For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 22, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
Listen to the Briefing
- Personnel Announcements
- President's Phone Calls to Mubarak and Abdullah
- The
Middle East
- Reception
at Vice President's House
- Immigration
Extension
- President's Meeting
with the Dalai Lama
- Tibet
- White
House Vandalism Report
- President's
Yale Commencement Speech
- President's Meeting
with Republicans/Education Bill
1:52 P.M. EDT
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have a series of
personnel announcements, and then the President made a few calls to
foreign leaders this morning, so I want to fill people in.
The
President intends to nominate Wendy J. Chamberlain to be Ambassador of
the United States to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The
President intends to nominate Lavenski R. Smith to be a judge on the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The President
has officially nominated Sharon Prost to be a judge on the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And the
President intends to appoint Charles Blahous III to be Executive
Director of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security.
This
morning the President placed two phone calls to leaders in the Middle
East, to follow up on the Mitchell Report and on the President's
commitment to try to facilitate peace between the parties in the
region. He called President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of
Jordan to discuss the Mitchell Report and the situation in the Middle
East. They both the welcomed the United States endorsement
of the Mitchell Report. And they both told the President
they're ready to work with the United States to encourage the parties
to implement the report's recommendations.
Q Ari,
what was his main message to Mubarak and Abdullah?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That the President is very concerned about the
level of violence in the Middle East, and that all nations in the
region, particularly the parties that are involved, have to cease the
violence. The nations in the region need to be helpful to call for
cessation of the violence. And the best way to seize this
moment, now that the Mitchell Report is out, is for the parties
involved to end the violence, so that the cycle of violence can be
broken, and that the parties can indeed begin talking, with the United
States playing a facilitating role.
Q Do
the President and the King believe that the administration's doing
enough, or did they ask the President to do more?
MR.
FLEISCHER: They appreciated the phone call, they appreciated
the President's message.
Q Do
they think he's doing enough?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I just indicated what their reaction was.
Q When
the Clinton administration hosted supporters and donors at the Vice
President's residence, at the White House, Cabinet Secretary's office,
they called it donor maintenance, a way to say thank you to Democratic
donors. What is different about that and what the Vice
President did at his house yesterday and visitors who happen to be
donors who come to the White House?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the difference is day and
night. And I don't think there is any comparison that is
fair. The event at the Vice President's last night was to
say thank you to members of the Republican national committee, the
regents, the Team 100 people, the national committee men and women who
happen to be in town for the gala tonight. And it was a way
just to say thank you for all their efforts to have -- to elect
officials across the country who support the Republican vision and
President Bush's agenda.
What took
place that is very different from that was an organized, elaborate
scheme involving spreadsheets and donor targets and regular meetings on
a regular basis for the purpose of raising money and using the meetings
in the White House to go back out and raise further money.
Q Are
you saying there's no memos at the RNC that have lists of people who
have donated in support of the President, and who therefore -- that
would be a good idea to have them -- let them go to the Vice
President's --
MR.
FLEISCHER: In fact, it's my understanding that the people
who came into Washington to attend the gala tonight did not even know
about this event. It was added late. It's just is
a way to say thank you. So when they accepted their
invitations to come to Washington for the gala, they had no way of even
knowing that they might be invited to an event at the Vice
President's.
Q How
did the Vice President know who to invite to his
residence? Where did he get that list of names from?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Through the RNC.
Q And
the RNC, how do they get those lists? From their
spreadsheets?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, it's fairly obvious. It's just
-- it indicates -- just the groups I said. It's the purpose
of the meeting that is the distinction. The purpose of the
meeting, what makes this very different from anything that came before
in the previous administration, the purpose was simply to --
Q But
it's the same purpose that the Clinton administration used -- I'm not
being argumentative. It is the same purpose that the Clinton
administration announced to justify their action for --
MR.
FLEISCHER: But there is one major difference.
Q What
is it?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As we all learned that the reason that the
Clinton administration gave for those events was not quite what those
events were. They said they were doing maintenance events,
and they were actually ways of raising money on an ongoing, regular
basis. That's clearly not the case with this new
administration.
Q But,
Ari, if I could pick up that line of questioning, they made the very
same distinction that you're making or that others at the RNC have
made. No checks were actually handed back and forth at these
various events, at the coffees, or the sleepovers, that there was no
transactional relationship there at the premise, but if other things
happened at some other time later, well they had no control over
that. What's the distinction?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Major, I think you said it very
well. That's what they said about the events, and then
subsequently everyone learned that what they said is not what came to
be.
Q They
learned after investigations.
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think you will be in a position to watch this
administration, and you have heard what we say about the event last
night, it was a way to thank you to people who are in
town. And you'll be in a position to judge whether or not
what this administration said about those events turns out to be
accurate and true. I think you'll be satisfied that it is.
Q If
some of the people who showed up at the Vice President's residence go
on to give money in the future, then won't that be the same thing?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, the purpose is, when the people who came
to the previous White House for those coffees were very often new
people who had not previously given money, who were brought in for the
purpose of raising money. Some were people who had
previously given. It was all part of a fundraising approach,
where they used the White House for the ability to get more money out
of people. This was a way just to say thank you.
Q You
don't expect these people to give more?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think there's no doubt that people who are
regents and Team 100 -- there's no doubt that people who are the
regents in Team 100 will continue what's been, for many of them, a long
way of serving the Republican Party and the Republican
agenda. They very well may give more. But it's
not as a result of this. This is a way just to say thank
you.
By that
logic, what that means is no elected official should ever meet with a
contributor, because they might contribute again.
Q --
Clinton's --
MR.
FLEISCHER: But again, the difference is night and day, in
terms of how they used the White House to keep getting money out of
these groups.
Q They
bring them in, they give them good food, they chum up with powerful
people, and --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the -- on a basis as limited as this, to
say thank you to people who came by, and then they go to the gala
tonight, cannot be compared. It's a night and day difference
between -- well, you all knew it was a very well documented, elaborate,
ongoing effort to continue to raise money by using taxpayer property.
Q Ari,
let's separate out the issue of the White House and the Vice
President's residence for a second. In the invitation that
has Presidential Gala at the top of it, it specifically says, when you
come -- you, the donor, arrive in Washington -- you will be given
access to Cabinet officials and senior White House officials as part of
your trip to Washington, and by any normal reading of that letter, in
return for your donation to the Republican Party.
What about
access at that level? Isn't there anything that the White
House feels sensitive about telling donors you give us money, you get
to see these people, very special people, very close people to the
President, and having the ear that you might not otherwise have if you
didn't write a check?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Major, the President and the Vice President,
elected officials, both parties, meet with people all the time, some of
whom support them and support their candidates, many of whom oppose
them and oppose their candidates. Many people have access to
the government. The point is that in this administration, that access
will continue to be open and available to many, even to those who do
not support the President.
Q You
don't find it at all unseemly to tell people in a letter that
soliciting money from them -- that for the money, they will get to see
a Cabinet Secretary?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Certainly people are here for the gala tonight,
and the President will be making a speech at the gala tonight, and they
will meet the President tonight. I see absolutely nothing
wrong with people coming to Washington and listening to the President
speak, and for the President to participate in the event.
Q That's
not what I've said. I said special meetings with Cabinet
Secretaries and senior White House officials.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, I think there's a longstanding tradition
where Cabinet officials meet with supporters.
Q Wealthy
and powerful supporters, and I think that's the question that people
have. How can you say that arranging the event like this
doesn't give special access to people who gave a lot of money, thus
distorting policy and access to the administration, for the benefit of
the wealthy and powerful?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because the President has a policy to give access
to people who support him, who don't support him, who are indifferent.
People meet with the President all the time, some of whom may be
contributors, others of whom are not contributors, many of whom do not
support him, and will not support him. But he will continue
to meet with those people. He'll continue to meet, if he
deems appropriate, with supporters.
Q So
you can say to the American people with a straight face that just
because these people gave a lot of money doesn't mean they have a leg
up when it comes to getting their interests before the administration?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's absolutely correct.
Q Ari,
the way we found out about the Clinton fundraising abuses is the
Republicans put it -- was through a congressional
investigation. Would this White House be comfortable with a
call -- I believe it's from Congressman Waxman -- for a congressional
investigation of what too place last night at the NAVOBS?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, John, I think I've answered the questions
about what the purpose of the meeting was, and why the meeting took
place. And the White House is perfectly comfortable with the actions
that were taken.
Q So
would you be comfortable with an investigation of those actions?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It depends on what the Congressman specifically
wants and what the purpose of it is. If this is just
paybacks of things that took place in the past, I don't think the
American people support additional investigations that have no purpose
other than to be political.
But again,
the event last night was for the purpose of saying thank you to the
regents, to many of the people who are in town tonight for the gala.
Q And
are you quite confident that an investigation would show up no evidence
of wrongdoing, that this was, in fact, a thank you and was not an
ongoing program of raising money for the Republican Party?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's exactly what I've indicated.
Q Some
campaign finance experts I've talked to have taken your point and say,
you know, at this stage, perhaps it's not improper for a president to
have a thank you event for people who have supported him during a
recently-concluded campaign. But the point they also make is
that in the future, it would raise serious questions if this
administration continued to provide access to Cabinet secretaries, use
the Vice President's residence, use other parts of this vast apparatus
to court or deal with donors.
Can you
tell us now that this is the end of events such as we saw last night,
that it was a one-time-only thank you in reaction to the campaign and
other events will be held off-campus and other places that do not
involve government property?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think there's no question that you all will use
your own judgment in determining whether this administration is acting
in a proper and ethical fashion. And I think there is no
question that you will make comparisons to previous administrations.
Q What's
the answer?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has said that he will return honor
and dignity to the White House, and I think by every fair measure, the
American people are satisfied that is what he is doing. And
I think you will be able to watch us and see a President who has a
policy of access for people who support him, oppose him, and are
indifferent to his positions. That's the policy the President will
continue to adhere to.
You, also,
I think, have a responsibility to stand back and, given what did take
place before, to be fair and allow a new administration to come in and
establish its patterns of how it will engage in political activities
Q That's
what I'm trying to get at.
MR.
FLEISCHER: And I would urge you to do that. And
I'm satisfied that as you watch this administration over time, you will
come to the conclusion that it is acting in a manner that is fair and
appropriate, within a system that allows elected officials to raise
money for reelection purposes and to support people who support the
ideas of that administration.
Q All
I asked is, will you use government property anymore?
Q Is
it a beginning, or is it an end?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, the question -- I'm not going to speculate
about hypothetical events, but to say thank you to people is something
that can happen.
Q So
there is no standard at this moment about the future use --
MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the standard is to do things that are fair
and appropriate within a system that allows people to participate in
fundraising.
Q Let
me see if I can make clear what distinction you're making
here. You're saying that because the Clinton people had
documents in which they assigned a goal to each person who was coming
here, that they clearly intended to raise a certain amount, that that's
what made their effort wrong, and that if you do not assign a dollar
figure to someone who is coming to an event, that makes yours okay?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The difference is, what is the purpose of
bringing them to the White House or to a federal
facility. In the past, they were brought for the purpose of
raising more money from them by design. A very detailed
structure was set up so that money could be raised.
In this
case, it was to say thank you to people who have long supported those
who would elect Republicans to office. And I think the
American people understand the distinction, and I think you also
understand the distinction, and I think it's fair to say, let it
evolve, you'll watch it with your own eyes, and you will come to your
conclusions. I'm satisfied the conclusions you will reach
will show that this White House acts at all times in a manner that is
appropriate and ethical and fair within a system that allows
politicians in both parties to raise money legally.
Q No
one said --
Q Can
we just put this kind of in a broader context in terms of campaign
finance reform? What kind of message does it sent if he goes
and presides over this dinner, where most of the money being raised is
soft money donations, and at the same time is saying that he supports
campaign finance reform and that he is signalling he'll sign the bill
if it passes Congress?
MR.
FLEISCHER: That's correct. It sends the same
signal that any legislation that's pending on Congress sends, that
until a new law is written, can be signed into law, everybody needs to
abide by the current system of rules and the current laws, which is, of
course, what will be done at all times. And the President
has indicated his support. He would like to abolish all soft
money. He has a proposal on the Hill to abolish corporate
soft money, to abolish union soft money.
But just as
there is a proposal on the Hill, for example, to cut taxes, people
still have an obligation to pay taxes at the rates set in the current
code. Until a new law is passed and taxes are lowered,
people have to honor the current law. The same thing -- the
current law will be honored, and as soon as the current law can be
changed with the President's support on campaign finance reform, then
we'll have a new system in place, and the President will, of course,
abide by it.
Q But
couldn't he send a message if, by saying I'm not going to headline this
kind of huge, massive, soft money fundraising dinner, given my support
for campaign finance reform?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has chosen to show his support for
it by urging Congress to pass campaign finance reform. And
he calls on Congress to pass it once more.
Q When
you have a policy that tells potential donors, signals to potential
donors that they will be thanked in the White House or thanked in the
Vice President's office or thanked in a Cabinet secretary's office if
they donate money, aren't you using the offices, those offices to raise
money?
MR.
FLEISCHER: No. I think, again, there's a distinction that
people understand, and it's a simple distinction. It's a
previous effort --
Q What
people understand now, though, is if they donate money, they will be
thanked by the Vice President or the President, or a Cabinet
secretary. They can have access to this administration if
they donate money.
MR.
FLEISCHER: So the issue is not the thanking; is that what
you're saying? That they should not say thank you?
Q The
issue is, you are sending a signal to people, unless you tell me I'm
wrong, you're sending a signal to people that if you donate money to
this administration or to the Republicans, you could be thanked by the
President, you could be thanked in the Vice President's office, you
will be -- your service will be acknowledged with access to high
officials in this government. Isn't that the same -- isn't
that selling access?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The signal that this administration is sending is
that people from all walks of life, from all political parties, will
continue, and always will, have access to the President and to the Vice
President. There are people who have vociferously opposed
the President who have had access to the President. There
are people who will never support the President who continue to have
access to the President. There are people who will support
the President who will have access to the President.
So if
access is the issue, access is granted to one and all.
Q You
just said that the President supports banning all soft
money. Has he changed his position on individual --
MR.
FLEISCHER: As a corporate and union.
Q He
still opposes -- he still favors allowing individuals to continue to
contribute soft money?
MR.
FLEISCHER: If the President could have his ideal proposal
approved on the Hill, that would be his proposal, that's correct.
Q Two
questions. One, if the President will sign the bill
yesterday the House passed on immigration extension, and also the Dalai
Lama is going to meet with him tomorrow. Last year, what he
told me in the U.N. -- he's telling me the same thing today, that he
seeks from the United States and from this new President to tell China
-- press China that he wants justice for his people in Tibet.
Now, what
is the position of this new administration as far as Tibet is concerned
and his visit tomorrow?
MR.
FLEISCHER: On your first question about an immigration
provision, the question dealt with the action the House took last night
on the suspension calendar that passed a four-month extension for
immigrants who are in this country so they can reapply to stay in this
country without being forced to leave, because they can legally stay
here since they have relatives in the country.
The
President supports an extension to help immigrants stay in this
country. He believes a longer period should be in
order. But he's pleased that action is being taken to help
immigrants to be able to remain in this country without being split up
from their families.
On the
question of the Dalai Lama's visit, the Dalai Lama will be here
tomorrow to visit with the President. The President
considers the Dalai Lama an important spiritual and religious leader
and looks forward to the visit.
Q Is
that an Oval Office visit, Ari?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't have a location on it yet.
Q What's
the answer to the Tibet question?
Q Can
I ask you a broader question, though, Ari, on the administration's
position on Tibet? Do we think that the Chinese owe the
world an explanation for what's been happening in Tibet, that -- he's a
great believer, the President is -- a believer in religious freedom,
and does he not think that is being violated in Tibet?
MS.
COUNTRYMAN: The President will probably discuss with the
Dalai Lama our desire to see a better dialogue between Beijing and the
Dalai Lama.
Q Will
there be -- have you worked out the coverage issues on that?
MR.
FLEISCHER: We'll have more on coverage issues tomorrow.
Q On
another matter relating to the previous administration, as you know,
the General Services Administration investigated, at Congressman Barr's
request, the reports that came from unnamed sources at the White House
and which you said you were cataloging that there was widespread
vandalism and trashing of offices here by the Clinton administration
when they left.
The report
now indicates that there was apparently no such widespread vandalism
or, at least, they couldn't find any. Would you like to
comment on this further, given that in the past you've said there was
an effort to catalogue this and, apparently, no such catalogue exists?
MR.
FLEISCHER: And if you recall, the next day after I indicated
in response to a question about -- I think the question was somebody
was chasing Matt Drudge in the press corps here. And Matt
Drudge had put something up that said that a full-scale investigation
had been launched by the White House, led by Harriet Miers, the Staff
Secretary. That was the question to me.
And I was
trying to knock that down and draw everybody back and away from this
story because it was not something the White House was
pursuing. And I indicated that there was no investigation
going on, because there wasn't. I said, if anything,
somebody is cataloguing this. And the next day I further explained
that meant that somebody was just keeping mental track of what was
taking place. There were no written records about it
all. But they were keeping on eye on and noting what did
take place as this administration came into office.
The General
Services --
Q But
what did take place? The GSA says nothing took place.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me finish. The General Services
Administration contacted the White House recently and asked if there
were any written records of what took place. And just as I
indicated, because there were no written records, the White House
informed the General Services Administration that we had no written
records to provide them. And I think that's what their report
indicated, the White House did not provide them any written records
because there were none. Which is what I indicated at the
time.
Q Why
didn't the person who had it in the back of their head write it down
and give it --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because it was the White House's goal then, and
it remains the White House's goal, not to live in the
past. And those things that took place as this
administration entered office were not things that this White House was
ever focused on. And the administration's focus, as you can
tell by the policies that are moving on the Hill, are policy-oriented
and not related to anything that took place like that.
Q But
the GSA is right, the West Wing was not trashed by the outgoing
Clintonites?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President answered that question and he
indicated that there may have been a couple acts of some mischief that
took place. But, again, this administration is looking
forward, not backward at it.
Q Well,
wait a minute, Ari, the President said this story wasn't true.
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President said that about Air Force
One. And then the President indicated there may have been a
couple pranks, some incidents that took place, but that this
administration was not focused on those.
Q Are
you implying that the reason the GSA came up with no evidence of
vandalism is because you all didn't provide it to them?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, what I indicated -- I haven't read the
entire GSA report, but the GSA did note that this administration did
not have any written documents to provide.
Q Right,
but you aren't suggesting that the GSA didn't --
MR.
FLEISCHER: -- which is what I said probably two months ago
about the topic.
Q But
you aren't suggesting that the GSA didn't do other forms of
investigation to try to flush this out?
MR.
FLEISCHER: To tell you the truth, I didn't read the whole
GSA report, frankly. Again, this administration is focusing
on the forward, on the future and not on the past.
Q Ari,
if we could focus just on the near-term past, and go back to one more
question about last night. You said it was a thank you
event. At no time did anybody say, thank you for your
support and we hope that we can count on it again in the future?
MR.
FLEISCHER: It was an event to thank everybody who was
there. And like I say, I think there is -- people are loyal
Republicans, they believe in the cause and I don't think anybody would
ever rule out that people who believe in the cause will continue to
believe in the cause.
But it's
the purpose of these events that I think is the important public
question. Is somebody using these events as an organized way
of -- a way that will be repeated on a regular basis, to bring money in
to a party or political cause? And that's where I think you
just keep your eye on this administration and you will see the
administration will continue to act in a manner that is absolutely
appropriate and fair.
Q But
aren't you doing exactly that, when you take a list from the RNC, whose
job is to raise money from these people, and you bring them to the Vice
President's residence and say, thank you? Aren't you
maintaining the relationship so they'll donate money to you in the
future?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think given the fact that these
people didn't even know when they accepted the invitation to come to
Washington to go to the gala that there may be an event at the Vice
President's house, it shows that this was an event simply to say "thank
you" to people who happened to be in town.
Q But
how is it different to thank people who have contributed, who you
believe will contribute in the future, from what went on before that
the Republicans crowed so loudly about?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Because many of those people had not previously
contributed; some had, but not all. And the purpose of those
previous events was to bring in new donors, first-time donors, to up
people's donations, to get more money from them. And that's
clearly not the case and what took place here last night.
Q Last
night wasn't at all to encourage the people who had either given money
or raised money to continue doing their good work?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Last night's event was to say "thank you."
Q Ari,
does the President believe that his treatment by his fellow Yaley,
Garry Trudeau, and his being booed by Yale graduates, boycotted by Yale
faculty members and even amongst the fraternity brothers in
DKE. Does he believe this was just good clean campus fun, or
does he agree that the motto for God, for country and for Yale, is the
greatest anti-climax ever written? (Laughter.)
MR.
FLEISCHER: I have not discussed the President's cartoon
reading habits with him.
Q He
does read it, doesn't he?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I can suggest to you that I'm a Calvin and Hobbes
man, and so I have not been reading that.
Q The
O'Reilly Factor's Bill O'Reilly writes that in a sane America, the
Justice Department would prosecute the leadership of the North American
Man Boy Love Association, a criminal organization that advocates in
writing what is against the law and is being defended by the
ACLU. And my question is, will the President ask the
Attorney General to investigate these child molesters or not?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not familiar with that issue.
Q You're
not?
Q A
follow-up, please, on the Middle East. Prime Minister Sharon
has called for a cease fire. Do you have any
reaction? And what is the situation with talks with talks
with Arafat?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President welcomes the statement by Prime
Minister Sharon. It is vital in order to bring the parties
together and to secure peace in the Middle East that the parties in the
region unequivocally speak out and call for a cessation of the
violence. And the President was encouraged by those
remarks.
Q Arafat? Any
contact with him?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President would welcome a similar statement.
Q And
on the phone calls this morning, or today, what precisely does the
President want Egypt and Jordan to do, Mubarak and Abdullah, to
do? Does he want them to contact Arafat? What
exactly is he asking him --
MR.
FLEISCHER: Terry, I'm not going to go beyond what I've
indicated before about what was a private conversation between the
leaders. But the President does think it would be constructive for
leaders in the region to do as he has done, and to call for the parties
to exercise restraint, to end the violence. And he believes
that the Mitchell committee report is an appropriate way to make this a
new moment in the Middle East. And so this process can
begin, and that's why Ambassador Burns will be heading to the Middle
East shortly.
Q On
the meeting this afternoon with Republicans on education, what is the
purpose of that meeting, and what is the group?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President will be meeting with a group of
Republicans from the House of Representatives this afternoon to talk
about the education bill that is pending before the
House. They are a group of members, who I think have not
decided yet how they will vote. And the President wants to
listen to their concerns, but also convince them that his approach to
education, which is based on accountability, which is based on testing
every year in grades 3 through 8, based on consolidation of several
programs so states and localities have more control, is the best route
to take. The President is pleased by the support he has
gotten. It looks like a bipartisan package can be in the
making, and he wants to talk to Republicans about that as well.
Q --
or not, in the House, said that the President has suffered some pretty
devastating setbacks. Does the White House view it that
way?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, if I recall the voting committee, it was
41-7. That's a pretty healthy sign of education reform
that's -- members of Congress from both parties agree
to. And the President has stressed repeatedly that when it
comes to education, this is an issue that people should focus on what
works. This is not an issue that falls into a simple
left-right ideological spectrum. And the President is going
to continue to fight for the education reforms, based on accountability
and strict standards that he believes in. And he'll make
that case to Democrats and he'll make that case to Republicans.
Q Are
some of the people in this meeting some of the Republicans who have
misgivings about accountability?
MR.
FLEISCHER: As I indicated, they are going to be a group of
people who have not yet decided how they'll vote on the
bill. And I'm not in a position to chronicle each of their
thoughts. We'll learn more a little this afternoon.
Q Will
the President seek changes in the bills that are in Congress now based
on what he hears today, or is it basically -- just he's basically just
trying to convince them to support what on the --
MR.
FLEISCHER: I can't preview that, of course. The
purpose of the meeting is to listen to their concerns. But
the President feels very strongly about education, as you know.
Q It's
been reported that some of the top donors tonight are energy industry
lobbyists -- a lot of them actually. I'm wondering how that
affects the President's efforts to convince people that he's got a
balanced energy plan and not a giveaway to the administration?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think the plan speaks for
itself. The plan that focuses, I think it was 35
recommendations, on conservation and non-renewables, that speaks for
itself. What's that Mr. Roberts?
Q Forty-two.
MR.
FLEISCHER: Forty-two. Mr. Roberts says it's 42
recommendations. No, the plan speaks for itself, in terms of
what it emphasizes in a comprehensive way, on how to secure America's
energy independence and conservation, the development of renewables,
such as wind, solar, biomass are a key part of that. And
that's the focus of the President's policy efforts.
Q What
about the perception, given the fact that a lot of energy -- former
energy executives helped write the policy?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Obviously, I don't deal in perceptions, I deal in
reality, and the reality of the policies that the President has
proposed. I think we're going to have to wrap in just a minute.
Q One
more thing on education, if I may. There were people who
were talking today about an amendment to try to get private school
vouchers back into this bill, some saying the President should not sign
it if it does not have that. For the Republicans who believe
the President should not sign a bill without private school vouchers,
what does he say?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President believes strongly that the
private -- that the proposal involving school choice should be a part
of the bill that is sent to him. That was part of his
initial proposal he sent to Congress. And the House of
Representatives will have an opportunity to vote on that. A
vote did take place in committee, and there were insufficient votes to
support the President's position. The President hopes that
will be turned around on the floor.
Q Is
he encouraging Republicans to oppose the bill if it does not have
private school choice?
MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the President will take a look at the
bill in its entirety and its context, and see what the bill says in
totality.
Q The
tax bill's moving slowly again today. You said early this
morning that some Democrats were foot-dragging and
stalling. Would you include the minority leader, Tom Daschle
and his allies in that --
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is very concerned about tax relief,
because the tax relief bill that is pending before the Senate seems to
be getting slowed down, bogged down and delayed. And the
President thinks that's not helpful or constructive for the economy or
for the taxpayers. And the President calls on the Congress to take
action, the Senate today, take action now, so that tax relief can be
enacted into law.
Q Who
does he blame for it being bogged down and slowed down?
MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, the President thinks that everybody in
Congress has a responsibility to take part. Clearly, there
are some Democrats, a bipartisan majority, who agree with the
President, are working hard with the President to secure tax
relief. There may be some other Democrats, unfortunately,
who are dragging their feet, and they're engaged in stalling
tactics. And that's not helpful or constructive for the
taxpayers or the economy.
Thank you
everybody.
Q Does
the President believe that there is a role for him as an intermediary
with the two parties, or does he prefer to leave it at the Department
of State level?
MR.
FLEISCHER: The President believes there's a role for the
United States to play and for him to play as a facilitator, to help the
parties to come together.
Thank you.
END
2:23 P.M. EDT
|