For Immediate Release Office of the
Press Secretary November 20, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
Listen
to the Briefing
- Update
on Events for the Day
- President's
Meeting with Philippine President
- NAEP
Scores
- White
House Tours Closed for Christmas
- Justice
Department/New Name/RFK
- Possible
Airline Strike
- Number
of Casualties in War on Terrorism
- Reaction
to Secretary Powell's Speech
- Weapons
of Mass Destruction
- Economic
Stimulus
- Congressional
Black Caucus/Haiti
- Congress/Domestic
Priorities
- Immigration
Bill
- Chief
of Staff Card
- Faith
Based Initiative
12:15 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The
President's schedule today. The President this morning had
his round of intelligence briefings, followed by an FBI briefing.
Then he convened a meeting of his Homeland Security Council.
In mid-morning, the President visited a local charity, So
Others Might Eat, where he encouraged Americans to give at this time
to charities, a reminder to the American people that at this time as
the holiday approaches, he thanked so many Americans who have given
to the charities that have been helping people get through the
disaster of September 11th. But he also wanted to remind Americans
that there are many other charities who are in need, whose work is
unrelated to the events of the 11th, who focus on help for the
homeless, and provide care and shelter for those who are in need,
and urged Americans to give. He also announced a $1-billion program
from the Housing and Urban Development Department, to help the
homeless.
The President, in
the early afternoon, will meet with the President of the
Philippines, President Arroyo, to discuss ongoing collaboration
in the war on terrorism. And then, in mid-afternoon, the President
will participate in the dedication of the Department of Justice
Building in honor of Robert F. Kennedy, our 64th Attorney General.
Today, of course, would have been Robert F. Kennedy's 76th birthday.
And the President will look forward to that event. He will be joined
there by many members of the Kennedy family, staffers who worked at
the Department of Justice and the Attorney General's Office under
then-Attorney General RFK, as well as many other people from the
Washington community, the civil rights community, and the law
enforcement community, will join the President for that
event.
One other note, and then I'll
be happy to take questions. The Department of Education earlier
today released the National Assessment of Education Progress, or
NAEP, science scores for 2000. This is a follow-up to the
previous report of math and reading scores issued by NAEP earlier
this year.
The report shows that there is no change in
students' average scores in grades 4 or 8 since 1996. The scores are
flat. It also shows that the only change in average scores occurred
in grade 12, where scores declined. The President is committed to
making certain that every child in America receives a first rate
education. And he believes that today's release of these tests show
again the importance of Congress getting together in the Conference
Committee and sending him an education bill that improves schools,
public schools, principally for all children in America, so all
children can learn, both in math, reading and in science. He's
pleased with the progress that's been made in the Conference
Committee. And he is very hopeful that he will be able to sign an
education bill soon. It remains a top priority for this President.
With that, I'm happy to take questions.
Q Is there any reconsideration of the decision
to keep tourists out of the White House, given the
President's call for Americans to return to some sense of normalcy?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President and the First Lady both regret
very much that in the wake of the attacks on September 11th public
access to the White House has been curtailed. It's been that way
since the 11th, and the President wishes it was not so.
As a
result of the security procedures that have been in place since the
11th, it will not be possible, even during this time of year, of the
holidays, to open the White House for public tours, which would
include the holiday tours, which have always been a special part of
the White House. It's a fact that the President regrets very much;
but unfortunately, and the President noted this last night, evil
does not take time off for the holidays. The nation still is a
terrorist threat, and the White House is a target of terrorist
activities, of course. And therefore, the same precautions that have
been put in place since the 11th remain in place.
Q But is
there any sense on his part, that he's sending a mixed message by
telling Americans it's okay to travel again, they should go back to
their lives, and at the same time, upping the ante here at the White
House, increasing security, and taking these fairly extraordinary
measures?
MR. FLEISCHER: It doesn't represent an increase so
much as it's a continuation. It's not all of a sudden a drop in
guard because the holidays have approached, and opening the White
House, because it has been closed to public tours since the 11th.
But I think to answer your first question, I think you
should go back and take a look at what the President said in his
speech in Atlanta, where he talked about Americans getting used to
both factors, which is an ongoing part of life today in wartime,
that the American people do understand the importance of going back
to their daily lives, their normal routines, while at the same time,
being on a heightened state of alert, being more aware, and
recognizing that not only the White House, but other federal
facilities and important facilities around many people's communities
have stepped up protections and stepped up security.
Q So the
Secret Service is actually saying it cannot secure the White House,
given the fact that we can apparently secure airports and airplanes
now?
Q Exactly.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there is a total
difference between securing the White House and securing airports. I
think that the airports don't have high fences around the terminals
the way the White House does, in recognition of the fact that the
White House has always been a different type of target and
obviously, with terrorists who have sought to do harm to our nation,
interested in continuing to do harm, government facilities such as
the White House or some other primary locations.
Q Do you
have any proof of that statement?
MR. FLEISCHER: That the
White House is an object of attack? Helen, I think that goes without
saying when you take a look at the threats that have been faced at
the White House and the nature of terrorism.
Q Are you saying
it's a continuing threat?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's always
safe to say in this country that the White House is a target of
those who would do our country harm.
Q Ari, no one belittles
the danger to the White House with the President here, but the
surprising fact seems to be that you cannot secure the White House.
The Secret Service and the entire federal government cannot secure
what some people would argue is the most important building in the
United States right now.
MR. FLEISCHER: I would just -- want
to remind you that the White House does have visitors, but the
visitors are pre-cleared and pre-screened, as everybody in this room
knows from personal experience. That applies to all of you in this
room.
Reporters, for example, cannot just show up at the
White House and report to work; they have to have provided the White
House with a rudimentary amount of information and that then is
cleared. So all visitors are cleared. The distinction being opening
up the gates of the White House to those who are not cleared, i.e.,
wide open public tours. And the distinction there is the ability
just to do that informational review to make certain that people
coming to the White House have passed that check to make sure they
don't have --
Q But they're not cleared at airports. I mean,
they don't go through security checks, background checks. The FBI
doesn't give everybody who buys an airline ticket a background
check. So if you can secure airports, presumably, why can't you
secure this place?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the nature of the
White House is different from the nature of an airport. You can't
compare the two. And it's not fair to say that they are two, or one
in the same. They are not. And I think most Americans understand as
they go about their daily lives and live in their communities, are
an open society.
There have been many federal facilities,
military bases, the White House, that are not as open as general
society, and that's always been the case in this country, and I
think people recognize that.
Q Did the President make the
decision on the basis of --
MR. FLEISCHER: It was a
recommendation by the Secret Service that was accepted by the White
House. I think the decision was made, frankly, at the staff level,
Helen.
Q Two things, actually. How long will it be in effect?
Is this just an ongoing closure and --
MR. FLEISCHER: It is
ongoing.
Q It is ongoing? And, number two --
MR.
FLEISCHER: And there has been no change September 11th. The question
I was asked is, will the White House take down those security
protections that have been put in place since September 11th because
it's the holidays? And as the President said himself said last
night, evil does not take a break or take a rest for the
holidays.
Q But I was just following on John's question,
though. You know, the White House is certainly different, but in
terms of people, visitors that come here normally for tours, they go
through the metal detectors, they follow the same procedures that we
all go through on the nation's airlines. So what's the difference
there, what's happening at the nation's airlines, versus what would
be happening at the White House to make sure people are not coming
into the White House with any explosives or any dangerous
substances?
MR. FLEISCHER: Suffice it to say that it is the
judgment of the professionals who are engaged in the security
business evaluating the unique risks that are posed at the White
House with the nature of the threat to the White House that a
security situations still exists in allowing uncleared individuals
to enter the White House.
Q Ari, has anyone thought of going
halfway, such as limiting the number of tickets so you don't have as
many people in line, but half the number of tickets, or a third the
number of tickets where people give their Social Security number,
they're cleared 24 hours in advance, like they do for Christmas
parties here, so that some members of the public can at least get
some tickets?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, there will be
members of the public as far as invitations to -- and I think you've
heard this -- it was in the newspaper this morning -- about the
firemen, policemen, others who have been involved in the activities
surrounding New York, to try to make the White House as welcoming as
possible to as many people as possible. That will be
happening.
Q Ari, is the Director of Homeland Security going
to look at this issue? And by "ongoing," does this mean now that the
public can expect there to be no public tours for the entire time
President Bush is in office?
MR. FLEISCHER: The matter has
been settled, the matter has been decided, and again, this is
something that the President regrets very much; the First Lady
regrets it very much. No one wants to be in a position where the
public is not welcome in the people's house. This building does
belong to the country, it belongs to the people.
But I think
the people are also the first to recognize that these are
extraordinary times. Our nation is at war. There are people who
would do damage if they could, and that this is a balancing that
society is going through in protecting people's rights to open
access with ongoing security concerns.
Q So, "ongoing" means
for the rest of the time President Bush is in office?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Until further notice.
Q And the Homeland Security
Office is not going to address this at all?
MR. FLEISCHER:
And the President, of course, hopes that as quickly as possible. The
White House, as well as other entities throughout society, will be
open to the public on a much more readily available basis. But so
long as we are in a war situation, and so long as the threat
assessment remains high, this is the condition for the time being.
And again, this is something the President regrets very
much. If you recall what he did on opening day here at the White
House, he greeted visitors as they arrived through, shook the hands
of as many people as he possibly could, opening the White House to
the public, which is a White House tradition. He regrets very much
that a time-honored tradition has to change in times of war.
Q Ari, there's a very tight bubble, it seems to me, here.
And when -- for the public tours, the Secret Service, all throughout
-- they are the ones who are conducting the tours. Why is it that
the President is not anywhere near when those tours are happening?
He's either away, over here in the West Wing, or up in the
Residence. The public does not see him. Why is it that the American
public still cannot go through with Secret Service there, with the
checks of magnetometers and things of that nature, organic and metal
detectors, why can the public not come through here?
MR.
FLEISCHER: You're re-asking the question that we've been discussing
for ten minutes. I've shared all the information I can on the topic.
Q Ari, is part of the problem simply you can't staff it
enough, you don't have the personnel in the White House to actually
do this job? Presumably, if you can bring in unlimited numbers of
--
MR. FLEISCHER: John, there are a variety of factors, and
staffing of course is one of the factors, as you noted that the
perimeter of the White House has been pushed out greatly as a result
of the time of war. Public traffic on streets around the White House
has been eliminated, and in the case of one major street behind the
White House, following Pennsylvania Avenue. Of course that creates
additional security perimeters. And there is a staffing issue, but
it's something that the White House and the President, particularly,
and the First Lady, regret very much.
Q Ari, I wonder if you could better explain the
President's rationale for renaming the Justice Department
building in honor of Attorney General Kennedy. This is a person
obviously with some undeniable accomplishments, but also a record as
Attorney General of certain abuses, including the wiretapping of
Martin Luther King, abuse of the IRS, and so on.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, as Attorney General, Robert Kennedy successfully
led the Department of Justice in important struggles that have come
to symbolize the Department's capacity to do good. And the President
thinks that it's fitting to name the building in honor of the former
Attorney General whose work, whether it was against organized crime
or for civil rights, stands out as singular achievements in American
history.
Q Did he consider the abuses like the wire tapping
of Dr. King, and so on, in making his decision?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the President is naming it after RFK for the
reasons I just mentioned.
Q Ari, over the weekend there
were reports in the British press that a catastrophic error by U.S.
Air Force bombers killed 150 Afghan civilians. Do you have -- does
the administration have any numbers on how many civilians have
been killed by U.S. bombs since the bombing started?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me make two points on that. One is I don't think
you'll ever witness a nation that has worked so hard to avoid
civilian casualties as the United States has. It is part of the
training, part of the mission, part of the professionalism of the
men and women who serve in the Armed Forces that they work so hard
to conduct a war that -- works so hard to protect innocent lives on
the ground. If you're asking any more specific operational
questions, including numbers, you need to talk to DOD.
Q The
second question, in his book, "Veil," Bob Woodward reported a couple
of years ago that a CIA-sponsored car bomb killed 80 innocent
civilians in Beirut. You talk about terror and the war on evil -- is
the war on terror and evil, does that include U.S.-sponsored terror
and U.S.-sponsored deaths, civilian deaths?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Well, I'm not going to accept the premise of that question. If
you're talking about the United States acting in self-defense -- and
I'm not referring this to the question of anything that was written
in Mr. Woodward's book -- but if you're suggesting that an
equivalence between the United States protecting itself in the war
on Afghanistan and terrorism practiced against the United States, I
don't accept the premise of that question and the moral equivalence
that you're suggesting.
Q
Ari, a couple of quick questions on President Arroyo's visit.
She's meeting with the President later; she's already met with the
Defense Secretary, meeting later with the Secretary of State --
seems to be getting sort of the royal treatment, high profile visits
with the President on down. Are you showing her as an example of
those who help the U.S. in the fight against terrorism, comparing to
others who are not?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Philippines is a very
important country, and the Philippines has been very helpful to the
United States in the war on terrorism. The Philippines have their
own unique problems presented by terrorists. The Abu Sayyef group
that operates in the Philippines, for example, and President Arroyo
is committed to working very hard to protect her people from the
terrorism that is found in the Philippines, as well as making
inroads and working cooperatively with other groups to ensure
stability within the Philippines.
But she is going to be
welcomed here in Washington, and the President will be pleased to
receive her. She is meeting with others, which is not unusual, too.
Many visiting heads of state receive a similar level of
visit.
Q What's the U.S. team in the Philippines doing to
help the country deal with Abu Sayyef?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think
it's been widely reported that there have been teams sent there to
help train and work with the Philippines military to help them so
that they can prevent future acts of terrorism against a nation that
has experienced a lot of acts already.
Q What about the
American hostages in the Philippines?
Q United's mechanics have
rejected arbitration. Does the President plan to intervene to avert
a strike?
MR. FLEISCHER: The National Mediation Board
last night recommended to the President that he create a
presidential emergency board. And the President is deeply concerned,
especially at this time of year, about any disruption in airline
service to the traveling public. He is also concerned about any
negative impact a strike would have on the economy. And so,
therefore, the President is prepared to do whatever it takes to
protect the traveling public during the holiday season.
I
think it would be very unfortunate if an airline went on strike in
the middle of Christmas. And the President is prepared to take what
action he needs to under his authority to protect the traveling
public.
Q So when will he convene the --
MR.
FLEISCHER: As a result of the recommendation the President received
last night from the National Mediation Board, he now has 30 days.
And hopefully, during that 30-day period, the parties themselves
will enter into an agreement. The President has any time during this
30-day period to call for a presidential emergency board which, if
and when the President invokes that, would stave off a strike with
its destabilizing influence on travel and on the economy. So it's a
30-day window -- in other words, it's a 30-day window.
As I
said, the President is prepared to do what it takes to protect the
traveling public.
Q What about the American hostages in the
Philippines?
Q Don't kick this one to the Pentagon, because
it's a question of policy. Why have we got no casualty figures on
our side or anybody else's side in this war so far?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Actually, I know that Secretary Rumsfeld has been giving
the casualty figures for the Americans. He was asked that yesterday
and that has been something that he has routinely provided.
Q
He has been giving them?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. It was
the Pentagon who announced the crash of a helicopter and the
servicemen who were injured in that.
Q No, I mean the overall
-- overall since the start of the hostilities.
MR. FLEISCHER:
In terms of for the Americans?
Q And the other
side.
MR. FLEISCHER: He has been providing that
information.
Q How many? Do you know?
MR. FLEISCHER:
You would have to check with DOD.
Q
What has been the reaction to Secretary Powell's speech
yesterday? And does the White House believe that terrorism would
diminish if the Israeli-Palestinian problem were solved?
MR.
FLEISCHER: On the reaction, the President is heartened to see the
reaction, both in Israel and by the Palestinian Authority to
Secretary Powell's speech. The President has long held that the best
way to achieve a peace in the Middle East is by the parties seizing
the moment and coming together, particularly in the wake of
September 11th, which is a reminder to the nations in the Middle
East about what violence and terrorism can do and how the only
answer can be through a political solution and through peaceful
negotiations.
The President has been heartened by the
reaction. As for the question of whether or not peace in the Middle
East will eliminate all terrorism, certainly peace in the Middle
East can have a stabilizing influence on the region and throughout
the Middle East.
But I think it's also fair to say that when
you take a look at people like the al Qaeda organization, Osama bin
Laden, even if a beautiful peace broke out in the Middle East
tomorrow, there would be terrorists who would seek to continue their
evil practices the day after tomorrow. So there are some who it
doesn't matter what takes place anywhere in the world, their intent
is to do evil and to inflict terror on people, even with the peace
in the Mid East.
Q
Last week, President Bush and President Putin pledged to take steps
to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of
terrorists. But critics have said that that pledge is not
accompanied by concrete steps, an outline of actions that would lead
to that result. What's your response?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well,
it is a top priority for the administration. The administration has
been working very diligently with Russia, for example on our support
of the Nunn-Lugar legislation, that would help Russia to dismantle
many of their existing nuclear weapons, therefore keeping out of the
hands of terrorists. Aid to the economies of the world, so that
people who are involved in nuclear science can have opportunities to
make a living without being subjected to the opportunities that some
terrorists have sought through bribery and through other means, to
induce them to work for terrorist organizations. They're all part of
that.
So it is a top priority for the President, for
President Putin. And of course on the question of biological and
chemical weapons, Under Secretary Bolton addressed that yesterday in
his speech in Europe, in which he named several nations that have
been seeking to acquire biological and chemical weapons, in
contravention, in some cases, to the very treaty they themselves
signed, pledging not to seek such weapons.
Q On the economic stimulus
package, does the administration believe that the centrist
coalition plan under development would be an acceptable compromise,
or just a good foundation for --
MR. FLEISCHER: Secretary
O'Neill had a very fruitful conversation the other day with a group
of Senate Democrats who are willing to think differently about taxes
and spending. And the President is very pleased by the possibility
of making progress with a groups of centrist Democrats who think
that the best way to have an economic stimulus is through tax cuts,
not spending increases. The President understands that there will be
some, out of deep, heartfelt belief, who think that the best way to
stimulate the economy is through more spending.
The
President simply disagrees with those Democrats. The President does
look forward to working with all Democrats, but principally those
who will be willing to work in a bipartisan way to pass a stimulus
that provides tax cuts, to get the economy moving again.
So
I think what you've seen is one piece of ongoing conversations that
will continue to take place between this administration, at the
President's direction, and Senators who want to pass a bipartisan
tax cut, so that the economy can get a shot in the arm. The economy
needs one.
Q My understanding that it does have spending in
it, but just less of a spending level than the Senate Democrats have
approved.
MR. FLEISCHER: And the package that the President
proposed to the Congress also had a level of spending, but it was
very reasonable. The President's package was primarily a stimulative
package to help get the economy going again, because the President
believes that it's important to spend money as he has proposed for
national emergency grants to help people get access to health care;
that he's proposed extensions of unemployment insurance so people
who lose their jobs can get unemployment checks. But the President
thinks that the American people, first and foremost, want paychecks,
not unemployment checks, and that's the focus of a stimulus
package.
You had a question about the Philippines. I will try
to advise after the meeting takes place with the President about
what topics come up, and we'll just see if that topic comes up. I
would not be surprised if it does.
Q
Ari, members of the Congressional Black Caucus are predicting
horrendous outcomes in Haiti. Two weeks ago they wrote the
President requesting a meeting with him concerning Haiti policy.
Last week and this week they've been speaking on the House floor,
complaining about the United States blocking loans that were already
approved by the Inter-American Development Bank for Haiti, that are
being blocked by the United States. At the same time, AP is
reporting the boat people have begun to attempt to come back, and at
last count there were about 115 people missing, presumed drowned,
who left Haiti October 31st.
Is the President willing or
considering meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, or as some
of them suggest, the United States is too preoccupied with Southwest
Asia to consider events that are going on in their back
yard?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has met with the Black
Caucus before, and the President is very attentive to the concerns
raised by individual members of the Black Caucus; will continue to
have conversations with different members to talk about topics of
interest. Certainly, the stability of Haiti is an important part of
America's foreign policy and will continue to be one.
Q You talked earlier about the
education conference, and this morning the President talked about
the need for compromise on the faith-based initiative. What
hope, what concrete signs does he have that Congress will be
able to focus on these other domestic priorities after
Thanksgiving, particularly when they're so keyed in to the stimulus
and 9/11 related measures?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's no
question that Congress still has a job to do domestically, and the
President is here to help. There are many issues that are still
pending in Congress. In many cases, the House of Representatives has
passed legislation and everyone is waiting for the Senate to do the
same. The President is hopeful that the Senate will do the same, and
he's prepared to work diligently with the Senate.
The
question of faith-based legislation that you raise, that's
another one where it passed with a healthy, not an overwhelming, but
a healthy bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives. And
the President is looking forward to seeing the final product that
comes out of the Senate. But in the conversations that
administration staff has had with Senator Lieberman and with Senator
Santorum it looks like there is a very good product emerging from
the Senate, which gives optimism to the possibility of getting
faith-based agreement done, that may or may not be able to get
signed into law this fall. It depends on the conference committee,
it depends on whether the Senate schedules it for a vote.
But there are other examples. The House of Representatives,
for example, has passed energy legislation, to help make the country
more energy independent. We're still waiting for the Senate to take
up that legislation. The stimulus -- the House has passed an
economic stimulus. It's important for the Senate to follow suit.
Terrorism insurance, that's another issue where it's important for
the Senate to take action to help protect Americans and consumers
and companies so they have stability and reliability in the
insurance market, in an atmosphere now where insurers are
questioning whether they will issue insurance, given the terrorist
risks and threats to our country.
So there's a series of
items, and education is one where progress has been made. There has
been several pieces of good news coming out of the Conference
Committee. And I think it's just important to keep an eye on
Congress, to see what they do. And the President will continue to
work closely with them. Even at a time of war, Congress has a job to
do on the domestic agenda.
Q
Mid-level Mexican officials are here in Washington, D.C., meeting
with their U.S. counterparts at the State Department as we speak,
apparently resuming the immigration talks. What has been
discussed today?
MR. FLEISCHER: You'd have to ask State. If
it's a meeting between Mexican officials and State, you need to ask
State.
Q Can I follow up on --
question, if I can? By my count, the President's met with the
Congressional Black Caucus once.
MR. FLEISCHER:
That's correct.
Q Is it going to be more than an annual
affair? Are we, in fact, blocking loans to Haiti? If so, why? And
are we witnessing an increase in attempts of Haitians to get to this
country, and what are we doing about it?
MR. FLEISCHER:
Well, let me try to get back on more of the substantive details on
that question, and I'll try to post that later in the day on that.
Q As far as international
terrorism is concerned, where do we stand, because a lot of
universities and businesses are losing because of the September 11th
attacks. And also, is the President still behind that bill he
sponsored, the immigration bill, 245I, I245 -- so
because a lot of international tourism, tourists and businessmen are
still in fear, like we are here, most people are.
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, there's been no change, as far as I've heard, in
anything dealing with the 245I status. The President continues to
know that America is a nation that must welcome immigrants.
Immigrants have been a proud part of America's history. They always
have been, in the President's opinion, and always will be. And it's
often from the immigrant community that many of the answers to some
of the most vexing problems that America is -- Americans have faced
has been found, thanks to people who arrived on our shores recently,
as well as people who have been here for many a generation.
It is a question also has been found, thanks to people who
arrived on our shores recently, as well as people who have been here
for many a generation.
It is a question, also, of enforcing
the nation's laws so that people who come to this country for
opportunities, students who come here who swear on a visa
application that they're coming here to go to school, they do go to
school. That's part of the balance in making America honor its
traditions of being a welcoming nation, while making certain that
people who come here don't take advantage of America's openness,
that don't come here for reasons and then lie and then go on to do
other things -- particularly if it can affect the security of our
country.
So it's a question of finding that balance. But the
President understands clearly, as somebody who was a border
government, for example, and worked so closely with Mexican
officials about how America benefits from immigrants coming to our
shores, but he wants to make sure it's done properly and
legally.
Q Robert Novak
reported in his column recently that Andrew Card had told a
public gathering that he is not going to remain in his job much
longer. And Novak reported that this was the result of Card having
said in advance that the President would sign the aviation bill,
regardless of what provision it contained about the screeners and
that there was unhappiness at the White House about Card sort of
committing the President to that.
Does Mr. Card have the
full confidence of the President and is he going to remain in his
job?
MR. FLEISCHER: Two points. One, obviously, the Chief of
Staff spoke accurately for the President when he said that; the
President just signed it. But, two, I think what -- how all this got
started is some remarks that the Chief of Staff gave up in a speech
in Boston, where perhaps the person who wrote the story heard it for
the first time, what everybody in this White House has heard going
way back even to the transition.
Chief of Staff Card gave us
all a speech at transition headquarters before we even entered the
White House, at about January, I think it was 16th or 17th, in which
he told all of us that the average tenure for a White House staffer
is about 18 months to two years. That's just the history of how the
White House works for all staffers, it seems. And he just used that
as an indication of historical tenures in the White House. I don't
think he --
Q When is he leaving? (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: He was not addressing that at anybody in particular,
including himself.
Q When is he leaving? We saw him here. Was
he drawing up his resume?
Q Or yourself? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Can't get rid of me that easy.
(Laughter.)
Q Hey, Ari, do you know anything about a report,
Maryland State Police saying that two U.S. military jets escorted a
helicopter out of restricted airspace over Camp David?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's the first I've heard that report. I'll try to see
if I have anything for you on that.
Q Ari, back on faith-based
legislation, has the White House decided to postpone part of the
President's faith-based initiative in order to help the Senate get
through the tax cut for charities, as the President was talking
about?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's faith-based
initiative had several programs in it. One piece of it was expanding
the charitable provisions that allow taxpayers to take a deduction
for giving to charity. That would impact an estimated 84 million
taxpayers. That was one component.
But one of the main
components that remains a central piece to the plan, something that
Senator Lieberman has spoken of very powerfully in support of, is a
eliminating federal discrimination against entities that do
charitable work that are faith-based.
There have been many
provisions of federal law that make it nearly impossible for many
faith-based organizations to qualify for federal grants. And the
legislation moving through the Senate will eliminate that
discrimination against faith-based groups from the government. And
that has always been a core component of it; mentoring of children
of prisoners has been a core component of it, that remains in there
as well.
But the President wants to get an agreement that can
be signed into law and he's going to work with Congress diligently,
both House and Senate, to accomplish that goal.
THE PRESS:
Thank you.
END
|