White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 04/25/07 VIDEO

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, White House Conference Center Briefing Room, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:10 P.M. EDT. MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. I have no opening statements, I'll just go straight to questions. Terry.

Q The House Judiciary Committee took another step today in its investigation of the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys. They voted to grant immunity to Monica Goodling, the former aide to Attorney General Gonzales. Does the White House think that's a good strategy?

MS. PERINO: That's up to the committee; it's not something we're going to comment on.

Q But you don't object to them trying to force her testimony through an immunity --

MS. PERINO: I'm going to let the committee make those decisions for themselves; I'm not going to comment on it from here.

Is that it? (Laughter.) I shut that train down. (Laughter.)

Helen.

Q Is the President still going to veto anything from the Hill that sets a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, despite the belief of the public that we should pull out?

MS. PERINO: I think that -- let me try to unpack that. The President has said that if the Democrats decide to insist on sending him a bill that includes a deadline for withdrawal, that he will veto the bill. And I understand that there are many people who are in this country that are frustrated with the war. I do think that you have to be a little bit careful in blanketing everybody that they want to pull out quickly from Iraq and with an arbitrary deadline or a rash decision, and leave that vacuum that we believe is going to be left there, if we leave that quickly.

Q Well, if the majority of people really wanted to pull out, would the President pull out? And what kind of a statistic do you have that they don't want to?

MS. PERINO: As the President has said many times before, he does not make decisions based on polls. He understands as Commander --

Q Did he make decisions based on what the American people want?

MS. PERINO: He makes decisions based as the elected President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief and his main priority is the protection of the American people, and that's what he --

Q How do you protect the soldiers who are over there dying every day?

MS. PERINO: That is the President's gravest concern, and he talks to the commanders on the ground to make sure that they are protected and that they are doing their jobs. He understands that he has asked them to do a very, very difficult mission. It's very dangerous in Baghdad. We do have a new Baghdad security plan that's underway, being led by General David Petraeus, who is up on the Hill today providing an update to the Congress on the status of that Baghdad security plan.

Q But a hundred people are dying in Iraq every day.

MS. PERINO: It's a very tragic situation. I don't know if that number is accurate, but obviously it's not only our troops that are dying, but very many -- too great of numbers of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq, as well.

Go ahead, Kelly.

Q Can the President say both that he does not question the patriotism of Democrats, but their actions aid the enemy?

MS. PERINO: I think that I want to take a little bit more time to talk about this based on our discussion this morning, because the President's policies are held up to intense scrutiny by the media, and by Democrats, and by everyone around the world, and we welcome that. And I think that when the President and his team and other Republicans try to hold the Democrat's policies up to that same standard of scrutiny, that immediately, the Democrats play the patriotism card.

And I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's anyone in this White House who has actually done that, nor have we have engaged in name calling. Yesterday, Senator Reid called the Vice President a dog, after saying he would not engage in name calling. And I think that let's all take a step back, and if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to have a debate, then we should have a debate, and we should be able to debate on the substance and on the merits of what we're talking about.

Q Speaking of name calling, Congressman Emanuel had a pretty lengthy speech today in which he said that not since the days of Watergate has partisan politics infiltrated every level of our federal government. I know you've seen the prepared remarks, what's the response?

MS. PERINO: Look, I think that there's an interesting messenger today giving a speech at the Brookings Institute. It's one that you would consider reading in the National Enquirer rather than at a prestigious American think tank like the Brookings Institute. And I think what we have going on here is that the 100-hour congressional agenda is faltering, and in that vacuum, that they've decided to fall back on what is a tried and true tactic of theirs, which is creating grand conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact.

Q On another topic --

Q Are you accusing Brookings of that?

MS. PERINO: No, no, someone is giving a speech there today.

Q On another topic --

MS. PERINO: I just called it a prestigious think tank. Go ahead, you had a follow up.

Q Sara Taylor, is she protected under the same protections given to Karl Rove and Harriet Miers -- would you -- as far as letting her testify with Congress?

MS. PERINO: She would be, but I do think that what we should remember is that we offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Judiciary Committee the opportunity to interview White House officials, in addition to getting documents -- email documents that had come into or out of the White House, and that we would consider adding additional names to that if they wanted to take us up on that offer.

Martha.

Q The President said on Charlie Rose last night that he hoped when a new President took over that there would be fewer troops in Iraq. Why is that not a draw-down timetable? Why is that not telling the enemy something?

MS. PERINO: I think that he said "fewer" and it doesn't mean everybody is leaving, it's not telling them a date on which we are going to start withdrawing. I think that in the bills that are up on Capitol Hill right now, there's one that says you have to start withdrawing on July 1st, and another that says October 1st; it's one of those two dates. And I think what the President is saying is that what David Petraeus has said, it's going to take until the fall to see if this Baghdad security plan is working before we can evaluate. But the President has said before that he hopes that there are fewer troops there at the time, but he has said that we're going to be in Iraq for a while, and it's going to last beyond his presidency.

Q So it's okay to say we're drawing down or he hopes to draw down by a specific date, but it's not okay to say we hope to get out?

MS. PERINO: Well, the Baghdad security plan hasn't even had a chance to be fully implemented yet. And what they want to do is allow General Petraeus to go there, but their mission --

Q I'm not talking about that. I'm saying what the President said last night is he hoped that there would be fewer troops -- I'm sure he's not talking about five or ten, I'm sure he's talking about a substantial number -- by the time a new President takes over. That sounds like it's cluing the enemy into something. I don't get the distinction.

MS. PERINO: No, I think -- well, I do; I understand that you don't. But I do think that it's apples and oranges, and let me try to explain it again. I think what the President is saying is that we have a Baghdad security plan; it is a surge. A surge by its name is a temporary mission. General David Petraeus is there on Capitol Hill today to talk about the status of that and how it's going, and that he would know by the fall whether or not we are going to be able to have success with the mission.

I think the intention is that we need to secure Baghdad. In the meantime, what we need to have happen is the Prime Minister Maliki and the rest of his government to finish many of the pieces that they need to do. They've made progress on several of them, but the key ones -- like the oil law and de-Baathification, and then regional elections -- are ones that they have to do, as well.

The whole point of the surge is to calm the city down so that you can get that political reconciliation, which everyone agrees will help calm the rest of the country down so that they can sustain, defend and govern itself. And I think the President does hope that by the time he leaves office that Iraq is either at that point or nearing that point when they can be a self-sustaining democracy.

Q So it would be okay for the Democrats to start talking about a timetable after the surge in the fall?

MS. PERINO: No, I think -- let's just take what the Democrats have said right now, which is, they don't even want to give this surge a chance to succeed. They want to pull out. Harry Reid has said that the war is lost. And they're not even allowing it to have a chance, and they're wanting us to pull out prematurely. And it's going to put our troops in danger if we were to follow that path, and it would put the innocent men, women and children of Iraq in more peril. And that's why the President says he'll veto the bill.

Q Can you explain why the funding for the troops wasn't put in the regular budget, why you have to have an emergency supplemental?

MS. PERINO: Yes, we have done that over the years. That's the way that we have decided to do it, which is so that you don't put all of that money for a war into the baseline budget of the Department of Defense because we believe that it would be harder to extract it out afterwards, after the war was over.

Q But, I mean, why not plan for the worst? As the President always says, you plan for the worst. Why wouldn't you put that money in there to make sure that the troops had their money, instead of having what's happened now?

MS. PERINO: Well, as you know, Congress last year didn't even pass a budget. And this year I don't know how much more progress they're making -- I mean, we hope they make some more progress, but I think that in order to ensure the troops have what they need, we had to do it this way, follow the path that we have the past couple of years.

Q Rudy Giuliani said in New Hampshire last night that a Democratic President would put the U.S. at greater risk for suffering another 9/11-type attack. Does the administration agree or disagree with him?

MS. PERINO: I know it's going to be very tempting over the next two years to get us to comment about presidential politics from the podium, and I'm just not going to do it. I'll let Giuliani answer that question for himself.

Q So the administration's view, essentially, is that a timetable, any timetable -- specifically in this case the ones that the Democrats are trying to force -- are surrender dates, that the enemy will recognize as an opportunity to kind of galvanize around. Down the road, if a Republican President -- not this President -- if another President talks about a time to draw down troops, why should that not be viewed as a surrender date, as well? Understanding --

MS. PERINO: I think you're talking about a wildly hypothetical situation. And what I'm talking about -- I'm here to represent this President, and he believes that telling the enemy on the day which you are going to leave, that they can sit and wait us out, is the wrong thing to do. And that's why he said he would veto the bill. I'm not going to predict what any future President, Republican or Democrat, will do. I just know what this President will do, and he will protect the American people and fulfill the mission to the troops.

Q Can I also ask you just to kind of give us some sense of the administration's thinking of the process, as far as this bill goes -- how quickly might the President veto it? What are you envisioning, or what are you thinking about, perhaps, in terms of --

MS. PERINO: Well, since we don't have it yet, it's a little bit hard to tell. I don't think it's an exact science up on Capitol Hill that they know the exact time and hour in which they'll be able to send it to us. I think they have tried in good faith to try to give us a general idea, and we do believe it would be either later this week, or more likely, we've been told early next week.

So we'll take it from there. And the President, I think it is safe to say he would veto the bill soon after receiving it.

Q Obviously, the President wants to push back with Democrats. He's talked about them making this political statement, and the President obviously has his own message to send. I mean, is he --

MS. PERINO: What the President has said is that if they insist on sending him this bill that he will reluctantly veto it. But one of the reasons he will veto it is because he wants to get that done quickly so that we can then move on to the next step, which is how do we get the money to the troops. That's why the President is in a hurry.

Go ahead, John.

Q On the Hill, House Republicans are beginning today to basically push back against Chairman Waxman's investigations and oversight. And he, I believe, is going to have them vote on authorizing subpoenas for Secretary of State Rice. Has the White House said, or are you prepared to say what Waxman is doing is over-reaching?

MS. PERINO: Well, I do think that there is a difference between oversight and over-reaching. And we understand that the Congress has a role to play, which is oversight over the executive branch. I believe that this administration has been responsive to Congress, as we've worked with the new majorities, as well, that we've been responsive. But there does come a point where it does start to look like over-reaching.

Q Any people who have been reached yet or --

MS. PERINO: No, I think that I'll let the American people judge for themselves.

Q One other thing. Pelosi -- Speaker Pelosi, it has been reported -- it hasn't happened yet, but it's been reported that she might not attend the briefing by General Petraeus today. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. PERINO: No. I don't know what her schedule is. I'm sure if she's not attending, she has good reason.

Q Can we go back once more to the timeline issue. I understand the issue of a timeline for setting a date for withdrawal. But doesn't the President also tell the enemy exactly what to do by saying, we'll know by the end of August, beginning of September whether the surge has worked? Isn't that the same -- here's the plan, here's how you can derail it.

MS. PERINO: I can see your point, although I think that what is important is to keep in mind that what the President is saying is that we need to give Baghdad a chance to calm down. And General Petraeus -- obviously, these are closed briefings up there, and if he has a chance to talk to the press, I think that he will and hopefully we can ask him these questions.

But the President said last night on Charlie Rose that if our definition of success is no more car bombings, that's not realistic. We know that the enemy realizes that when they can set off a spectacular bomb in a market and kill people, that that grabs people's attention and it's one of the things that they look to in order to foment chaos and to spread their ideology.

Q Who is the enemy you speak of? Are these Iraqis?

MS. PERINO: We have different folks that we're considering the enemy. Obviously, al Qaeda is in Iraq, and they say that this is the battle. And then there are insurgents --

Q Are there Iraqis that you speak of, when you speak of the enemy?

MS. PERINO: I think they are definitely -- obviously, there are Iraqis who are engaging in criminal activity and in sectarian violence.

Q Criminal? To defend their own country?

MS. PERINO: I think when anyone is killing innocent men, women and children that they --

Q Against an invader and occupier?

MS. PERINO: Helen, we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolution.

Mark, did I finish your question?

Q I guess I'm still not sure I see how putting a timeline on a surge -- admittedly, a timeline for something other than withdrawal, but a timeline -- how that still does not communicate something useful to the enemy.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that what we're seeing is the modest signs of hope, little seeds of hope, amongst the destruction and the challenges that we have in Iraq that the Baghdad security plan is starting to have some effect and some success.

And what the President has said is that the American people don't have unlimited patience; he understands that. So just like the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton group said we could support a surge to calm the situation down in Baghdad -- that's what the President is trying to do.

Roger.

Q On the Sara Taylor authorized subpoena by the Senate Judiciary Committee today, if one is issued for her, would it be the intent of the administration to resist that subpoena?

MS. PERINO: I think I'm not going to go down the hypothetical road. But what I would submit to the House and Senate Judiciary committees is that if they wanted to take us up

on our offer to have the four officials provide an interview up there without a transcript, and then if they would provide -- we would provide them with documents going to and from the White House, which was an extraordinary offer on our part, that we would consider adding additional officials to those interview requests.

Q That offer, though, has been on the table for several weeks now. Is there anything happening on that?

MS. PERINO: No, the ball is in the Democrats' court.

Q Can you explain the objection to a transcript?

MS. PERINO: I think what we have tried to explain is that there is a long tradition in history of not having presidential close advisors testify in front of Congress. But we do want to be responsive to the Congress, and in order to do that, we thought that an interview and a hearing -- an interview is not a hearing, and that's what we offered.

Q Dana, two quick questions. Today, President will talk about malaria and other disease. My question is that, there are people dying around the globe, as far as many diseases, including malaria, HIV/AIDS and all of that. And does the President support the cause by President Clinton, and also Mr. Bill Gates, that they're also taking --

MS. PERINO: Yes, I would say the President and Mrs. Bush, having declared today for the first time ever Malaria Awareness Day, are very interested in anyone who can add to the collective help that we're trying to give to the third world that is suffering from malaria. So I think that the President and Mrs. Bush -- you will hear from them, the President will be introduced by Mrs. Bush in the Rose Garden. I'm sorry, it will be in the East Room, because it was 50 percent change of rain.

Q Second question. As far as Iran is concerned, Iranian President, or Iran has not changed their minds, as far as nuclear program is concerned. But Dr. Condoleezza Rice is planning to meet if they come to the table, as far as -- my question is, is U.S. policy has changed, as far as Iranian nuclear program is concerned, or there will be any compromise if they meet?

MS. PERINO: No, and I would refer -- I know you were at Sean McCormack's briefing yesterday when he addressed this, and I think I'd refer you to his comments. What he said is that Secretary Rice will be joining the Iraq neighbors' conference in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, next week, the one that Harry Reid apparently hasn't heard about because he keeps saying that we need to have a conference. But I would just let him know once again that it is happening next week.

And what Sean McCormack said is that he's not going to rule out any inadvertent contact. This meeting, though, is to talk about Iraq. Our stand with our -- the Permanent 5-plus-1 is strong against the Iranian nuclear program. We do believe that if they want to have a path to get to civilian nuclear power, that it's available to them. They just have to suspend their enrichment.

Q But nothing --

MS. PERINO: Let me move on. Kelly.

Q A couple of points. Has the White House been notified in any way from the agency known as the Office of Special Counsel about its inquiries into the work of Karl Rove or the political operation here?

MS. PERINO: No. No, we have not. As I said yesterday, we have had cooperation with them in the past, and we've responded appropriately. But we have not heard from them on this issue.

Q Dana, in the wake of Senator Reid's comments yesterday that you referenced today, and Congressman Emanuel's comments today, is it fair to say that any hope for spirit of bipartisanship is pretty much out the window?

MS. PERINO: I hope not. I know that we are all working towards -- one, we're working towards getting money to the troops. Secondly, we have a process underway in which we hope to get an immigration bill done. Yesterday, the President was in New York talking about the No Child Left Behind bill. We are moving forward on the energy bill. So we are focused on the priorities of the American people, while at the same time having to work in parallel with the Congress on their oversight request.

Q You have the head of the Democratic Caucus today saying that your administration is "a pattern of political appointees putting partisan interests ahead of the country." Earlier, you said this is part of the nightmare of waking up of a right-wing conspiracy again. What did you mean by that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I just think that what we have is a return to the partisan politics because I think that they are frustrated that their 100-hour congressional agenda has stalled. And they have very little else to talk about. There was nothing in that speech, as I saw it as prepared, that was positive about the -- a positive agenda about for the American people, nothing that talked about what people care about -- how do we make sure that our children are educated and able to compete in a very competitive and growing competitive world? How do we make sure that we are reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy? How do we make sure that we solve our immigration problem so that we can be a nation that is welcoming, as well as a nation of laws?

These are all issues that the President is focused on, as well -- not to mention protecting the American citizens from terrorists who are a very real threat. That speech, as I read it, was one that just strung -- tried to string together a series of unrelated issues and tried to cloak it in a grand conspiracy that was just reminiscent of the vast right-wing conspiracy of the 1990s, and I think the American people have moved past that.

Q Dana, yesterday --

Q Dana, Dana --

MS. PERINO: Let me go over here. I'll get back to you guys.

Q The Petraeus briefing on the Hill is behind closed doors, but if he goes there and has a lot of positive things to say, do you expect him to talk about it? Do you expect the Republicans to talk about it and let it be known -- let the message get out to the public about that things are getting better?

MS. PERINO: I think I found that members of Congress aren't shy about talking to the media after a meeting. (Laughter.)

Keith.

Q Do you -- this specific response to the decision of the Office of Special Counsel to enlarge this investigation of Hatch Act violations, is there a legitimate --

MS. PERINO: As I said, Keith, we haven't heard from them.

Q But what do you think about it? I mean --

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on it until the Counsel's Office is contacted by the Office of Special Counsel. I'm just not going to do it.

Q Also just one more on the comment about over-reaching, you kind of seemed to suggest that Waxman is over-reaching, but then you kind of -- you put it out there, but you didn't really embrace it fully. I mean, do you --

MS. PERINO: I said I think the American people are going to have to make a decision. If they think that their Congress and their President should be working on issues that are important to them, then I think that they would be sadly disappointed in the first four months of this new Congress.

Q But since you put it out there, do you think that he is over-reaching at this time with all these difference of opinions --

MS. PERINO: I think that there is a difference between oversight and over-reaching, and the American people will make a decision.

Go ahead.

Q Dana, yesterday we heard testimony from the family of Pat Tillman about the circumstances of his death and the numerous falsehoods that were told to the family by Pentagon officials. Pat Tillman's memorial service was on May 3, 2004. When did the President learn about the unusual circumstances of his death and the possibility that he was killed by friendly fire?

MS. PERINO: From all indications, it was well after the funeral. And I did check, and the President did ask for updates yesterday on the hearing and received them from senior staff members.

Q And any reaction to the testimony by his family at yesterday's hearing, from the President?

MS. PERINO: I haven't spoken to the President, but in talking to -- in checking that out to ask if he had been updated on it, he was interested. He was the one who asked about the hearing. He wanted to know more about it. And I think that he feels deeply sorry for the family and all that they have gone through, and he's pleased that the Department of Defense has taken it upon themselves to investigate it, and he hopes that people are held to account.

Q Has he spoken to the family since the IG report has come out, or since the family has complained about the numerous falsehoods that were told to them?

MS. PERINO: No, he has not spoken to the family. And I think that we have to remember that as this matter is ongoing, that it would be inappropriate for the Commander-in-Chief to do so, to get involved, in terms of while there's an investigation in questioning. But he does believe that General Pace and others at the Defense Department are honorable people who will make sure that it is -- that the wrong is righted.

Les.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. How will the United States ever develop, adopt and enforce any sort of immigration policy when individual leaders such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom have vowed to oppose federal enforcement of such laws and, in fact, are preparing to run a sanctuary city that would facilitate illegal activities, as just reported for the San Francisco Chronicle and one wire service?

MS. PERINO: Wow, two sources. (Laughter.) President Bush believes that the laws of this country, including immigration laws, need to be followed.

Q Second. The National Border Patrol Council, the union of our 11,000 non-supervisory U.S. Border Patrol agents, has just passed a resolution, which, among other concerns, deplores what they say is, "shamelessly promoting amnesty and a greatly expanded guest worker program, despite intense opposition to these concepts from the front-line Border Patrol agents who risk their lives enforcing our nation's immigration laws."

MS. PERINO: Your question is what?

Q Yes, the question is right here. What is the White House reaction to this resolution?

MS. PERINO: Okay. I haven't seen the resolution. What I would say is that I would hope that the council would take a look at the President's plan. We are working with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to try to work through a plan that would help alleviate the pressure at the border. And I understand that they have very real concerns, since they work on the border every day. And the President believes that the plan that we have in place is one that would help alleviate the problems at the border, as well as allow our country to be one that is continuing to be a welcoming one.

Go ahead.

Q Just to follow up on Mark's point, that you have a surge which is announced, and yet the supposed insurgents or enemy have moved up 35 miles north and killed our servicemen earlier this week. How is not that -- how isn't it the same as essentially announcing a date pullout? I mean --

MS. PERINO: Well, first of all, we haven't announced a date pullout. There's a huge difference.

Q No, but the Democrats have said that they would like to have a date pullout.

MS. PERINO: No, no, no, they've put in a date to pull out.

Q I understand.

MS. PERINO: It's not they just don't want to -- they don't like it -- they don't just like it, they have done it.

Q What I'm saying is the surge is -- announcing the surge is the same thing, because they just moved north and did a suicide bombing and killed our service members.

MS. PERINO: Well, look, the President has said that we are going to be facing very real dangers about the possibility of more servicemen from -- men and women from the United States facing possible death or injury because of our new Baghdad security plan, and he understood that. We also have new operations in al Anbar province. It is this plan that has small signs of hope that General Petraeus is going to be talking about today.

We have not at all set a date certain. What we have said is that we won't know until the fall whether or not -- General Petraeus, who will make the determination as the commander on the ground, whether or not we are having success there.

Q Can I just go back to Tillman? You said that the President only knew about it well after Pat Tillman's funeral.

MS. PERINO: Sometime after that.

Q Can you tell us how he knew, and whether the speechwriter knew? I mean, there's this email that apparently went to General Abizaid, that he didn't get for a long time.

MS. PERINO: We have no indication that the President knew that there were questions surrounding the circumstances of Colonel Tillman's death until sometime afterwards. And it's not clear -- people don't remember if he heard it from media reports or if he heard it from the Pentagon, but it was sometime after the funeral.

Q Did the speechwriter know?

MS. PERINO: It's unclear. It didn't seem that he did. I did not speak to him; he no longer works at the White House. But it is not unusual --

Q But he never got word through this email --

MS. PERINO: It seemed that it never left CENTCOM and got to here. There's no record of that -- of General McCrystal's memo coming to the White House. But let me tell you it is not unusual that any time the President is going to be giving a speech mentioning somebody that has connections to the Department of Defense or another department, that we wouldn't reach out and make sure that we had any I's dotted and T's crossed. And, obviously, in this regard we would maybe have treated the situation differently had the President known.

Q But it's unclear when he found out and how he found out?

MS. PERINO: Correct.

Q As the most high-profile casualty at that time, wouldn't it have been the responsibility of someone to directly tell the President, and not leave it up to him overhearing reports?

MS. PERINO: I think that's part of the inquiry that Department of Defense is looking into.

Q Is he convinced now that it's friendly fire?

MS. PERINO: I think that that's been established.

Q It has?

MS. PERINO: I believe so.

Q Dana --

MS. PERINO: No, no, no, Goyal. Let's go to Paula, and then we'll get these two in the back, and be done.

Q The meeting this afternoon on immigration reform, is this primarily a listening session with the Hispanic Caucus, or are you going to be discussing new ideas beyond the general principles that the President --

MS. PERINO: I think listening, discussion, and talking about general principles or other principles. I think that the President wants to talk to them about a variety of issues regarding immigration. They're not going to be drafting bill language together, but I think that they'll have their input given to the President and to the members of his staff so that we can include that into our thinking as we're working on Capitol Hill on a bill.

Q Would that include more focus on a temporary worker program?

MS. PERINO: The President is very focused on a temporary worker program, so that will definitely be a part of the discussion, sure.

Yes.

Q Thanks, Dana. Al Jazeera is reporting in an interview with a Taliban commander that Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden are alive, and that Osama bin Laden directed the attack against Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan.

MS. PERINO: It's an interesting claim, but we don't -- I haven't seen any intelligence that would support that.

Q What about the idea that these individuals are unaccounted for, that they could be out there, and could have directed an attack against the Vice President?

MS. PERINO: Well, I guess that that is possible. It's just I'm not an intelligence experts, and I'd have to refer you over to the DNI's office if you want to check that out. I think that would be a good place to ask.

Q Dana, the word "impeachment" has cropped up in D.C. and elsewhere in the country. How seriously does the administration take those words?

MS. PERINO: How seriously do we take Representative Kucinich's --

Q That and the decision by the assembly in Vermont?

MS. PERINO: The assembly of the what?

Q In Vermont. The resolution by -- in the state of Vermont.

MS. PERINO: Oh, I didn't even know there was a resolution in the state of Vermont. Is that a monthly occurrence? (Laughter.) I don't know. The President and the Vice President have served honorably, and I don't think there's any merit to those impeachment claims.

END 12:39 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, April 25, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and VIDEO, or House Judiciary Committee and Monica Goodling, or Harry Reid, and Congressman Emanuel, or Senate Judiciary Committee and General David Petraeus or Malaria Awareness Day

Harlem Village Academy Charter School VIDEO

President Bush Encourages the Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Harlem Village Academy Charter School, New York, New York 2:00 P.M. EDT. Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind: Keeping America Competitive in the 21st Century and In Focus: Education

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the warm welcome. I appreciate you making a Texan feel right at home here in Harlem. (Laughter.) I have had a remarkable experience here at Harlem Village Academy Charter School.

You know, it's interesting, one of the children said, why here, why did you come here, Mr. President? Of all the schools in the country, why this school? And my answer is because the President has an opportunity to herald excellence, and I have seized that opportunity.

I have come to a school where some may say these children can't possibly exceed high standards -- but, in fact, they are. Secondly, I wanted to be nice to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. (Applause.)

I think any time I can thank a teacher, I need to do so. So for the teachers here, thank you for teaching, for the principals -- (applause.) Interestingly enough, this week is called National Charter School Week -- I mean, next week is called National Charter School Week, so a good way to herald National Charter School Week is come to a charter school, particularly one that's working. I'm a big believer in charter schools. I think charter schools make a lot of sense, whether it be here in Harlem or anywhere else in the United States.

And so a way to express support for a charter school is to come to one that's working and say to people, if you find excellence, you might want to take a look at why; what is it about this school that enables a parent to say I really enjoy sending my child here. Or what is it about this school where a child looks at the President and says, I don't mind being tested, because I know that they're going to help correct problems early, before it's too late. This school is working, and I appreciate you letting me come to talk about not only this school, but also about an important piece of legislation called the No Child Left Behind Act.

Before I do so, I thank Deborah for being what I call an educational entrepreneur. That means that -- (applause.) So I said to Deborah -- you know, I've never met Deborah before, and I said, how did you get involved in this school? She had a personal tragedy, and rather than allowing the personal tragedy to drag her down, she said, I want to make a contribution.

And I can't think of a better contribution than to help start a charter school -- as a matter of fact, not only one, but two. I also thought it was interesting, she said, if you're going to be somebody who helps start charter schools and works to make charter schools excellent, that you better be on the front lines of education. So she became the principal of this school.

If you're interested in helping your community -- whether you be an individual, such as a Deborah, or a corporation, for example -- promote school excellence, do something for the community in which you live. A lot of times if you wait for government, things won't happen. She's proven my case. She says, I want to be involved and I want to start some schools. Corporate America needs to take the same interest in local schools if they expect there to be a -- (applause) -- if we expect our country to realize its promise.

Mateo Myers introduces Dr. Kenny and introduces me. Mateo Myers. So I said to a lot of the kids here at this school, how many of you want to go to college? They all rose -- raised their hand. That's a good sign. In other words, this school believes in high expectations and putting in a child's mind the possibilities of achieving a dream.

I appreciate very much Joel Klein. You talk about a guy who has taken on a tough job, and in my judgment, my humble judgment, is doing it with excellence, is Joel Klein. (Applause.) As a result of that endorsement, he may never find work again in New York, but nevertheless -- (laughter.)

See, I love it when somebody heralds that which is working and takes on that which is not working. I like a man who says, the status quo is unacceptable when it's unacceptable, and is willing to do hard work all aimed at making sure every child gets a good education. And we appreciate the standard you've set, and appreciate the example you have shown, Joel.

I want thank Ed Lewis, Chairman of Village Academies. Ed Lewis is a successful businessman who, instead of taking his successes and disappearing, has taken his successes and used that which enabled him to be successful to plow back into a community. And that's an example a lot of other people need to see. (Applause.)

People say to me all the time, what can I do, Mr. President? How can I contribute? Well, if you want to contribute, work on school excellence. I can't think of a better way to contribute to the future of the United States than to promote alternatives if the school systems in your community aren't -- isn't working. In other words, just don't set the status quo if children are not meeting standards. Challenge that status quo, and do something about it.

I appreciate very much Nick Timpone, who is the principal

here at Harlem Village. (Applause.) That's a good sign. Like, I'd be worried about the silence, you know. (Laughter.) It turns out that good schools such as this have good principals, people who work hard, people who -- you know, motivate the teaching staff, people who listen to parents. And I appreciate you very much being at the center of this important school.

Traveling with me today is the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings. I appreciate you coming, Madam Secretary. (Applause.) Her job is to work with local school districts so that the federal, state, and local relationship is a collaborative relationship that actually works and doesn't get in each other's way. And her job is to implement No Child Left Behind. And I couldn't have picked anybody better to do so.

I want to thank, again, Charlie Rangel. He is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. (Applause.) You can imagine what it's like traveling in the presidential limousine down Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard hearing Rangel say, I was raised over here, and here's the hotel I worked in when I was a boy. You know, the people in Harlem have got a fantastic Congressman in Charles Rangel. He cares deeply -- (applause.) He can agree with me a few more times, but -- (laughter) -- I don't expect him to. But I do expect him to do what he does, which is work for the good of the country. And I'm really proud to be with you. Thanks for coming, Charlie. (Applause.)

Peter King, Congressman Peter King and Vito Fossella is with us today. Both of these congressmen care about education. (Applause.) I appreciate the members of the New York Charter School community who have taken time to come. I want to thank the Harlem community leaders who have joined us today. Thanks for -- thanks for letting me be here. I particularly want to thank the students for letting me come by to say, hello. I've really enjoyed my trip here, and you've impressed me.

I do want to say something about Virginia Tech, the Virginia Tech community. It's a community that still hurts, and the people in Blacksburg, Virginia, must know that citizens, whether they be in Harlem or anywhere else in the country, still hold those folks in their prayers.

Schools should be places of safety. They should be a sanctuary of learning. And when that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt all across the country. It's felt in every classroom. And I know -- I know you've worried about such violence here, as a result of the Virginia Tech. And I want to thank the principals and teachers for reacting and helping calm nerves and assure people that this is a place of safety and a sanctuary for learning.

I have asked people in my administration to travel around the country, to listen to folks at the state and local level to determine what lessons can be learned from the Virginia Tech horror. Margaret Spellings is going to be a part of this team, as is the Justice Department, Health and Human Services. We, of course, will provide whatever assistance we can to Virginia Tech; but we also want to be a part of a review of broader questions that have been raised.

And so they're going to travel the country. They're going to talk with mental health experts and educators and state and local officials, and come back and summarize what they have learned, and we'll share the summaries of what they've learned, all in the hopes of learning lessons from a horrible moment. It was -- it's a tough time down there.

I want to talk about schools, and I want to talk about educational excellence for every single child. And I want to emphasize that in my remarks, my hopes of the public school systems in every state and every community excel. That's our goal. The public school systems have provided great opportunities for a lot of Americans. One of the great assets of the United States of America is a public school system that works. (Applause.)

I also believe that parental involvement is an important aspect of having a public school system that works, and I like the fact that charter schools encourage parental involvement. (Applause.) I like to be able to sit with parents and say, I have chose school for my child -- chosen the school for my child -- I could use a little extra help. (Laughter.)

Isn't that an interesting concept? I made the choice to send my child here. That has got a nice ring to it, as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate the fact that the teachers involve the parents in the child's education. There's a lot of information flows that take place between the parent and the child, and the child and the teacher. I appreciate the fact that teachers give parents their cell phone numbers. I think that's an important way to make sure parents are involved in the education of their children.

I appreciate the fact that folks here set high standards. I know this isn't all that profound, but when you set low standards you get bad results. I used to call it the soft bigotry of low expectations. You kind of say, well, certain people can't learn, therefore let's make sure the standards are low. This school challenges that soft bigotry and insists upon high standards. And guess what? That's what parents want. Parents want their children challenged. Parents believe that high standards are good for their children.

I appreciate the fact that people go to school here from 7:30 a.m. until 5:45 p.m. (Applause.) That's innovation. That means somebody here is saying, I'm going to adjust the time the children go to school so that we can achieve high standards. I like the idea of schools having flexibility to meet the needs of their parents and their children. Maybe some schools around the country couldn't have that kind of innovation because the rules and the process say, well, you can't adjust that way. What I like are schools that focus on results, and then adjust the process to meet the results.

I appreciate the fact that parents choose this school because it's safe. That's what parents want -- they want safety for their children. I met with Vanessa Freeman; her daughter, Krystal, goes to this school. She was struggling at her old school. The teacher said she was acting up in class in the old school. In other words, the parent, Vanessa, recognized there was a problem and -- my mother probably got a few of those calls, too -- (laughter) -- but, anyway, Vanessa transferred Krystal here to the Harlem Village Academy. She's learning algebra. She said her math teacher -- her math teacher says her progress has given her goose bumps.

In other words, something has changed here at this school. In other words, there is progress being made because the parent had an option to choose something different when the other school wasn't working. It's a powerful catalyst for reform, by the way, to give people those options. That's why I'm a strong supporter of the charter school movement, I appreciate providing different options.

I want you to know that it is a national objective, an important national goal to make sure every child realizes his or her full potential. And that is the whole philosophy behind the No Child Left Behind Act. You know, when we put our mind to it, actually Republicans and Democrats can work together -- we did so to get this important piece of legislation passed.

The philosophy behind the bill is this: When the federal government spends money, we should expect results. And by the way, when the state spends money, it ought to expect results, too. Instead of just spending money and hoping for the best, the core philosophy of the No Child Left Behind says, we'll spend money and we expect you to measure and we expect you to post your scores and we expect you to meet standards. Because if you don't, you're failing in your obligation to educate every child.

Now, if you believe certain children can't learn, then you shouldn't measure. In other words, if you think that, well, it's just a hopeless exercise, let's just move kids through the school system, then that makes sense not to measure -- why would you -- why waste the time. I believe every child can learn, and therefore I believe every school should measure in return for federal money. And then put the scores up early.

I'll tell you why: I want the parents to be involved with education. And one way you're involved with education is you're able to compare the test scores of your school to your neighborhood school. It's an interesting way to determine whether or not high standards are being met. In some cases a parent will say, this is the greatest school possible, and, yet, when the test scores get posted the reality comes home.

Secondly, I don't see how you can solve problems unless you measure problems. How do you know whether a child needs extra help in reading unless you measure? In other words, the accountability system is step one of a diagnostic process that ends up making sure that each child gets the help that's needed to meet standards, high standards. And so the No Child Left Behind Act, a simple way of describing it says if you set high standards, we'll give you money, but we expect you to meet those standards. And if not, there ought to be different options for the parents.

I appreciate the results of this school. In other words, it's interesting, isn't it, that the President can come and say you've got good results here -- because you measure. Teachers use the assessment to see what concepts students are mastering, and which concepts ought to be continued and which concepts ought to be dropped. The data from this school that you -- as a result of measurement helps teachers tailor their lesson plans to the specific needs of the child. Isn't that interesting? The education system tailoring the needs to fit the -- tailor the curriculum to fit the needs of the child? That may sound simple, but it's an unusual concept for a lot of schools.

The school has a rapid response accountability system. In other words, you don't measure once and just kind of hope for the best for the remainder of the year -- you track student progress closely from week to week. When student struggle, they receive one-on-one tutoring during the school day. If a child struggles, there is extra help on a Saturday, hence, No Child Left Behind. As opposed to the old system, where you just shuffled children through and hope for the best at the end, this school measures on a regular basis to make sure that we're dealing not with guesswork, but with results.

I appreciate the fact that this school opened in the fall of 2003. I want you to hear this statistic: During the first year, less than 20 percent of the 5th graders could meet state standards in math, only 20 percent -- (applause) -- wait a minute, that's nothing to applaud for. (Laughter.) That's, like, pitiful. Last year, 96 percent of the students -- (applause) -- from the same class were meeting state standards. One of the students was Kevin Smith. His mother says that when Kevin came to the Harlem Village Academy in 2003, he struggled. And now, she says, "He can do it with his eyes closed." That's a math student right there. (Laughter.) Deborah Kenny says, "Our school proves that children can achieve grade level even when they start behind." And that's the spirit.

We can see that No Child Left Behind is working nationwide. There's an achievement gap in America that better be closed if we want America to remain the leader of the world. It is unacceptable to me and it should be unacceptable to people across the country we have an achievement gap in America. (Applause.)

It's amazing what happens, though, when you measure. The percentage of New York City 4th graders meeting state standards in reading has increased by more than 12 percent over five years. The percentage of 4th graders doing math at grade level has increased by 19 points. Congratulations, Joel, for holding people to account. (Applause.) I know, people say, I don't like to test, you're testing too much. I don't see how you can solve problems unless you diagnose the problems. I don't see how you can meet high standards unless you test.

I appreciate the fact that nationwide, nine-year-olds have made more progress in five years than in the previous 28 years combined on these tests in reading. How about that? In other words, we're beginning to make progress early. The pipeline is beginning to be full of little readers that are competent readers. And the fundamental question is, what do we do in junior high and high school? Do we keep the progress going, or do we fall off when it comes to holding people to account?

I believe strongly that we ought to bring the same standards to high school that we've had in elementary -- one through eight, or three through eight. That's what I believe. I believe if you want to make sure a high school diploma means something, you better have high accountability in high schools. We want the high school diploma to say, this person is ready to compete in a world in which the graduates are going to be competing with Chinese or Indian workers. In other words, it matters what happens now in our schools, more so than ever before.

And so part of the initiative to make sure that we continue to set high standards is to bring these standards to high school. I believe strongly that we ought to -- the federal government has a role in expanding advanced placement courses all across the United States of America. I'm a big believer in AP. I think AP holds people to account, and challenges people to realize their full potential.

We've got an effort right now to encourage 30,000 math and science professionals to become part-time teachers. Why would you encourage math and science professionals? Because if you've got the capability of competing globally in math and science, you're going to be getting a good job, is why. It's a practical application of U.S. resources to encourage 30,000 math and science professionals to enter classrooms to encourage people to be interested in math and science.

You know, I met a math teacher here. The man went to Harvard -- now, we're not going to hold that against him, but nevertheless -- (laughter) -- he's out there somewhere. (Laughter.) He's teaching math. He'd been doing a lot of things, and he's teaching math right here at this important charter school, because he understands the importance of teaching a child math, in terms of that child being able to find good work and be a productive citizen in this challenging 21st century.

Here are some ways we can improve the No Child Left Behind Act. My funding request has money for underperforming schools, when you recognize there's failure and these schools need help. I'm a strong believer in making sure that money follows children. And so when we find a child failing in meeting high standards, there ought to be extra tutorial money for that child. In other words, the measurement system not only helps determine who's falling behind, but it helps determine whether or not that child ought to get extra money now, early, before it's too late. That's been an integral part of No Child Left Behind. It's going to be a significant part of No Child Left Behind as we go forward.

I believe strongly that we've got to make sure that we -- if a school just won't change and continues to fail, that principals ought to be given additional staffing freedom. In other words, there ought to be flexibility -- more flexibility as opposed to less flexibility when a school fails.

I think we ought to empower mayors and other elected officials to take a more active hand in improving their schools. If you find failure, it's important to do something differently. And one way to do so is to encourage more power in the hands of our mayors to break through bureaucratic logjams that are preventing people from achieving educational excellence.

And we ought to make it easier for officials to reorganize failing schools into charter schools. We just cannot allow the status quo to exist when we find failure.

Another way we can help is to encourage our nation's best teachers to take jobs in some of the toughest neighborhoods. And so we proposed increasing the investment in the Teacher Incentive Fund to nearly $200 million next year. In other words, there's a way for the federal government to encourage teachers to take on jobs that are important jobs, and making sure that every child gets a good education with a good teacher. The fund rewards teachers who defy low expectations. It provides incentives for people to come into districts all around the United States to challenge the softy bigotry that I was talking about.

Third, parents of students in underperforming schools must have better choices. You find your child stuck in a school that won't teach and won't change, you ought to have a different option. I can't think of a better way to get somebody's attention that we're tired of mediocrity than to give a parent an option. I think there's a better -- no better way to send a signal that folks are tired of mediocrity when it comes to our classrooms than say to a parent, you should have a different opportunity for your child, whether it be a charter school -- (applause) -- or a better performing public school.

In Washington, D.C., we did an interesting -- made an interesting initiative, and that is, is that we provided scholarship money for poor students to go to any school they wanted. I like that idea. I think it makes a lot of sense. You know, we have Pell grants for poor students to go to college. I think we ought to have federal taxpayer's money to go to poor parents so they can choose a different type of school if they're dissatisfied with the school their child is going to. And so I would strongly urge Congress to reauthorize and refund the D.C. School Choice Program, and take a good look at our program that intends to expand that program.

I do want to congratulate Governor Spitzer and Mayor Bloomberg for working with the Chancellor here to increase the number of charter schools here in New York. I appreciate the fact that they're taking a bold initiative. As I understand, they want to double the number of charter schools available for the students here in New York, and that's a good thing. You know, Margaret is going to help you, to the extent that she can. (Applause.)

So now we're in the process of rewriting this bill -- reauthorizing it. Here's my attitude about this: one, Congress shouldn't weaken the bill. It's working. The No Child Left Behind Act is working. These test scores are on the rise. Accountability makes a significant difference in educational excellence.

And so therefore, when Republicans and Democrats take a look at this bill, I strongly urge them to not weaken the bill, not to backslide, not to say, accountability isn't that important. It is important. We'll work with the school districts on flexibility when it comes to the accountability system. And I mean that there are certain ways that we can make this -- the accountability system actually work better than it's worked in the past.

But we will not allow this good piece of legislation to be weakened. And if you're a parent, you should insist that the No Child Left Behind Act remain a strong accountability tool so that every child in this country gets a good education. I'll reach out to both Republicans and Democrats again. Last time I signed the bill, I was on the stage with one of Charlie's good friends and colleagues, Congressman George Miller from California, Ted Kennedy, and two Republican colleagues of theirs. And it was -- we worked well together.

And so my pledge is that I will continue to reach out and work with the new leadership of the Congress, all aimed at making sure this piece of legislation goes forward, and making sure it's funded, so that we can say, once again, we've got law in place that will enable us to give every child as good an education as possible so that not one child, not one, is left behind in our country.

It's such an honor to be here. I love coming to a place where people defy expectations. (Applause.) I love coming to a place where you said, we're going to try to do something in a different way, that the status quo is not acceptable, so here we go. I love being with educational entrepreneurs, good principals, strong teachers, caring parents, and students who are going to be leading this nation in the 21st century.

God bless. (Applause)

END 2:29 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, April 24, 2007

Technorati Tags: President George W. Bush and No Child Left Behind or Harlem Village Academy Charter School and White House, or National Charter School Week and Margaret Spellings or Secretary of Education, or Charlie Rangel and Ways and Means Committee,, or Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard,