nation 
would have had to have had a lot of natural gas immediately flow into 
the system, which is impossible. We don't have the infrastructure able 
to move natural gas.
    We need to have an active exploration program. One of the big 
debates that's taking place in the Congress, or will take place in the 
Congress, is whether or not we should be exploring for natural gas in 
Alaska, for example, in ANWR. I strongly think we should in order to 
make sure that we've got enough gas to be able to help reduce greenhouse 
emissions in the country. See, gas is clean, and yet there is not enough 
of it. And we've got pipeline capacity problems in the country. We have 
an energy shortage.
    I look forward to explaining this today to the leader of Germany as 
to why I made the decision I made. We'll be working with Germany; we'll 
be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases. But I will not 
accept

[[Page 538]]

a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers.
    John [John Roberts, CBS News].

Stimulus Package/Tax Cut Legislation

    Q. Mr. President, new figures out today show that the economy grew 
at an annual rate of one percent for the last 3 months of the year 2000. 
My question to you, sir, is, what are you prepared to do to immediately 
stimulate the economy? Because it would appear that your long-term tax 
package does not do it, yet you dismiss out-of-hand attempts from the 
Hill to give back a rebate of some $60 billion this year unless it's 
tied to longer-term tax relief. Why can you not sign a short-term 
package and then pursue your long-term package separate to that?
    The President. Well, John, first of all, I support the efforts on 
the Hill to provide immediate tax relief. I've been calling for 
immediate tax relief. I think it makes sense to do so. But we've got to 
have long-term relief, as well. Part of building confidence in our 
economy is not only give the consumers a boost but to have a plan that 
reduces rates for the long term, so that people who make investments--
small-business owners, the entrepreneurs--will have certainty that the 
cash flows of the future will be enhanced, so they can expand their job 
base and make new capital purchases.
    I appreciate very much what the leadership in the Senate have--Tom 
Daschle, for example, talked about immediate tax relief or immediate 
rebates, plus reducing rates permanently. We just need to reduce more 
rates than the ones he suggested.
    There is a debate going on here in Washington, and it's really, do 
you want to increase the size of the Federal Government, or do you want 
to give--let people keep their own money? And there's a philosophical 
divide. And I'm going to continue to stand on the side of the people, 
and make it as clear as I can that we've met our priorities in the 
budget I submitted, and it's not only good for the economy, though, to 
give people their money back, it's good for working families, so they 
can have more money to manage their own accounts.
    There's a lot of focus about national debt in Washington. But it's 
important for Congress not to forget a lot of folks have got consumer 
debt, as well. And when you couple high energy prices with consumer 
debt, a lot of folks are in a squeeze. And I look forward to continuing 
to make the case.
    Q. But with respect, sir, as this debate continues, consumers are 
not seeing any more money back in their pockets.
    The President. That's exactly right. And you've got a good point--
consumers haven't seen any money back in their pockets. That's why it's 
important for the Senate to act quickly on the budget. I hope there's no 
delay next week when it comes to the budget considerations. I look 
forward to working with both House Members and Senate Members, once the 
budgets have been passed, to get tax relief enacted quickly and to get 
money as quickly as possible into the people's pockets.
    Yes, Gregory [David Gregory, NBC News].
    Q. Mr. President, you're no longer negotiating with yourself on tax 
cuts. There are a lot of other approaches that are out there. Why not 
say today exactly what you're willing to do to appease both moderate 
Republicans and Democrats who fear that those projected budget surpluses 
won't materialize, and they want some way to cut off a tax cut, if 
that's the case, if we can't afford it? What will you do?
    The President. Listen, I'm anxious to talk to Members of the Senate 
about the so-called look-back provisions. But I'm going to remind people 
that one-way budget surpluses will not materialize is if Congress 
overspends. And so any look-back procedure has got to make sure that 
there are restraints to Government spending. The surest way to eat up 
the surplus is to have the kind of spending that took place during the 
last fiscal year, when the discretionary spending increased by 8 
percent.
    And by the way, I'm still negotiating with myself. People keep--I 
get a suggestion from here and a suggestion from there. So-and-so 
suggests something. And good Americans, such as yourself, are trying to 
get me to negotiate with myself.
    Q. Can I just----
    The President. Yes, you may.
    Q. Let me just bring up another suggestion. [Laughter]

[[Page 539]]

    The President. Another chance to negotiate with myself?
    Q. Will you sign or veto tax cuts that exceed $1.6 trillion, even if 
it would result from--that increase would result from an immediate 
stimulus to the economy this year?
    The President. David, I hope that Congress does not diminish the 
size of the tax relief package that I've sent up there nor increase the 
size of the tax relief package I've sent up there. The 1.6 is the size 
that I think is right. We've had a lot of discussion here in Washington 
about whether it's too big or too small. Nothing has changed my opinion 
as to whether or not--about the size of the package I sent. It's the 
right size.
    Don't worry about the beeper violation. [Laughter] It's a new 
approach. Gordon [Assistant Press Secretary Johndroe] taught me a 
lesson.

Situation in the Middle East

    Q. On the Middle East, sir. For a couple months, both you and 
officials in your administration have indicated you wanted to step back 
from constant involvement of the U.S. and the President in the conflict 
and in the peace process. Was that a mistake, given the escalation in 
both violence and the rhetoric over there? And is what you're doing 
today essentially an admission that the involvement of the United States 
and the President of the United States publicly and personally is 
necessary for the parties to succeed?
    The President. Terry [Terry Moran, ABC News], I have said all along 
that this Nation will not try to force a peace settlement in the Middle 
East, that we will facilitate a peace settlement. It requires two 
willing parties to come to the table to enact a peace treaty that will 
last. And this administration won't try to force peace on the parties. 
That's what the U.N. tried to do the other day. They tried to force a 
situation in the Middle East to which both parties did not agree. That's 
why I vetoed their suggestion.
    We have been fully engaged in the Middle East. We're on the phone 
all the time to the leaders. I'm welcoming leaders to come. In order for 
there to be a peace, this country must develop a--what I call a broad 
foundation for peace. That means we've got to have good, strong 
relations with the Egyptians and the Jordanians and the Saudis.
    As you may remember, the Secretary of State went to Syria to sit 
down with Bashar. And we've got a lot of work to do in order to build 
that foundation for peace, but we're going to make a full-time effort to 
do so.
    But our fellow citizens have got to realize that in order for there 
to be a peace, there has to be two willing parties. And we will continue 
to try to convince the parties to become willing to sit down and 
negotiate a lasting peace. But this country cannot impose a timetable 
nor settlement on the parties if they're unwilling to accept it.
    Q. But merely to contain the violence, sir, do you personally need 
to get more involved? Is that what you're doing today?
    The President. I am involved on the telephone. I met with Prime 
Minister Sharon. I'm talking to our allies and friends in the Middle 
East. I've instructed the Secretary of State to call Mr. Arafat. And 
implicit in your question is the first step, and that is the violence 
must cease in order for there to be any meaningful dialog in the Middle 
East. And so we're in the process of trying to bring calm to the region, 
and it's going to require more than just one voice.
    Obviously, our voice is an important voice for bringing calm to the 
Middle East; so are other nations. And I look forward to visiting with 
President Mubarak and King Abdullah to lend--to rally them to try to 
convince, particularly in their case, Mr. Arafat to speak out against 
violence in a language that the Palestinians can understand.
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Major [Major Garrett, Cable News Network].

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge/Energy Resources

    Q. You have mentioned today that there is an energy crisis----
    The President. Yes.
    Q. ----and yet the budget resolutions that have passed the House and 
are due to be considered in the Senate next week do not include any 
revenue from the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have 
talked to the people who have made that decision, and they said it is a 
political fight, they

[[Page 540]]

believe unwinnable, that you could not, nor could they, create the 
majorities in either the House or the Senate to bring about drilling in 
ANWR--your number one solution--or one of the top solutions to dealing 
with the energy crisis. Does this not represent a rejection from your 
own party in dealing with the energy situation?
    The President. Well, Major, first of all, there are other areas in 
the United States on which we can find natural gas. I think it's 
important for us to open up ANWR. Whether or not the Congress sees it 
that way is another matter. That's not going to deter me from having, 
for example, the Interior Secretary look at all lands that are not--not 
to be fully protected, for exploration. We've got a plan to make sure 
that gas comes--flows freely out of Canada into the United States. I 
talked to the Prime Minister about that.
    What I find interesting is that I think--we have meaningful 
discussions about exploration in the Northwest Territories, right across 
the line, admittedly miles away, is ANWR. But nevertheless, it's a big, 
vast region of natural gas. And it's important for us to explore, 
encourage exploration, work with the Canadians to get pipelines coming 
out of the Northwest Territories to the United States.
    I've talked to the President of Mexico about a policy. There's going 
to be a lot of areas where we can find natural gas in America other than 
ANWR. It would be helpful if we opened up ANWR. I think it's a mistake 
not to. And I would urge you all to travel up there and take a look at 
it, and you can make----
    Q. On energy----
    The President. Let me finish please--and you can make the 
determination as to how beautiful that country is.
    Q. If I may follow up.
    The President. Yes, Major.
    Q. If the American people, looking to you to deal with the energy 
crisis, and you cannot look to your own party to deal with what you and 
your own advisers have said is a crucial area in which to explore, how 
can the American public have confidence in your ability to deal with 
Congress to address the situation you have called today a crisis?
    The President. There's a lot of other areas we can explore, Major, 
and one of them is to work with the Canadians. There's gas in our 
hemisphere. And the fundamental question is, where's it going to come 
from? I'd like it to be American gas. But if the Congress decides not to 
have for exploration in ANWR, we'll work with the Canadians.
    I'm interested in getting more energy supply so that businesses can 
grow and people can heat their homes. We've got a shortage of energy in 
America. And it doesn't matter to me where the gas comes from in the 
long run, just so long as we get gas moving into the country, so long as 
we increase supply of natural gas.
    And we also need to have clean coal technologies, as well. And we 
need a full affront on a energy crisis that is real in California and 
looms for other parts of our country if we don't move quickly.

Senator John McCain

    Q. Mr. President, as I'm sure you've been aware, there are stories 
consistently about tensions, persistent tensions between you and Senator 
John McCain, dating back to your rivalry in the primaries. I wonder if 
you could address that, not just on the campaign finance reform bill but 
also on the Patients' Bill of Rights, which McCain supporters believe 
you don't want to sign a Patients' Bill of Rights with McCain's name on 
it.
    The President. Well, look, this is Washington, DC, gossip, is how I 
view it. I respect John McCain. I like him a lot. That doesn't mean 
we're going to agree 100 percent of the time. Obviously, we've got some 
differences; that's what a primary was all about, airing our 
differences. But I respect John. I realize--it's a game in Washington to 
try to create tension between John McCain and me, and I'm not going to 
let it happen.
    I can't control the stories that seem to be popping up all the 
time--faceless aides that are out there trying to stir the pot. I can 
just give you my perspective. I like him. He's a good man. We have some 
differences, and I think the idea, for example, of having a $5-million 
cap on punitive damages is just not the right public policy. But that 
shouldn't surprise you. After all, I've signed a bill in the State of 
Texas with a $750,000 cap on

[[Page 541]]

punitive damages. That's nothing personal, just a difference of opinion. 
And the idea of the President laying out a framework for debate and some 
guidelines is perfectly acceptable practice in Washington, DC.

Campaign Finance Reform Legislation

    Q. Just to follow on that. When you sent the signal, and your aides 
did, to Congress that they could not count on you to veto a campaign 
finance reform bill, what message were you sending? A lot of people 
interpreted it that you're saying to Congress, if you don't like it, 
kill it, because I won't.
    The President. No. As I said, I look forward to signing a bill that 
makes the process better. Sometimes the legislators will say, ``Oh, 
don't worry, we've got the President.'' I'm not sure exactly what that 
means, except if a bill that improves the system makes it to my desk, 
I'll be inclined to sign it. I, of course, reserve all options to bills 
that are forever changing, and those who follow the process know, but 
I'm going to--I will make my decision once the bill makes it to my desk.

Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority

    Q. Can I ask about the Palestinians, sir? Why is it that you have 
not decided to invite Yasser Arafat here? Have you concluded that he's 
part of the problem, not part of the solution?
    The President. Well, we're going to work with all parties. As I 
mentioned, the Secretary of State is calling Chairman Arafat today to 
urge him to stop the violence and to call upon those over whom he's got 
influence to stop the violence. I've got quite a crowded calendar of 
leaders who are coming to see me, and I'm looking forward to visiting 
with President Mubarak and King Abdullah.
    Mike [Mike Allen, Washington Post].
    Q. I'm sorry, can I follow, sir?
    The President. No. Just teasing. Go ahead. Just testing. [Laughter]
    Q. The Palestinians think you're sending them a signal. Are you?
    The President. The signal I'm sending to the Palestinians is, stop 
the violence. And I can't make it any more clear. And I hope that 
Chairman Arafat hears it loud and clear. He's going to hear it again on 
the telephone today. This is not the first time the message has been 
delivered. It's so important, in order for there to be any kind of 
discussion about peace, that we stop the violence in the Middle East.

Foreign Relations

    Q. Mr. President, allies of the United States have complained that 
you haven't consulted them sufficiently on your stance for negotiations 
with North Korea, Kyoto treaty; we have deteriorating relations 
elsewhere. If you read the international press, it looks like everyone 
is mad at us. Mr. President, how do you think that came to be, and what, 
if anything, do you plan to do about it?
    The President. Well, I get a completely different picture, of 
course, when I sit down with world leaders. I'm looking forward to 
sitting down with Mr. Schroeder here in about 30 minutes. I've had very 
honest and straightforward visits with many of the world's leaders. 
There's--I'm sure there were some concerns initially, because they 
didn't know me. And they heard all kinds of rumors about what our 
administration would be about. And I now have the chance to sit down and 
talk to them, face to face.
    I'm a pretty straightforward fellow, Mike. I don't mind making my 
case, and it's important. It's important for world leaders to know 
exactly where the United States is coming from.
    On missile defense, for example, I've assured our allies that we 
will consult with them. But we're moving forward to develop systems that 
reflect the threats of today. I mean, who knows where the next terrorist 
attack is going to come from, but we'd better be ready for it. And I 
believe I've got the opportunity to convince our friends and allies that 
our vision makes sense. It brings a lot of common sense to an old, stale 
debate, the old arms control debate.
    In terms of the CO<INF>2</INF> issue, I will explain as clearly as I 
can, today and every other chance I get, that we will not do anything 
that harms our economy, because, first things first, are the people who 
live in America. That's my priority. And I'm worried about the economy. 
I'm worried about the lack of an energy policy. I'm worried about 
rolling blackouts in California. It's in our national

[[Page 542]]

interest that we develop a strong energy policy, with realistic, 
commonsense environmental policy. And I'm going to explain that to our 
friends.
    It is in their interest, by the way, that our economy remain strong. 
After all, we're a free trading administration. We trade with each 
other. People are beginning to learn what my administration is like. And 
they're going to find we're steadfast friends. But a friend is somebody 
who's willing to tell the truth, and if there's a disagreement, to be 
able to state it clearly, to make it clear where we disagree.
    But for those who worry about our willingness to consult, they 
shouldn't worry. We are. We're going to be openminded, and we'll have 
open dialog.
    Yes, sir.
    Q. Mr. President----
    Q. Mr. President, you gave me the floor.
    The President. You're next. No, next to next. Let me rephrase it: 
You're last. [Laughter]
    Q. No problem.

Tax Cut Legislation

    Q. Just to clarify on tax cuts, I wanted to clarify the linkage that 
you feel is necessary. You have said that you want to have a tax cut 
rate reduction, and you also support the efforts to try to do a quick 
retroactive tax cut. When you speak of those two things, will you insist 
upon one package of bills that includes the rate reduction and any kind 
of quick short-term stimulus, or would you except some kind of 
verifiable promise that they'll get to your tax cuts later?
    The President. That's the old ``trust me''. [Laughter] Look, it is 
in our Nation's best interest to have long-term tax relief. And that has 
been my focus all along. I'm confident we can have it--get it done. I 
believe not only can we get long-term tax relief in place, since there 
were countries running some surpluses in spite of the dire predictions 
about cash flow; I believe we have an opportunity to fashion an 
immediate stimulus package, as well. The two ought to go hand in hand.
    Those who think that they can say we're only going to have a 
stimulus package, but let's forget tax relief, misunderestimate--excuse 
me, underestimate--[laughter]--just making sure you were paying 
attention. [Laughter] You were--[laughter]--underestimate our 
administration's resolve to get this done.
    Q. Can I ask a followup real quick?
    The President. No. [Laughter] Go ahead.
    Q. Just quickly. The Democrats have demonstrated some flexibility on 
reducing the lower end of the tax rate reductions. How do you feel about 
the top? There's talk about the top rate not being as big as you 
proposed----
    The President. Of course we ought to talk the top rate. But see, 
you're trying to do what Gregory tried to get me to do, which is 
negotiate with myself again.
    Q. What's wrong with that?
    Q. I negotiate with Gregory over this----
    The President. Please do. When you all come up with a solution, let 
me know. Gregory is in the top one percent. [Laughter] If not, you 
should be, David.
    Last question.

Free Trade in the Americas

    Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, you spoke about free trade at the 
last press conference. You've mentioned it today. You'll be meeting 
tomorrow with the President of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. He is 
the one person--at least Brazil is the one person in the continent, or 
the one country, who is not in a rush to come to a free trade agreement. 
They prefer Mercosur, the free trade agreement in South America. Is your 
administration interested in getting the free trade agreement by 2003 
year instead of the 2005 year that's been agreed? And how do you expect 
to convince Mr. Cardoso tomorrow to follow that?
    The President. Well, I--the sooner we can get a free trade agreement 
in the hemisphere, the better. As to whether or not it's 2003 or 2005, 
that's--we'll just have to see if we can't convince our friends in South 
America of the wisdom of doing it as soon as possible.
    The meeting tomorrow is going to be an important meeting. Brazil is 
a huge country. It's got a significant role in our hemisphere, and it's 
got a very bright future. To the extent that the country is skeptical 
about our intention to have free and fair trade, I have a

[[Page 543]]

chance to undermine that skepticism, and I'm going to. I'm going to look 
the man in the eye and say, ``We are free traders.''
    I will work with, and I'll have Bob Zoellick work with his 
counterpart to assure him that trade with America will be done in a free 
and fair way. I think we can make some progress, but we'll see after the 
meeting.
    Thank you all. See you tonight, right? Look, I'm just testing a few 
lines on you by the way. [Laughter]
    Q. Let's hear a few.
    The President. You just heard one, but you'll see when you hear me. 
[Laughter]

Note: The President's fourth news conference began at 10:32 a.m. in the 
James S. Brady Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he 
referred to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel; President Hosni 
Mubarak of Egypt; King Abdullah II of Jordan; former Senator Sam Nunn; 
Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada; President Vicente Fox of Mexico; 
President Bashar al-Asad of Syria; and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of 
Germany.