|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 20, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
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
