MR. FRATTO: Good afternoon, everyone. I actually have nothing to lead off with, so we can go straight to questions. Terry, you ready? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The President said this week at the news conference that he wanted to make -- that one of the reasons

MR. FRATTO: I'm not aware of a specific response from the North Koreans. But it's clear, as the President talked about, we want to make sure that we're transparent in this and what we're seeing with respect to proliferation activities, and that the world can see what we knew. We made it clear in our briefings to the Congress, and that's the best way to proceed on this.

Now, we've had our State Department officials who were recently in North Korea, and they continue their communications in the context of the six-party talks, and they're progressing. And we just counsel some patience, and wait to see what we get back from the North Koreans, in terms of their declaration, that it be complete and accurate. And so we're working with them on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I don't think it's something that you can put a time frame on. Sooner is better than later, and that's what our negotiators are working towards.

Yes, Helen. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Those were decisions that were made by the intelligence community and our senior officials here. And we respect the concerns of Congress, that we heard from Congress, and they thought this was the best way to proceed. And the President made the decision on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I think in this case it was important to be transparent, and that's a decision we made, Helen. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I think we were clear in how -- in what the context was of that.

Yes, Jon. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Not that I'm aware of, not in terms of video surveillance. I know lots of municipalities do it for different reasons, some just for speeding tickets. And having been the victim myself of those cameras, on, like, two occasions now, I'm well aware of how effective they are. But I'm not aware of any federal coordinating role on those. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I'm sure I did.

Yes, Jeannie. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: You sure, Helen? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I think people should go back and actually see what, in fact, the President said that day. There's a lot of focus on a banner that was hanging behind the President, but the President talked a lot about the accomplishments of our troops that were returning home that day and had completed their mission, and he talked about the brilliant success of our troops in defeating the army of Iraq, which was a unified fighting force before American forces went and defeated that army.

So those are the things the President talked about. And the President talked about, as we have for some time, a long war and a long struggle, but we defeated an army in Iraq. Today we're fighting militias and insurgents and terrorist groups like al Qaeda and those associated with al Qaeda, and in a lot of cases, criminal gangs.

Now, our goals today, looking forward, are to make sure that the government of Iraq and the new army of Iraq is an effective fighting force to continue the fight against those insurgents and criminals and militias, and bring security to the country. So that's what we're focused on, is what we're doing now to make sure that mission continues to show success.

Yes, Kathleen. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q What does the administration think about the proposal, the legislation being proposed by the Senate

MR. FRATTO: Yes, look, I think it's important to remember that the Iraqis actually are spending a lot more on their reconstruction than maybe is commonly understood out there. In their most recent budget, they'll outspend the United States 10 to 1 on reconstruction. On major reconstruction, we're moving towards 100 percent of Iraqi funding. In fact, we are pretty much out of the business of very large reconstruction projects in Iraq. Those are being funded by the Iraqis.

The Iraqis are spending the money they get as they get it. They have to go through a fairly conservative budget process, but when they get the money, they find ways to spend it effectively. Iraqi officials recently announced in -- sometime over the past few weeks that they'll be putting in place a $5 billion supplemental budget for reconstruction efforts.

So the Iraqis are trying to fund their needs. There are some things that we need to do. We're going to -- we want to work with Congress on a way forward to make sure that our troops get what they need, and that we can be as effective as we can possibly be. I think it's one thing -- one thing that's very, very important to keep in mind, if your goal is to see American troops coming home and to see the mission be a success, we want to make sure that we're being successful -- I'm sorry, effective and efficient in doing that. And that involves us doing some things. If it's a matter of training Iraqi troops -- for every Iraqi troop that we train, that's an eventual American combat troop that will be coming home.

So those are the kinds of things that our military commanders have in mind. And Secretary Gates will continue his conversations with the Armed Services Committees and the appropriators. So we just want to make sure that we're getting the funding that we need in the way that we need it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Look, all I can say is we'll take a look at what they're doing. We'll review it and see how it affects the ability for our military to carry out their mission. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Yes, Wendell. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Large reconstruction projects. I don't know what the cut-off is between -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I'm aware of what their cut-off is. I'm not aware of what we consider a large reconstruction project. And so I might want to refer you to DOD and State on how they define it. I don't have a definition on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: That's premature. We're too early to talk about what our final determination will be on that bill. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Thank you all for joining us today. This is Scott Stanzel, Deputy White House Press Secretary. And I have joining me today Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget Steve McMillin; Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Ed Lazear; and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Dan Price.

And we'll turn it over to each one of them for some brief comments to start off, and then we will get to your questions. So with that, Steve McMillin. MR. McMILLIN: Thank you. This is Steve McMillin. Just wanted to give you a little bit of the budgetary overview as background for the President's announcement today. The President announced a request for the Congress to appropriate an additional $770 million to deal with the global food crisis. He also discussed a $200 million release from the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, which is another mechanism we have for addressing global food issues.

With these actions and requests, total federal funding for international food aid and food security would be approximately $2.3 billion in 2008, and we project $2.657 billion in 2009. This is a substantial sum, both when compared to other countries around the world and to deal with the problems that we see overseas.

Obviously food prices affect not just people in the developing world but here at home as well. And just for background, I want to share a couple of other numbers. Through primarily USDA and the Food and Nutrition Service, we have a robust annual budget for domestic nutrition assistance. In 2008, those amounts are estimated to be about $62.5 billion, and for 2009, about $66.6 billion. So just to put the domestic effort in perspective, as compared to the international effort. MR. STANZEL: Thank you, Stephen. Now we'll turn it over to Ed Lazear from the Council of Economic Advisors to talk a little bit about the -- our view on food prices globally. CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: Good afternoon, thanks. Just wanted to give you a little bit of background on some of the numbers, to put things in the context of where we are and what are some of the causes of food price increases. Global food prices are up 43 percent since last year. Some commodities have seen very sharp increases. Wheat, for example, is up 146 percent; corn, 41 percent; and rice, about 29 percent.

There are a number of drivers of food price increases. Increasing demand in emerging markets accounts for about 18 percent of the rise. Also, increasing energy costs, which add to the cost of producing food, is another component. Very important this year were adverse weather-related events in Australia, China and many Eastern European countries that produced low crop yields, and that also implied very sharp increases in food prices.

And then finally, increased ethanol production, which has received a lot of attention, and I want to just spend a minute on that, because it has received so much attention. That had clearly put upward pressure on food prices, but the pressure is limited. Let me give you a sense of that.

The bottom line is that we think that ethanol accounts for somewhere between 2 and 3 percent of the overall increase in global food prices. And the reason for that is that ethanol works primarily on corn. It has increased corn prices substantially by about 33 percent. But corn is only 30 percent of all grain, and grain is only 20 percent of all food. So when you multiply those together and take that into account, you end up with about 2 to 3 percent.

Put differently, in the United States this year food price inflation was pretty significant -- 4.5 percent. Had we not had an ethanol program, the food prices -- sorry, not an ethanol program -- had it not been for ethanol, food prices would have gone up by 4.25 percent as opposed to 4.5 percent. So we would have had about a quarter of a percent lower price inflation; so 4.25 versus 4.5 is the relevant number there.

The other point that I'd like to make, just before opening it up to -- giving it to Dan and then opening it up for questions, is that the cost of additional grain prices is much more significant for developing countries than it is for the United States. And the reason for that is that they consume a significant share of their budgets in the form of food, and they also consume relatively more grain. We eat a lot of processed foods, we eat a lot of food out, and so our increase in food prices is only 4.5 percent, even though world food prices went up by 45 percent. So that's the difference there -- 43 percent. So that's the difference.

Let me stop there. MR. STANZEL: With that we'll turn it over to Dan Price from the National Security Council, and he'll talk a little bit about our efforts internationally. MR. PRICE: On the international side, there were really two principal components -- the President's announcement today. One was to deal with emergency food aid -- that is, getting food to the hungry. The second was a development piece, which is funding our development programs, which are aimed principally in three areas: one, increasing agricultural productivity; two, alleviating transportation distribution and supply-chain bottlenecks; and three, providing technical assistance in coordination with the World Bank and other organizations to promote sound, market-based policies.

I'll be pleased to respond to questions about those programs, but let me say in addition to those programs the President highlighted a number of things which underscore the fundamental point that policies matter. One, he urged countries that have instituted restrictions on agricultural exports to lift these restrictions so that food can get to where it is needed. And in this regard we welcome the recent announcement by the government of Ukraine to ease its export restrictions on grain. But countries need to do more.

Second, he urged countries to remove barriers to advance crops developed through biotechnology, noting that the crops are safe, they are resistant to drought and disease, and they hold the promise of producing more food for more people. The President also indicated we want to work with our G8 colleagues to secure their commitment not only for additional food aid, but for food development aid. And importantly, the President highlighted the tremendous significance of a successful conclusion of a Doha Round agreement, which would reduce and eliminate tariffs and other barriers and market-distorting subsidies for agricultural goods.

With that, why don't I stop and we can open it up for questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Does anyone have anything else on this subject? Yes, Laurent. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: It does not include farm subsidies. The largest program in that total is food stamps -- a little under $40 billion of the total. WIC, child nutrition are the next two largest programs in that crosscut. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I'm sorry, you said the Iranians have refused? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And finally, with respect to the ethanol as a factor, albeit a small one in the increase in food

CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: No, I think -- what I gave you -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I'm not -- I wasn't aware of that, so we'll see if maybe we can get something for you later, if we have a reaction.

On the same subject? Iraq? No? Let me finish with Wendell and then we'll go on. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: Oh, I'm sorry, this is -- yes, good point -- this is Ed Lazear speaking. What I gave you was just essentially an accounting method. I just gave you the facts based on what the numbers would imply, given the size of the ethanol crop and the size of that demand and how that would affect prices. So there really isn't any policy implication of that. It's just a straight number. MR. PRICE: This is Dan Price. Could I also add that biofuels are critical to our energy security. And if you look at the renewable-fuels mandate of 36 billion gallons, you will note that the amount of that biofuels or renewables that can come from corn-based ethanol is limited to under 50 percent, or 15 billion gallons. Significantly, we think that the impact of biofuels on food prices will diminish over time.

We are working rapidly to invest in the next generation of biofuels, like cellulosic ethanol, that can be produced from switchgrass and wood chips instead of crops. And through 2009 the administration has dedicated nearly a billion to research development and demonstration of that cellulosic ethanol technology. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I saw some of the reporting on this, and I just -- two things. I'm not going to get involved in campaign politics and commenting on campaign commercials. The other thing I would point out is that I think it's in reference to a -- the kind of transaction that would probably have gone through the CFIUS committee -- the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Those aren't things that we generally comment on, so I'm going to have to decline to comment on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. PRICE: No, that's 36 billion gallons through -- MR. McMILLIN: It was 2017; 20 in 10. MR. STANZEL: Well, the energy bill that the President signed into law, that was '22, I believe. And if I'm wrong on that, we'll put an asterisk in the transcript. But the President had originally proposed a mandate for 2017. Congress did not go as far or as fast as the President, and the energy bill that he signed into law in December had that 36 billion gallon mandate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: That? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. PRICE: Not per year. CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: By 2022. MR. McMILLIN: In that year, that's the annual figure. MR. STANZEL: Correct, per year, in that year. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I think some of the facts out there are in the public space and you can look at them and draw your own conclusions. Those aren't the kinds of things that I can comment on, unfortunately, Wendell.

Yes, Jeremy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Hi, gentlemen. I'm wondering, I'm assuming -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that you're looking for

MR. McMILLIN: This is Steve McMillin. That is actually not what we have told the Congress about what is appropriate to include in this supplemental. If you look back at the GWOT war security supplementals that have been considered a year ago, spring, the year before that, et cetera, it's actually quite typical for food aid to be a component of the international security piece of that supplemental request.

So we view this -- there are a variety of good reasons for the American government to spend its taxpayer dollars on these activities. Among them is the fact that spending this money in this way contributes to stabilizing unstable regimes in the developing world, and contributes to our national security. And that's why we've traditionally requested some of this funding through those supplementals, and the Congress has responded and then acted in those supplementals. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I think the President was pretty clear on that the other day, yes. Hasn't changed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay, thank you. And given the minimal impact that ethanol has on food prices, that Chairman Lazear

CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: Well, we've thought about subsidies. As you know, the President has -- is a free trader. He believes that we should have neither taxes nor subsidies that distort the economy, as we move into the long run. But it's always the case that when you make changes, you create some conditions that affect businesses, and so you have to take those transition conditions into account. And I think the President will be thinking about those in the near future. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Hasn't changed, no. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: I think he's always willing to consider changes and any good ideas. But he has not made a decision yet on whether he wants to do anything on the ethanol tax or subsidy situation right now -- tariff or subsidy situation, sorry. MR. STANZEL: Chairman, maybe if you could talk about for a moment the impact of high oil prices on the demand for biofuels or ethanol. CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: Sure. Most of what we're seeing right now is the fact that gasoline is so high justifies significant ethanol production, even in the absence of mandates and ethanol subsidies. So we would be seeing ethanol, even in the absence of ethanol subsidies.

The mandate that we have right now is not a binding mandate. I think that's an important point to make. So if you looked at the actual numbers, and you said, how much are we producing right now, we are producing 9.15 billion gallons of ethanol, estimated, in 2008, and that's how much we would produce based on the current prices of gasoline. So the fact that gasoline is so expensive makes it cost-competitive to produce ethanol. The mandate right now is only 9 billion gallons, so we would be above that without the mandate right now.

I hope that's helpful. Sorry to -- MR. McMILLIN: This is Steve McMillin. Just as a factual point, the ethanol tariff, in current law, would expire at the end of '08; the credit would expire at the end of 2010. And in the President's budget he sent up in February, he did not propose any renewal or extension of either of those. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I don't have anything that I can talk about right now. I think Secretary Rice and maybe others have said that we are working on ways that we can continue to help alleviate the severe need around the world, especially in developing countries, as a result of the increase in food prices. And you heard Josette Sheeran at the World Food Program and Bob Zoellick over at the World Bank talk about this need. The President responded two weeks ago with releasing $200 million from the Emerson Trust. And there may be some additional things that we can do, but nothing I can announce right now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay. That's -- I hadn't realized that. Interesting. Just lastly, on the calculation of the

CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: Yes, we did consider it. I wouldn't say it's not significant, but it's much smaller than the direct effect on corn. So if you get a direct effect of something like 2 percent, the indirect effect might be another 1 percent. And so that's the 2 to 3 percent range that we talked about. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Well, we have an existing request for supplemental funding and -- but let's give it some time, and we'll let you know if we can say more on what can be done.

Yes, Mark. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. PRICE: No. CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: That was Dan Price. (Laughter.) MR. PRICE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: We're still getting used to identifying ourselves. MR. PRICE: No. MR. STANZEL: No is the answer. Next question. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Sticking with food and food prices -- you talked about this a little this morning -- you seemed

MR. FRATTO: No, I wouldn't say vanishing. I don't want to minimize it; I also don't want to overplay it. And I've seen a lot of reporting that has tried to draw a direct link between ethanol and food prices. And if you really take a look at the breakdown of food prices in this country and the contribution because of biofuels, it's not as significant as some of the reporting that I've seen has made it appear -- and for a lot of different reasons. One, there's a lot of other factors that are affecting our food prices. We have competition for exports. We have the increasing costs of energy that makes things like fertilizer more expensive. It makes transporting and distribution of food more expensive.

But the biggest thing -- you ask why in certain countries do you see much higher increases in the price of food than you're seeing in the United States. That's because the vast majority of the food that we eat in the United States is processed or served in restaurants, and a lot of the cost comes from these other value-added efforts, whether it's the packaging, the marketing, the distribution, serving it to you at your table -- and that's where most of the cost comes from.

Also remember that the biggest impact on price with respect to grains in this country is pretty much limited to corn, where -- and you're seeing corn prices rise, and that's only a portion of most food products. If you go to a developing country, if you go to -- or even if you go to Mumbai and walk -- in India and walk into a market, what you'll see are stacks of flour and rice and milk in large containers. These are people who are living on $1 or $2 or $3 a day, and they're buying commodities.

So if the price of rice doubles in Thailand at the local market and you're used to spending 70 cents out of a dollar -- the dollar a day that you earn -- on food, now all of a sudden you need to cut back your food. And so it is a very acute problem in poor countries that the bulk of their food purchases are commodities with not a whole lot of value-added to them.

It's less acute a problem in this country -- and I don't say that to minimize it. A lot of families out there who buy the staples -- you know, are buying milk and eggs and bread and seeing these price increases, it's significant for them, and it's something that we're keeping a close eye on. It just has not had the same explosive effect in this country that you would find in poorer countries. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Hi there. A question for Dan, if I may. Could you go into more detail on the role of GM foods

MR. PRICE: Well, we think they are a challenge, and in two ways. First, biotech crops lead to higher yields, and bans on GMOs or biotechs discourage the planting of biotech crops in the developing world. That has two effects. It deprives them of the higher yields domestically, and it deprives them of export markets. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Yes, they're just one of a handful of reasons for -- and not the biggest reason. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. PRICE: We think so. Biotechnology and crops developed through biotechnolgy really have done wonderful things in terms of crop yield, drought resistance and insect resistance. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Well, I think we're going -- we'll always continue to look at our policies. And if we see that it is having a particularly large effect, maybe there would be some reconsidering of our policies. But the President answered this question the other day, that it is not -- it's not just an economic decision; it's also -- there's a security issue involved also. And so there is a benefit that we're trying to achieve for the country, and that is security from -- or dependency on foreign sources of oil, and that is an important benefit for the country in terms of our national security, and so we need to keep that in mind too. I don't know how you put a dollar figure on that, but our national security is important.

Roger. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. PRICE: We will be -- as the President said, we will be urging all countries who have these barriers or restrictions in place to remove them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I don't, unfortunately. Just in terms of our communications with the Russians, we are -- we're concerned about the reports we're hearing. We don't want to see any actions that would increase tensions in the region. There's a long history of tension in the region, and we'd like to see the countries, both Georgia and Russia, NATO, and even the republics involved, try to find a way to work this out in a peaceful way. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Hi there. I'm just hoping for a couple more details on the actual announcement of the $770 million

MR. McMILLIN: Well, the new announcement is a combination -- the Emerson Trust is a release that is happening and is available now. The $770 million is fiscal year 2009 money, which would be available October 1st. But we also have pending up there our previous request of $350 million for emergency food aid through P.L. 480 that would be available immediately upon enactment by the Congress.

But I don't want to minimize the importance of getting early announcement of and early action on that '09 money that would be available on October 1st. We've got -- you know, it's a complex system to get the food from where it's grown to where it's needed. And the pipeline, so to speak, with the variety of international organizations that help distribute this food aid, they need the certainty and they need to know that the pipeline is not going to go dry somewhere along the way. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: It hadn't as of this morning, but we'll let you know if it does.

Victoria. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McMILLIN: No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q In the new Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 15 percent of people think that the country

MR. FRATTO: I don't think he was paying attention to it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McMILLIN: Just to break out the numbers, the $350 million that I mentioned, which was actually requested by the administration back in October, that is part of the $108 billion pending supplemental; it's been there for a while. The $200 million through the Emerson Trust, that's an administrative authority, a permanent administrative authority that doesn't require congressional action. The $770 million would be part of the '09 bridge supplemental that we understand the Congress seems likely to pair with the pending $108 billion supplemental. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McMILLIN: That's correct, but again I want to emphasize there is great value to having early knowledge and early enactment of that funding so that these agencies can plan their programs knowing that the money is going to be there on October 1st and that we will be able to support those programs through the transition in the new fiscal year without interruption.

And that's especially important when you look at recent appropriations history over the past couple years. The regular appropriations bills for USAID and USDA tend to come very late, often weeks or months into the beginning of the fiscal year. As I noted before, our request for $350 million of food aid for this fiscal year has been before the Congress since October 22nd of last year. So we think it's a great opportunity to make sure that the program is on a sound footing if this funding can get enacted early so people can plan appropriately and be ready to put that money to use on October 1st. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Goyal. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q To go over the numbers a little more, how does it break down -- there's talk of the nearly $5 billion

MR. McMILLIN: Food aid and food security initially -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, two quick questions. One, going back to food prices. One, this has become a issue in the

MR. FRATTO: A bilateral request? Not that -- I'm not aware of specific requests. We have longstanding relations, where we provide food and agricultural assistance with a lot of countries. I don't have the numbers. It numbers in the dozens of countries that we provide food. But we provide food and agricultural assistance in lots of different ways, whether it's through the World Bank and the World Bank Group of banks, like the African Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank. We do it through the World Food Program. We do it on a bilateral basis. We do it on emergency basis, where our Defense Department might be delivering food assistance, where there's a natural disaster. We have the USDA providing technical assistance to countries on agriculture techniques and seeds, and helping to teach agronomists. It is a wide-ranging array of assistance efforts to help countries become more efficient in the production of food, and hopefully a little bit more self-sustainable for their own citizens, and also be able to export and help their country develop. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McMILLIN: The $350 million is included in the '08 total, the $770 million is included in the '09 total. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And second, as far as the President's visit to Middle East is concerned, I'm sure President must

MR. FRATTO: Well, we certainly hope that we can do more to foster more democracy and a commitment to democracy. I think it's clear that no other country in the world has committed as much energy to it, and it's something the President believes in. I'm not sure if he actually saw the -- if he saw the column. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McMILLIN: Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Yes, I mean, there's no other -- I just wanted to make clear on that. And does the -- and how

MR. McMILLIN: It is. The $770 million has -- the way we've broken it down is, about $395 million -- that is comparable to the $350 million; P.L. 480 Title II, emergency food aid. But we're also -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Earlier this morning several lawmakers, including Senator Brownback, Senator Menendez, called on

MR. FRATTO: Well, I think we always listen to the senators you mentioned. We know that they have strong feelings. There are a lot -- lots of U.S. officials and others have strong feelings, but I don't have anything to add in terms of the President's schedule. He will go to China and -- but I have nothing on his schedule.

Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McMILLIN: Yes. But we're also looking to use a couple of additional tools. First of all, the USAID Disaster Assistance account -- that is going to be used in part to allow for some more efficient use of those food aid dollars. With the Disaster Assistance account, we can make some of those purchases locally and get food to the places they're needed more quickly. We can also use that to purchase other things that are not direct food aid, including vouchers for purchase of food, cash, seeds for small farmers, things of that nature.

So that's $225 million for the Disaster Assistance account, and then, third, $150 million for development assistance. This is getting at the longer-term, multi-year effort that's going to be required to improve the ability of the developing world to feed itself. And we think that is every bit as important a thing to focus on as the simple immediate act of putting food on people's plates. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Well, we control whether they would be removed from the state sponsors of terrorism list, so assurances -- we've talked about this a lot. This is a process that involves actions for actions, so if the North Koreans meet their obligations, which we're encouraging them to do, the other five members of the six-party talks will meet their obligations. Secretary Rice, I think, spent some time talking about what the process would be on some of our actions, and I would just refer back to her comments on that. But nothing is assured. The only thing that's assured is if there are verifiable actions, they will be met by actions on the part of the other members of the six parties.

Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Did you have -- I'm sorry -- do you have any -- and somebody can get back to me about it -- but

MR. McMILLIN: Right. Just let me give you '06 through '09, down to the million -- and then if you need further breakdown, maybe you can contact our press office after -- $1.750 billion in 2006; $2.129 billion in 2007; $2.341 billion in 2008; and $2.657 billion in 2009. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Nothing specific, no. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Hi, guys. Two quick questions. One would be, can you run down the breakdown of the $770 million

MR. STANZEL: Well, it will be in the transcript, Jon, in terms of the $770 million. We can give you those numbers real quick again, Steve and me. The numbers on the $770 million, real quickly, were -- MR. McMILLIN: Three-ninety-five million for P.L. 480 Title II emergency food aid, $225 million for Disaster Assistance for USAID, and then $150 million for Development Assistance also through USAID. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Unless you know something I know, it's a coincidence. I don't know.

Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. PRICE: Yes, this is Dan Price. The majority of the assistance will be going to Africa. And USAID would probably have the most up-to-date information of countries of greatest concern. As you know, they have developed a Famine Early Warning System that helps to assess the level of hunger and risk of emergency needs. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I don't. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. PRICE: All three. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I'd have to refer you to DOD. I don't have anything on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q With next year's food aid jumping up to $2.657 billion over this year's $2.3 billion, a) how does

MR. McMILLIN: This is Steve McMillin; I'll take the first one. The '07 comparable number was $2.129 billion. And I'll turn to Ed for the other question -- Ed Lazear. CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: On the food inflation, we don't expect food inflation to be as high as it was last year. The main reason is that while levels will stay high, we don't expect the same kind of change that we saw last year. The reason is that much of that was weather-related, and you don't expect the same kinds of adverse weather shocks to be repeated this year. As a result of weather -- bad weather this year, storage capacity -- storage has been reduced, and so prices, the level of prices, will remain high, but we don't expect prices to increase. In fact, there might be even a slight decrease over the next year or two. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I honestly have nothing for you on that. I have to refer you to DOD and let them comment on it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Hi, just to clarify one number from the beginning of the call, you said that global food prices

CHAIRMAN LAZEAR: March through March. Read more Comment (0), Email this.