[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Number 34 (Monday, August 27, 2001)]
[Pages 1209-1218]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference in Crawford, Texas

August 24, 2001

Nomination 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

[[Page 1210]]

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 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 Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, 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.

[[Page 1211]]

    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 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

[[Page 1212]]

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 
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.

Social Security Funds

    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

[[Page 1213]]

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 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 
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, 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

[[Page 1214]]

of the dialog, if you believe in fiscal sanity in Washington, DC. It set 
some important parameters.
    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--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, 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.
    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.

[[Page 1215]]

    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.

Immigration Policy

    Q. Mr. President, you said yesterday that you oppose blanket amnesty 
for illegal immigrants from Mexico. But even if you only grant guest 
worker 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

[[Page 1216]]

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 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.

[[Page 1217]]

    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

    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 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.
    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

[[Page 1218]]

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 15th 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, has been 
missing since April 30. The President also referred to the Report of the 
Sharm al-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, which was chaired by former 
Senator George J. Mitchell. 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 of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Chairman-
designate Gen. Richard B. Myers, USAF.