THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
PRESS BRIEFING BY JOE LOCKHART The Briefing Room
1:10 P.M. EST
MR. LOCKHART: We'll do a couple of announcements before we get started. One is, the President in his departure statement at about 2:15 p.m. will be discussing the importance of reducing class size. He will reference a new Department of Education study on reducing class size on the local level. Mr. Bruce Reed and Secretary of Education Riley will be here in the briefing room as soon as I'm done to discuss that study with you.
Secondly, the President, as part of our efforts to reach an agreement on WTO, has asked Charlene Barshefsky to travel to China, which she will be doing today, for two days of talks to see if we can reach an agreement with the Chinese on a viable basis for accession into WTO. Charlene will take a team with her. She will also -- traveling with her as part of the team will be Gene Sperling, the President's National Economic Council Advisor.
Q Do you expect China will be -- are you going to make a bid for her to get in?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, we've argued for some time that we believe it's in the U.S. interest for China to enter into the WTO. As you know now, the U.S. market remains open to the world, including the Chinese, but we don't have the kind of access that we need and deserve -- or American companies do -- to Chinese markets. So we're going to continue working. We want a commercially-viable agreement. We're going to wait until we get a good agreement, but I think the President felt it was worthwhile to have Charlene travel to China to see if we can make progress.
Q Where are we with the deal? Are we where we were in April? Are we further, are we not as far?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, again, as you know, in Auckland the two Presidents agreed to restart these talks and also agreed that there was no reason to try to negotiate in public. So on the substance of the agreement, we'll leave it where it is, where we've left it for the last couple weeks. But the President believed, as did the team here, that it would be worthwhile to travel there and have the parties meet face-to-face, and engage in a couple days of discussions.
Q Where does it stand right now? After all, the President really came close to the brink and retreated the last time.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, listen, I'm not going to get into the substance of the talks. And I'm also --
Q I'm not asking you to get into the substance, I'm asking you where does it stand.
MR. LOCKHART: Listen, I'm also not going to buy into the conventional wisdom that's been bought into by many in this town about where we might have been in April, and what might have happened, and where the President is or isn't. We've always said we want a good deal. We are not going to go forward until we have a good deal. So you should assume that where we were earlier in the year wasn't good enough.
Q Where are you now?
Q -- on the China-WTO. The President called Jiang about two weeks ago or so, and was waiting for a call back, or some correspondence back. Can you give us any details to what happened?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, as you know, as a close follower of these briefings and the sometimes tortuous answers that I'm forced to give, there have been discussions but I'm not going to get into at what level and with whom.
Q Was there another phone call this weekend?
MR. LOCKHART: If I'm not going to answer that one, I'm not going to answer that one.
Q Are they bringing a specific proposal to the Chinese?
MR. LOCKHART: Not that I'm aware of. My understanding is they're going to meet face to face, which I think they haven't done in some time, and see if they can make some progress.
Q Can you say what has changed, what is precipitating this trip now at this point?
MR. LOCKHART: I don't know that there's anything specific precipitating this substantively. We have talked about trying to get something done in advance of WTO -- WTO is fast approaching. But I think the purpose of this is to see if we can make progress.
Q Do you think that there's been any change at all to the U.S. position that April is a bottom line deal? Is that still the minimum, what we had in April, will that still be the minimum for U.S. negotiators?
MR. LOCKHART: Again, I'm not going to get into the negotiations and what the bottom line is, only to say that we believe it's in our interest to have China ascend into the WTO on commercially viable terms. And that's what we're working for.
Q But you've gotten into that before. You've said before that April is the bottom line.
MR. LOCKHART: I certainly haven't.
Q Do you think China will be admitted to the WTO in the Seattle conference?
MR. LOCKHART: I don't think there is any way to predict one way or the other on that.
Q -- was in India for religious harmony, but here in this country Southern Baptists issued reports against Hinduism, asking that they want to convert Hindus in this country and in India.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I haven't seen that specific report, but I think you all heard --
Q -- the Washington Post and --
MR. LOCKHART: But I think you've all heard the President speak very passionately about the need for religious freedom and expression. I think the Pope has made important statements on that subject over the weekend and in India, and it's something that we should practice here at home, too.
Q Joe, have you gotten any indication from Congress that if you were to get a deal with the Chinese, that they would be willing to take it up anytime soon?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, we believe that this -- if we can do this in a way that promotes the interests of American business, American working families, that those voices will be heard in Congress. We have no specific commitment. We have, in fact --
Q -- heard some of the leaders say that they don't want to take it up this year.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, we have negative statements from the majority leader in the House, and the majority leader in the Senate, that say no matter what the deal is, they don't want to work for it. But we think that if we can conclude a deal, and members of Congress hear from their constituents -- whether they be working families or, as with many of the Republicans, the business community is quite an important voice -- that they will take another look at this.
Q Do they have to approve this for China to get in?
MR. LOCKHART: Yes, there are some legislative -- there are some Jackson-Vanik waivers involved. I think the President has said that he'd move to a permanent NTR for China if we concluded a deal.
Q Is it true that the President was advised not to take the deal last time because Congress would not pass it? That Rubin and others said that it was unlikely that Congress would approve it?
MR. LOCKHART: Listen, I'm not going to get into the confidential advice that's given to the President. But I will repeat that we didn't feel that we had the kind of deal we wanted to move forward with.
Q Is there any way to get it done by the end of the month?
MR. LOCKHART: There's no way to predict that. I think both sides are serious about this. I don't want to preclude that it couldn't get done, but I also don't want to raise expectations that it will get done.
Q Who will Barshefsky and Sperling meet with?
MR. LOCKHART: That I'd refer you -- okay. We'll check with USTR on that. I just don't have that.
Q Joe, when the President talked about this the other day, he said that in April the climate was such that a lot of people were very anti-China. The very people who are calling for the deal now were bashing China back then, he said. Is it the White House's assessment that people have moved away from that to a more pro-China stance?
MR. LOCKHART: I think the climate is more positive right now, as far as congressional rhetoric on China. I think the President made the proper point, that many of the people, now, who are calling for a deal are the ones who were most vociferous in their condemnation of the Chinese government earlier in the year.
I think the other element of this is, there are a lot of people who will be positively impacted in this country by a deal. And I think those people have made their voices heard. Now, whether that's enough to swing congressional, the congressional majority, a majority of votes for this, I think it's impossible to know at this point.
Q Joe, Rush Limbaugh sometime ago mentioned on his radio that several countries are lining up for presidential speeches, including, at that time, Indonesia and China and Malaysia. Is the President preparing for making any speeches or appearing --
MR. LOCKHART: Well, the noted foreign policy advisor, Rush Limbaugh, has a memo into the President on suggested travel. We have a memo into him on suggested travel, and hopefully we can meet some sort of agreement. We have a very ambitious schedule outside the country for Rush, and if he's interested we'd be happy to see if private methods of funding that.
Q Is he going on the same trip Lester is going on? (Laughter.)
MR. LOCKHART: God, I hope so.
Q Joe, on education, why should a school district that is not in need of more teachers be dictated to by the federal government that it has to use that money for teachers, as opposed to, let's say that it needs some new gym equipment or it needs computers.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, let me tell you, we believe that the most pressing need that we can address right now is getting more teachers in the classroom, especially in the early grades. We have enough evidence of it now, you'll have some more evidence of it by the briefers who come out after me.
I think the way the Republicans have structured the funding for this, not only could you not see more teachers, you could see less students. Under the provision that they want to move forward, this money could be used for vouchers, private vouchers, that could drain resources away from public schools, putting them to private schools. And that's absolutely the wrong direction.
And if you need evidence, if you want to go out and look at other areas, just look at the tobacco settlement that was made with the states. This was money negotiated to go toward public health and reducing teen smoking. And all of you who drive in from Northern Virginia in the next couple years are going to have tobacco companies to thank for the third lane -- they're using it for a highway project.
And if you go around the country, you'll find that this isn't being used for public health or reducing teen smoking. It's being used to fill whatever budget hall exists. We believe this is discreet money that should go to addressing a major problem, a major challenge to our public schools in this country. That's why Republicans voted for it in 1998; Democrats voted for it -- it passed and they ought to continue that commitment.
Q Well, what do you say to a school board that says, we don't really need new teachers, but we could use this money and put it toward something else?
MR. LOCKHART: Should the few school boards around the country who have enough teachers, who don't believe there is a shortage and don't need to put more, they can certainly use this money for teachers, thus freeing up some other resources that they can use.
But I think if you go around the country -- there was just a story yesterday in the state of Maryland about the severe shortage they have with teachers. It's important that we use this money -- just like we did -- targeted money, with the COPS program, to address a particular need.
Q Joe, is the President critical of the way Virginia's chosen to use that money from tobacco?
MR. LOCKHART: No, I think the President is -- he's certainly critical of the state's -- I mean, basically with the tobacco money, we agreed if states used the funds for public health, that we wouldn't seek to recoup the 57 percent share that should come back to the federal government. Now, obviously, we've had a debate on that. But I think the President believes that states should use the money for public health, to reduce teen smoking. That's one of the foundations we had in trying to negotiate a national settlement.
But that's not what many states around the country have done. There are certainly some who have. But there's examples of others -- I mean, that was the one that sprung to mind, because there was some attention to that a couple weeks here, locally. I don't mean to single Virginia out. There are certainly other states that have chosen to use it for other funds. But I think it makes the case for why, with a challenge as large as reducing class size, that this is the right approach to take.
Q But isn't all the money fungible? I mean, they're not using it for one priority, that leaves them more money available to use for the priorities that you might want them to.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I mean this is additional money that will go into schools to get teachers in the classroom. It's the same approach we took when we decided to put additional money to local communities to hire more police. And I think the record speaks for itself there. We have the lowest crime rate in 30 years. It's reduced over the last seven years, in no small part to initiatives like community policing.
Q You made your answer to John's last question sound like, the education money you want would be semi-fungible, too. In other words, are you saying, if the school district doesn't use that money to hire more teachers, but simply to pay existing teachers, it can use that money that came from the federal government and move it over to something else?
MR. LOCKHART: No. I mean, as I understand it -- Secretary Riley will be in here. You can get him on some more of the details. But my understanding is, this is to hire, to bring in -- it's money that's targeted for bringing in additional teachers to reduce class size.
Q Joe, so what about your statement that it was somewhat fungible, as John said? What about your previous statement?
MR. LOCKHART: You interpreted my statement. I didn't say that it was somewhat fungible.
Q But you said it could simply be used to pay teachers and then they could use other money to pay for other things.
MR. LOCKHART: No, this is --
MR. TOIV: If class size down to a particular point, then they can use it for other purposes.
Q So what's the target limit -- 18 students per class, and whatever money is left over --
MR. LOCKHART: Yes. Obviously, this is in the -- what is it, 1st through 3rd grade? It's somewhere in the lower grades. We can find out the details.
Q If they get class size down to 18 students per class in kindergarten through 3rd grade, or whatever, whatever money is left over after they do that they can build an HOV lane in the parking lot if they want?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, obviously, there is money available for them to do all those things. This is particular money that goes to them for reducing class size.
Q Joe, can you talk about tonight's on-line town meeting and what the President hopes to accomplish?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think this is an innovative new program that is being done in connection between the DLC, which the President has done a number of events with each year since he's been in office, and the EXCITE Company. The President hopes to speak to both elected officials around the country in the his virtual town hall or virtual auditorium, and then get a chance to take questions from around the country from people who have logged in.
So I think it's in the tradition of town halls that is so much the part of our system, this is basically town halls using the latest technology. So I think it will be a chance to exchange ideas both with some locally elected officials and with Americans from around the country.
Q Joe, on the education stuff again, you and Podesta have taken a very hard line on that in the last couple of days. Do you see any room for a compromise on this issue, or is this something where you're going to have to get what you want and then maybe trade for something else on another subject?
MR. LOCKHART: I mean, I think the President has made clear, and he will make clear again later today, what an important priority this is for him, how we need to continue our commitment to reducing class sizes by getting more teachers in, and how damaging a broadly-worded proposal that might eventually mean doing things like funding vouchers, which is diametrically opposed to what we're trying to do here.
We're trying to get more teachers into the classroom, not siphon off students and resources from the public schools. And I think this is, as the Chief of Staff said yesterday, a bottom-line position. And it should come as no surprise to members where we are. This is something we've talked about all year, we talked about all last year. We were here at this same position somewhat earlier last year than we are now, so I think that it's -- we're surprised they're surprised.
Q Joe, can you give the White House thinking of when it's proper, when do you folks think it's proper to weigh in and give an opinion on the antitrust --
MR. LOCKHART: Well, there is an entire regulatory process that the government manages that is used as far as mergers and antitrust issues, and that's the proper place.
Q Well, what about with remedies? Is it proper for the White House to give its opinion on what the proper remedy is?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think when there is something that's pending litigation, it is best for the talking to be done by the administration in the courtroom, rather than any place else.
Q But you will at some point, if you continue to win, if the government continues to win, have to give it a sense of what you think a proper remedy is? Would that be something the White House --
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think that's down the road. There are many steps left in this process, so I don't anticipate trying to telegraph what our position may or may not be.
Q Joe, on the President's comments in USA Today on serving in Vietnam and serving your country makes you a better President, isn't that somewhat hypocritical, given that he didn't want to serve back in Vietnam and why the change of heart?
MR. LOCKHART: It's not a change in heart and I think it's quite honest. Read the whole quote.
Q Excuse me. And was he also taking a jab at Bush and Bradley? I mean, in this -- two other candidates?
MR. LOCKHART: No. No, he was asked a question and he answered it, which is that it shouldn't be disqualifying, but the experience you gain by serving is certainly a plus.
Q Do you know the name of the Prime Minister of India?
MR. LOCKHART: Vajpayee. And if anyone else wants to ask me questions, I've got a whole book here, so I can spend all afternoon with you.
Q -- the CIA?
MR. LOCKHART: Hold on a second. (Laughter.)
Q And are you sharing that with the candidates?
MR. LOCKHART: They know my number. (Laughter.)
Q Joe, were there any budget talks this morning and what's the schedule for this afternoon?
MR. LOCKHART: Not that I'm aware of. I think they're going to have some discussions this afternoon, so I have no update from this morning as far as talks.
Q -- going to go down, do you know?
MR. LOCKHART: Yes, I think he'll be up there this afternoon.
Q Is it your understanding that so far the talks yesterday were only about Interior?
MR. LOCKHART: The only substantive talks were about Interior.
Q Well, the reason I ask is that you made a big point that you wanted all of these bills to be discussed comprehensively in one big omnibus group, and it seems like, the way the negotiations have been going, you have been taking this one bill at a time, you haven't been trading money between bills.
MR. LOCKHART: No, we wanted them to put down all of their ideas. And once they got through their process of the bills we had a much better sense of what the overall picture was. Now the conversations have moved back between bills, we just happen to be on Interior now.
Q But have you traded any -- has there been any suggestion, in terms of offsets and paying for things, to actually trade money between things, or are the total amounts staying the same for each appropriations bill, as the Congress has --
MR. LOCKHART: I'm not sure I know the answer to that. I know that the discussions have -- we certainly have a sense of what the overall picture is, of the issues and the money. And now we're working through, in some cases, bill by bill, in some cases, provision by provision. They just yesterday happened to spend a good bit of time on Interior, which I expect them to continue on today.
Q But as far as you know, the total amount appropriated for each bill has not changed, in other words?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, no, that's part of the process we're going through now. We believe on the education bill that there needs to be some additional money. We believe that on Commerce-State-Justice, we need to fund U.N. arrears, and we're going to have discussion about how you do that and how you pay for it. That's what the process is.
Q You're talking about additional money in education -- or I thought the President keeps on saying this is not about the amount, it's about how it gets done?
MR. LOCKHART: The education bill, particularly on teachers, that's a question of whether it's subject to authorization or not and how the language is. In Commerce-State-Justice, there is money needed, additional money needed to pay U.N. arrears. That's something that is part of the discussions.
Q Joe, PRI, the party that's been governing Mexico for over 70 years yesterday held its first ever presidential primary. What is the --
MR. LOCKHART: Well, you know, we support that effort. We believe that the holding of the primary deepens Mexico's commitment to democracy. And that's something that they should be applauded for.
Q Is the White House and Labor Department close to announcing proposed regulations on expanding family leave so that you could use unemployment insurance?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, we've talked in the past -- on the specific question, I don't know where we are on the regs. But we certainly have talked in the past about working with states and trying to set up pilot projects where we use unemployment insurance for leave for newborns. And that's a process that continues.
Q Is there any pressure here to get the budget done by mid-week, before the President leaves? Is that a sort of an artificial deadline here? Can you just --
MR. LOCKHART: It's an artificial deadline just in the sense that by the end of the week we'll be gone for a little bit more than a week. It is not a date certain that the President is going to give up on his commitments, particularly on things like teachers and cops. You know, we will be here. We know that members would like to get home. We think it would be a positive thing for members to get home and spend time with their constituents. But we will be here. We have some bottom-line concerns that have to be met.
Q If there's no deal, he leaves anyhow? He goes on the trip?
MR. LOCKHART: If there's not a deal done on all of the issues this week, we'll continue talking next week.
Q Any comment on the possibility of Japan joining the U.S.-North Korea missile talks?
MR. LOCKHART: Why don't we come back to that. Let me see if I have anything.
Q Just mechanically, Joe, what's the mechanics if he leaves Friday, and there's a CR expiring while he's away?
MR. LOCKHART: You know, I think we have a CR expiring Thursday, right -- Wednesday. So if we don't get something done by Wednesday, we will go further. I think that while it may present some logistical challenge to people, it will not present any substantive challenges. They will have a way of getting all of this done.
Q Realistically, is it possible to conclude a deal while he's out of the country, do you think?
MR. LOCKHART: Nothing is impossible. We find a way when we're overseas to continue to stay engaged on domestic issues. My sense, reading the quotes in the paper today, is that the Republican leadership wants to get it wrapped up, wants to get home, to get their members off on the travel that they have scheduled for the end of the month. We'd like to accommodate that, but we've got some bottom-line concerns that need to be met.
Q Is there any feeling here of optimism that this can get done this week?
MR. LOCKHART: I think it's, at best, a mixed assessment. We've gotten some positive things done and we've gotten them done quickly, once the commitment was there and the sense that we were negotiating with one party was there. We got very quick work done on foreign ops. We made some progress yesterday on Interior. I think there's a sense that this can be done, but I don't think there's anyone here predicting that it will be done.
Q By the party, you mean the leadership stepped in?
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
Q -- in the New Yorker about a Richard Jewel file the President kept about unfavorable or unfair press coverage accurate?
MR. LOCKHART: Not to my knowledge. I've never seen anything like that. It's certainly never on his desk, which I spent a lot of time looking at.
Q Joe, the parents of Matthew Shepard were in meeting with Mr. Podesta and Ms. Reno today. How would the passage of federal hate crimes legislation have changed the outcome of that trial, which saw the perpetrators of the crime go to jail for life?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I'm not sure that it would have had an impact on that particular trial, but I think they will argue, and they will argue for themselves, that there are gaps in state laws around the country and that we do need an expanded sense and expanded powers to prosecute federal hate crimes. And I think what the Chief of Staff took out of that meeting was not only the family's commitment, but the very real commitment on the part of the members of the Larimie Police Department that were here, who made a strong case for the hate crimes legislation and will go up to the Hill and make it directly to the members.
Q Are you optimistic the Medicare giveback -- will reach the President's desk?
MR. LOCKHART: You know, it's certainly one of the, beyond the budget and some of the tax incentives, it's one of the things that Congress is committed to working on. But we still have some work to do on it. I think in that category, we have another, which is minimum wage that is expected to come up tomorrow And I expect the President to address before he leaves here. And I think there is an example of something that I think defines the difference between the parties on Capitol Hill.
You've got the Democrats who are pushing for people who are making $5.15 an hour to help more than 10 million Americans get a raise -- a dollar over two years; to really help them in their continuing effort to bring down income disparity and help families who are working hard just to make it. On the other side, you have the majority party who has proposed -- saying, well, okay, if you help people at the bottom, you've got to provide tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest. There is a Citizens for Tax Justice study that says that something like one percent of Americans will get more than 75 percent of the benefits from the Republican bill.
For the best off Americans, those making over $300,000, they'll get, on average, $6,000 out of this bill. For those in the bottom three-fifths of the economy, they'll get $4. So I think this is something that defines us, and the President is going to work hard and make the case for why we need a minimum wage, but not one loaded up with special interest tax breaks.
Q Well, those versions are supposed to be attached to a bankruptcy bill tomorrow, and Senator Lott has said that there's no way that the Democratic version is going to -- he just will not support that. So unless you're willing to compromise with them, is the minimum wage bill --
MR. LOCKHART: You know, the Senate bill costs something like $70 billion without pay-fors. So I think -- I guess what Senator Lott is advocating, if you look at the budgetary impact of this, is that we ought to provide a big special interest tax break for big companies and the wealthiest Americans, and we ought to pay for it by going into the Social Security trust fund. That's obviously something we can't support.
Q Joe, in several of the President's comments about the budget, he insisted that the Republicans, as part of these negotiations, take up his proposal to expand Medicare and increase its solvency, and to do the same with Social Security. Have there been any discussions about that during the budget negotiations?
MR. LOCKHART: Not that I'm aware of in terms of the appropriations. I think there have been some discussions at the margins on things like extenders in the balanced budget give-backs between the staff here at the White House and the members. But I don't have any progress to report in the process of the budget talks.
Q In other words, those would be the vehicles for anything that you would do on Social Security and Medicare --
MR. LOCKHART: Well, certainly on the pay-fors for the balanced budget givebacks, we're looking at finding some savings in the efficiency of how Medicare is run. So that's one of the contexts for the discussions.
Q But that's all you're talking about? In other words, the prospect of getting anything more comprehensive and significant --
MR. LOCKHART: You know, stranger things have happened. We will continue to make our case. I don't see willingness on the part of the majority appropriators, or negotiators, right now to address those concerns.
Q Did you receive the banking reform bill yet?
MR. LOCKHART: We didn't have it as of this morning. I don't think we've gotten it yet. The financial modernization? No.
Q Are you going to have a briefing on the upcoming trip?
MR. LOCKHART: Wednesday. Wednesday. Thursday's a holiday.
Q What does he hope to achieve from this trip?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, obviously, we're going -- we will be dealing with the OSCE summit, which has its own issues surrounding it. But we will also be traveling to leaders in Southeastern Europe, Greece and Turkey, expanding on our bilateral relations there. We'll have -- pay an important trip to Bulgaria, now almost 10 years into their transformation as a market democracy. I think -- in addition to that, we'll spend a couple days, or a day and a half or so, in Florence, with some European leaders, talking about the international implications of Third Way policies and politics.
So I think it will be quite an important trip on a number of fronts, going back to the important U.S. role in Europe, particularly in Southeastern Europe, and the importance of U.S. leadership in the world, and engagement around the world.
Q Is he going to announce any additional stops in his speech today?
MR. LOCKHART: No, he's not going to announce any additional stops in his speech today.
Q Are we -- well.
MR. LOCKHART: I don't have any announcements, either.
Q Joe, will the President at the OSCE meeting raise Chechnya, in terms of making it a significant issue --
MR. LOCKHART: Certainly, it's back to that, given the agenda for OSCE, that that will be a subject that will be discussed. And the President will I'm sure have the opportunity with other leaders to discuss the latest developments there.
Q -- the White House, the primary election from the PRI in Mexico?
MR. LOCKHART: I got that one before, but to repeat, we think that the primary election represents a deepening of democracy, which is something that should be applauded -- a deepening commitment to democracy.
Q Is one of the topics in Sophia possibly Bulgaria's wanting to join NATO?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think there are a lot of NATO aspirants, and when we go to those countries it's certainly a topic of conversation. So I expect it will be discussed.
Q Joe, where is the President going to be when he does the on line thing? Is he doing it from the Oval Office?
MR. LOCKHART: No, George Washington University.
Q And is this the first time he's ever participated in a town hall --
MR. LOCKHART: It's the first time he's ever -- he did an on line thing once before with the NET AID, that we did about a month ago. But I think this is the first town hall where it's fully interactive, there are leaders around the country and there are questions coming in.
Q Is this going to be like streaming technology?
MR. LOCKHART: It will certainly include streaming, video and audio.
Q But he won't actually be on a keyboard or have somebody on a keyboard?
MR. LOCKHART: I think he'll just be talking and there will be people who --
Q What will they be doing?
MR. LOCKHART: They will be typing.
Q Who selects the questions?
MR. LOCKHART: I think the DLC and the Excite people are organizing how they're screened and put to the President.
Q Thank you.
END 1:45 P..M. EST