MS. PERINO: Hi, everyone. I'm going to do the schedule quickly and I'm going to introduce, then, Dan Fisk to you.

The President had his normal briefings at 8:00 a.m. At 10:00 a.m., he will meet the National Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, George Lisicki. He was elected National Commander-in-Chief on August 23, 2007, at the VFW 108th National Convention that was held in Kansas City, Missouri. The President has met with the National Commander-in-Chief of the VFW each year of his presidency.

At 10:25 a.m. he will then make remarks on Cuba, as you will find out a little bit more about from Dan Fisk in just a moment. At 12:30 p.m. I'm going to be joined by OMB Director Jim Nussle, to talk about the war supplemental. At 1:25 p.m. the President will meet with the Maronite Patriarch of Lebanon. And then at 2:10 p.m. he will sign H.R. 493 -- this is the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008. And I think some of you have asked about that bill in the past, so that signing will happen today.

Let me turn it over to Dan Fisk of the NSC to talk about the President's policy in Cuba, a little bit of news in the speech, and then I'll come back up and take questions on other issues. MR. FISK: Good morning. The President will host an event today to commemorate a Day of Solidarity with the Cuban people. Through the event at the White House the United States will join other governments, non-governmental organizations and global democracy activists in expressing support for and solidarity with the Cuban people. The purpose of the White House event today, and other events around the United States and internationally, is to draw specific attention to the plight of Cuba's political prisoners and to call for their immediate release.

This is the first Day of Solidarity with the Cuban people. It is our hope that this becomes an annual event until there is a free Cuba. Other international events and activities today will include statements of solidarity by other governments and parliamentarians, and non-governmental organization and other civil society activities including vigils, rallies and religious ceremonies.

In the context of Cuban history, this day comes during a period when Cubans commemorate the death of Jose Marti, Cuba's independence leader who died on May 19th, 1895. It also comes during a period on May 20th that marks the anniversary of Cuba's independence; this is the 106th anniversary of that independence. And it also comes in a period to mark the death of a prominent Cuban student activist, Pedro Luis Boitel, who died in a Cuban prison while on a hunger strike in May of 1972. He died on May 25th. So this period, May 19th to May 25th, is significant for Cubans for a number of historical reasons.

In his remarks today the President will challenge the regime to make its so-called reforms meaningful for the average Cuban. For example, if Cubans can own cell-phones or mobile phones, then they should be allowed to freely and publicly express themselves. If Cubans can own computers, then it would seem that they should be allowed to have unfettered access to the Internet.

The President will also note that many of the products, whether they're mobile phones, DVD players, or computers, are beyond the means of average Cubans. Not only do Cubans suffer from political repression, but also economic repression. They're denied an economy that makes prosperity possible, where it gives them the opportunity to benefit from their talents.

The President will reaffirm his view that real change requires political freedom, and he will challenge the Castro regime to respect and fulfill the obligations it undertook when it signed the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, one of the other so-called actions by Raul Castro that is supposed to signal a new change in Cuba.

The President will also make reference to a number of political prisoners, this being a day to call attention to them and to honor them, including, for example, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, who previously received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and who follows the teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr., and who is serving a 25-year sentence for actually advocating peaceful change in Cuba.

As for the efforts of the United States to support political change, the President will note our increased efforts to support the Cuban people and to get uncensored information to the island, especially through Radio and TV Marti. Just as a note, since 2001 this administration has provided nearly $370 million in assistance for democracy assistance programs and broadcasting initiatives.

The President will reiterate his offer from last October to license U.S. NGOs and faith-based groups to provide computers and Internet directly to the Cuban people if the Cuban regime ends its restrictions on Internet access.

And then the President will make an announcement about a policy change. We are modifying our regulations to allow Americans to send mobile phones to family members in Cuba.

I will stop there and be happy to take any questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Is he going to wade into the whole discussion about engaging U.S. enemies and -- I know that you

MR. FISK: The President will be talking about his view on Cuba and our policy towards Cuba. This is not about the campaign. This is about this period in Cuban history, not only in terms of historical context, as I mentioned earlier, but in terms of what we are trying to do to support the Cuban people. Our view remains that the issue is not one of Washington versus Havana. It's a matter of the Cuban regime needing to talk to the Cuban people so the Cuban people actually have a say in how their country is governed and who governs them. So in that sense -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: It's not -- today's event is not about -- it's about Cuba and how we see events there.

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

MR. FISK: First of all, since Raul Castro has made these announcements, one is to challenge and say, okay, you're saying Cubans can have access to this, okay, we're going to -- one, we're going to test you, but we think it's the right thing to do. It's consistent with our policy to help empower the Cuba people, to help them communicate amongst themselves, but also with the outside world.

And let me just go back to one data point for you all to keep in mind on the issue of mobile phones in Cuba. From what I understand, the average cost for a mobile phone -- if a Cuban wants to buy one on the island, the average cost is around $120 for a phone, when you and I can go buy for $20 here. They then have to pay another $120 for an activation fee. And again, they have to do all this with hard currency. The average salary for a Cuban is somewhere in the range of $12 to $20 a month. So what we're trying to do is say, okay, you've allowed -- you're allowing Cubans to have access and to own cell phones, fine; we're going to allow Americans with family to send phones there, and again, let them be able to speak amongst themselves.

As the President will note, we also think that if they can speak privately, such a concept as private speech, then they should be allowed to speak publicly. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: It's our understanding that they work -- cell phones from the United States work there, as actually there are other services as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Right now it's consistent with our existing regulations on gift parcels, which is it's from those with family in the United States. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Americans will be allowed to send a phone and supporting account. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: The NSC is not involved in the campaigns. No coordination was done from my office, or I'm aware anyone else. This was a White House event; these are the President's remarks, it's the President's policy, it's about where we are. It's not a matter of -- MS. PERINO: I'll find out. I don't know specifically if -- on a specific policy change, if that was alerted to the campaign or not, but I'll check. MR. FISK: I guess from the NSC perspective, no.

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

MR. FISK: Coordination in what way? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: They have been invited. I understand that they will be here. We've invited a number of members of Congress. We've invited some representatives -- selected representatives from the diplomatic corps will be there. It's my understanding that the Cuban American members from South Florida, and Congressman Sires, who's a Cuban American House member from New Jersey, have RSVP'd, have accepted to attend the event. MS. PERINO: But there is plane trouble or air trouble with at least I think two of them -- MR. FISK: Well, for two of the family members, not for the members of the Congress. But to the extent that they will be there, yes, the invitations have been extended. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q You said that this is about Cuba, but can you clarify the policy in terms of what the difference

MR. FISK: Well, first, keep in mind that when we deal with China we also -- the President has been very clear, and the Secretary of State and others, about raising human rights concerns. I think one of the key differences at this point is the extent to which the two countries themselves want to engage with the world, to what extent that they are providing some areas of opportunity for their citizens, separating out kind of the historical context of how China policy evolved versus our policy towards Cuba. But fundamentally, I see that there is a difference between how Beijing wants to interact with the world and how Havana wants to act with the world. And that I think becomes a very important criteria for us.

Again, I go back to the point that the Western Hemisphere, through the Inter-American Democratic Charter, has made a decision as a hemisphere that countries have democratic obligations. There is no inter-Asian or Asian democratic charter for others. And we also think that that is something that needs to be taken into account in terms of our approach towards Cuba, that the issue of human rights, democratization, the treatment of one's people is very fundamental to how the United States for more than 30 years has approached our relationships in the Western Hemisphere. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Not a function of size. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Hello. I have one announcement. First of all, we wish Deb Riechmann a happy birthday. (Applause.) So I guess I have two announcements.

Today the President will sign the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that will prohibit health insurers and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information. And I have one update -- this will now be open to pool coverage in the Oval Office. The legislation will ensure that health plans and health insurance insurers would not be able to deny coverage to individuals or charge higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to developing a disease in the future.

The President will take time to especially thank and recognize the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who worked tirelessly on this issue for more than a decade. And we appreciate Senator Kennedy's efforts to get this legislation passed and delivered to the President for his signature today.

Next, I'd like to introduce the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget for an update on the farm bill, and also on the war supplemental. He'll take some questions, and then I'll finish up. DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Thank you, Dana. Let me begin with the farm bill. We sent the Congress our farm bill proposals over 16 months ago, because the President recognized that during a time of record farm income, that Americans deserved a reform-minded farm bill. We included our farm bill in the budget. Instead Congress sent us a bloated bill with too much spending, not enough reform, budget gimmicks and even more earmarks. And so today the President has vetoed the farm bill, as he has promised.

We proposed the President's farm bill based on comments that were gleaned from people in the public and farmers all across the country. The bill that he has vetoed increases spending by more than $20 billion, yet fails to reform farm programs at a time when farm income and crop prices are setting records. Americans are frustrated with wasteful government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds to pet projects. This bill only worsens the frustration that they will feel.

For example, $175 million is in this bill to address water issues in desert lakes; $250 million for a 400,000-acre land purchase from one single owner; funding for a non-competitive scale of national forest land to a ski resort in Vermont -- some have referred to this as the "trail to nowhere;" $382 million that was earmarked for one specific watershed; $170 million for salmon fishermen in the West Coast. In this bill, it requires taxpayers to fund peanut storage, and it makes loans and grants more costly for potential energy producers by expanding Davis-Bacon.

Some American businesses would be forced to pay their taxes early to help cover the $20 billion of increased spending. Yet there's no meaningful reform in this proposal. For example, farm income after expenses or adjusted gross income can be as high as $1.5 million before direct farm payments are cut off. And the bill completely eliminates the limit on other payments or the marketing loan.

So at a time of great need for global food aid, this bill restricts our ability to provide emergency food by blocking and locking in aid dollars for non-emergency use. It fails to allow us to use a quarter of the food aid as we proposed to buy food in developing countries, or across the world. The need I believe is important, and it takes months to ship this food overseas. We want to be able to purchase locally. This bill prevents that.

Congress should extend the current farm bill rather than jeopardizing America's support for a farm economy and wasteful spending that fails to target payments to farmers who really need the support.

Let me also address quickly the supplemental that is on the floor in the Senate today, and was on the floor of the House earlier. Memorial Day is obviously a time to observe and commemorate the sacrifices our men and women in uniform make to protect national security. As we honor their service this coming Monday, it's both disappointing and, for that matter, I believe irresponsible, that Congress has failed to provide our troops with the resources they need by this fast-approaching deadline.

Instead, Democratic leaders have cynically used the supplemental bill that should have been focused on our troops and national security to advance their political agenda of higher government spending and tying the hands of our military commanders.

As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified, the surge is working to bring greater security to the people of Iraq and allowing for significant political and economic progress. Defeating the enemy in Iraq will make it less likely that we will face that enemy here at home. We must support our troops and diplomats, and not undercut their mission or reverse their successes.

Congress has had most of the troop funding request since February 5th of last year, 2007, more than 15 months. I believe it's inexcusable that they have missed their deadlines that they have self-imposed. As stated by Secretary Gates, this delay will result in the Department of Defense needing to employ budget shell games to pay for the troops and to provide them the equipment and the training and the pay and the safety to do the job that they have been asked to do.

Secretary Gates also stated, "After June 15th we will run out of funds in the account to pay soldiers, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan." First American military personnel. After June 15th, we will run out of the funds to pay -- in this account, to pay soldiers, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let me turn to a chart -- there we go. The President took a clear and principled position regarding this funding from the very outset. He made it clear he would veto a supplemental that does not meet the needs of our troops, ties the hands of our military commanders, or exceeds the requested level of $108.1 billion. However, the House and Senate includes billions more in spending that the President has not requested.

The Senate bill has $10 billion more in discretionary spending alone, under-funding priorities from this year's omnibus bill alone, even though they conveniently found room for $16.9 billion in earmarks. In addition, with the national unemployment rate as low as 5 percent, the Democrats' plan extends unemployment benefits beyond the existing benefit of 26 weeks. It's a one-size-fits-all plan that really doesn't make any sense. Only five states have an unemployment rate of 6 percent or higher, and more than two-thirds have an unemployment rate below 5 percent.

The bill proposes increases in veterans' benefits. Throughout the year the President has led efforts to expand benefits for our veterans. This idea has bipartisan support. But Democratic leaders have rejected the bipartisan bill that was approved by the Veterans Affairs Committee, and instead has air-dropped him a bill that has not even had consideration. They don't want transferability of the education benefits, which doesn't -- isn't provided in this bill. And it doesn't provide greater rewards for continued military service in our all-volunteer force.

The House includes a huge tax increase on small businesses at a time when job creation is necessary, not increased taxes. And the House bill didn't even fund the troops.

Republicans decided they weren't going to be a pawn in this cynical game, so 132 of them voted "present" to express their concern. The Democrats could only muster 85 votes to support troop funding.

Finally, both House and Senate supplemental bills tie the hands of our military commanders. Because the House and Senate bills fail to meet the President's principles, if either one of these bills were presented to the President, he would veto it.

And I'm pleased to take your questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Well, that will be interesting to see how the Castro regime responds to that. I mean, it seems to me that that's a very fair question and one to be asked of the people in Havana. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: I think what's surprising here is that there has been 15 months of lead time. It's not unusual that there's politics in Washington or politics on the Hill, particularly in an election year, but you would think you could set aside that momentarily in order to do a job that they've known is necessary to do for over 15 months, and that's pay for the troops.

There are many, obviously, who have different opinions about the global war on terror, but once our men and women are in harm's way, you would think that politics could be set aside to ensure that they were paid, that they received the safety equipment that they needed, and to ensure that they could do the basic job that they've been asked to do.

So with 15 months of lead time, there was time for a little bit of politics. But the time has run out now to make sure that the funding is there, and the Defense Department is now going to have to take some drastic measures to ensure that funding is available in the meantime. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Two questions, one on the mobile phone issue. How many mobile phones do you expect to be sent

MR. FISK: Well, let me put this in context. Roughly one in 10 Cubans lives in the United States. There's at least a million and a half of what we would call Cuban Americans on an island of 11 million people. So I mean, I'm not going to tell you it's going to be x number, but if you start from that base, that's a pretty good base to start from. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Well, we're certainly doing more than complain. We've submitted legislation; we've submitted reform proposals; we've tried to work with the Congress in order to not only fit the spending within a reasonable budget plan, but also to ensure that there were reform proposals. Congress has decided to go against that. We're doing much more than complain. We're actually making proposals, working with the Congress to try and improve it. When that failed, the President had to make a decision, and he's decided to veto it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: My hesitation is because I'm hard pressed to give you a positive response on that. I mean, at this point, there's rhetoric. At this point, there are some possibilities. But again, until we can actually see that Cubans can really benefit from this, I think, again, we are going to be reluctant to want to rush to embrace. Again, I think the President today, rightly, is going to lay down kind of, if you allow access to cell phones, then, okay, free speech should be part of that.

I'm sorry -- woman in the back there. Yes, ma'am. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Following up on that, it appears clear the farm bill will be overridden -- and, in fact, that might

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Well, first on the SPR, it was, I believe and many in the administration believe, a fairly meaningless proposal with regard to our overall energy security, from the standpoint of reducing prices. We wanted to ensure that our national security was preserved by ensuring that the SPR was available for a disruption in supply. And so it was somewhat of a different situation. The farm bill is a significant piece of legislation which will increase spending not only for the next five years, but sets the predicate for actually the next 10, based on the way that the budget has gone through this process.

Second, it's also important at a time when we're trying to expand trade around the world, and to ensure that we increase the amount of products that are available, to ensure that those who are in -- needing food have that available to them. So this is a much more significant piece of legislation. And we have worked over the last 16 months with the Congress in order to try and improve the farm bill. And Congress has basically decided to thumb their nose at us. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Well, I'm hesitant to talk about what other countries are doing to support U.S. efforts. I will make a comment that I think that there is a consensus in the hemisphere on the need for democratic change in Cuba. There's no doubt that there's a vigorous debate internationally about U.S. policy. We're very well aware of that. But I also think that there is agreement on the strategic objective of the Cuban people being allowed to enjoy fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights on that.

So, to the extent that other countries are speaking -- whether they're in Latin America or elsewhere -- are speaking up on behalf of democratic change, on behalf of human rights in Cuba, then we applaud that and we encourage more countries to do that and to do it actually more publicly, more vocally, and more consistently.

So again this isn't a matter -- for instance, today is not about U.S. policy kind of for the global event. What we do at the White House has a U.S. policy element to it. But it is about, again, solidarity with the Cuban people. And so we are heartened that there will be a number of events today in Latin America and in Europe primarily that call attention to the situation on the island.

Let me go here. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Well, we don't -- the OMB does not send out furlough notices, nor does the White House. That's a decision that the Defense Department will make. And according to Secretary Gates and the Defense Department, those notices may begin as -- in the next month. And notification to particularly the civilian workforce, similar to what occurred in December, will also need to go out in June if the funding is not available, as well as reprogramming will -- a request for reprogramming will have to be sent to the Hill probably at the end of next week. And changes -- as the Secretary described the budget shell game -- will have to be played with the accounts that are currently available to the Defense Department just to make ends meet during that period of time.

So there's more than just the notices of furlough that will go out. This is a terrible way to run the department, and again, something that both Congress and the Department of Defense have known for quite some time. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: I'll be happy to. And I will acknowledge that some of these numbers are soft in the sense that we'll know at the end of the day kind of what has happened. There is a website. I did not bring it with me, the link on that. I'll get it to Dana so that you all can see that it actually posts a map of where events are. It will be, again, events across the United States. There will be a number of events throughout the Western Hemisphere/Latin America. Again, we're looking at non-governmental organizations -- again, vigils, rallies, religious services. A number of events in Europe; the last count I have is about events in about 30 countries of one type or another.

U.S. embassies, by the way, will also be doing events, but the 30 countries does not account -- does not include U.S. embassy events. That's a far larger -- a larger number. So, I mean that hopefully gives you a little bit of a snapshot. And again we'll get you the website so you can actually get on and see.*

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

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Well, the interesting part about this, which I find fascinating, is that at a time when -- there are those who are suggesting we do need domestic spending -- instead of accelerating the appropriations process for this coming year, instead it appears that Senate leaders, in particular, and even some in the House, are making the strategic decision to punt all of those appropriation bills until next year.

So if the need is so urgent for spending, domestic spending, why not get your work done? Why not work on the appropriation bills instead of basically punting that until the middle of next year -- which factually or technically they will be doing by waiting for what they believe is a Democrat President to make a better deal with?

That to me suggests that this is not about domestic spending; it's about trying to hold the troops hostage in order to get a few pet projects into this particular bill; and recognizing that they know the President has made a principled position, one that he was able to hold to in December in the omnibus bill process. And I believe it's those reasons why the leadership has made the decision that they've made. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Good question. Because the 19th is already a day that's commemorated, because the 20th is another day that's commemorated. In terms of the individuals putting this together and the NGOs putting this together, they just thought they would pick a different day to kind of fit in that period from May 19th to May 25th. There's no magic to it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: All of the -- first of all, no appropriations bills are making it through the process. It appears through all of their announcements that they have made that -- or many of the announcements that they have made that they believe that they might have a better deal with the next President. I assume they mean a President Obama. That being the case, they've decided instead to go for a continuing resolution strategy and wait for a better deal.

And all I'm suggesting, or observing, is that if it is in fact so urgent to have all of this domestic spending considered, you would think, rather than sticking it into the supplemental, or at least in addition to considering that as a strategy, they would also accelerate the appropriations process. Instead, what they have basically done is waited until today to get a budget done, and the appropriations process has not really even kicked off yet. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Pardon? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Well, we're in the third inning of a what's going to be a long game. The President has made it very clear that $108 billion in the request in order to ensure that the troops have what they need is the most important and first priority. In addition to that, not tying the hands of commanders, not adding extraneous spending are important veto principles that he has also laid out. So we haven't seen what the final version is. In fact, no spending bill has passed any floor yet, so we don't even know what we're looking at. But the most important thing at this point in time is to stay within those principles and make sure that the troops are funded. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Yes. I mean, the idea here is that you have a -- because Cubans on the island see this as a period of activity, kind of book-ended by Jose Marti's death, the date of his death, and the death of Boitel, it kind of fit in there, and it made -- it just made sense to the individuals involved and the organizations involved in this effort.

If there's someone who hasn't -- not to be dismissive -- but someone who hasn't yet asked a question. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Well, you would have thought that the game could have been accelerated and that they could have gotten this done a lot earlier. That's what's so perplexing about this, is that they've had 15 months of lead time. It was the Congress that requested that all of this funding be proposed up front in the budget that was proposed back in February of 2007. And it was the Congress that has already held two hearings with the State Department, with Secretary Rice, three hearings with Secretary Gates, one hearing with me, in order to consider this supplemental spending over the course of the last 15 months. So they've had a lot of lead time to understand this. I wish it was the 9th inning and we were ready to sign a bill and get on with it. But we're, it appears, no closer as a result of the actions that have been taken. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I just wondered if you could give us maybe a little more background on how this policy came about

MR. FISK: I think it's fair to say that actually since the announcement that Fidel Castro went in the hospital, we've had a ongoing policy process to determine, first of all, what is going on on the island, what it means, and then how we can -- how we should, and if we should, modify our policy.

There's no doubt that this was given some momentum by the events of February, when we had Raul -- I'm sorry, Fidel Castro kind of pass many of his titles on to Raul -- I think there's still a question about who the power in Cuba is at this time. And since then, we have, at the President's direction, continued to put a number of initiatives -- discussed a number of initiatives and go through the whole interagency process and kind of consider what our options are and how we should proceed, being, again, consistent with the President's policy that what we are seeking to do is empower the Cuban people, get directly to them, not further enrich the regime, and again, kind of what realistically and effectively the U.S. can do with the Cuban people. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Because it enhances their ability to communicate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Sir, as far as your choice between food and oil, millions of people around the globe are now making

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: It's a good question, a fair question. I'm not sure I'm prepared to answer that for you today, so why don't I defer on your very good question. MS. PERINO: Do you want to take one more in the back? DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: And with themselves. One of the things that the regime has done -- and remember, this is a repressive state. I mean, this is a police state. This is a state in which you go to jail for your beliefs. Again, we've seen repression continue since Raul took formal power. That has not changed the harassment of dissidents. Detentions may not be now as long-term, but they're on a consistent basis. So, for civil society, there is still very much the firm hand of the Cuban state in their lives.

So the regime has done a very good job of isolating Cubans and Cuban civil society on the island so that you may have activities in Santiago de Cuba on the eastern end that individuals in other parts of the island are not aware of. If you give them more means of communication, we think that is something that helps them and empowers them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Among the things listed as unnecessary projects, the $170 million for relief for Northwest communities

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: Well, again, there are, I'm sure, worthwhile concerns within all of these particular bills that move through. But when you stick that into a farm bill, when you do it in a way that is bloated, more than five times the original proposal of the farm bill itself, when it doesn't include the other reforms -- what may be in and of itself a good provision -- and there may be other examples of that -- again, I'm not sure I can comment on each specific one.

But when you throw it all together, I think that's when not only the taxpayers get frustrated, but many get frustrated about the fact that these bills come through, they don't have reform, they're too expensive. And I think that's part of the reason why that, in this instance, we're seeing such an outcry from the public about this kind of a bill.

So one more -- I've been passing over you and I didn't mean to. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: The same argument that's there is that the regime has set up as many of these structures as possible to where you do business with the regime. The idea with the cell phones is they're going directly from family members to other family on the island. This is not a case in which you're enriching the regime. Lift the embargo, and let's -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR NUSSLE: You know, as soon as that word came out of my mouth I thought, I should have made sure I attributed that to Senator Reid. I believe Senator Reid was suggesting that. I have no prediction on the Democratic primary.

Thank you very much. MS. PERINO: Thanks, Jim. Okay, any others? April. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Pardon? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, according to the Secret Service, there's going to be -- they are soon to come up with the

MS. PERINO: Well, as you just said, the Secret Service is investigating the incident, and as you just said also, they have not completed that investigation. So I am not going to get ahead of them and I'll let them do that. But the President -- could you please put your hand down for a second so I can concentrate on April.

The noose symbol is a symbol that the President has talked about, as you said -- he did it in the East Room. And he was amongst the first to say that it is not a joke, it is taken very seriously, and that is for good reason. In fact, he said, "The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice." The President's position on that has not changed a bit. But I think that it's only appropriate, April, to allow the Secret Service to conduct this investigation unfettered -- with unfettered influence from the White House. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Well, the question -- I mean, right now you can pay for service in south Florida. They may end up having to get service on the island. We have factored that in, but we think that there's -- the cost/benefit on this works to the benefit or works in favor of Cuban civil society and empowering the Cuban people, as opposed to lifting the embargo, which just says, okay, now you go in and be in business with the regime. We see this as a different -- very much a different issue. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But they have -- the Secret Service, especially, particularly an agent, these are very intelligent

MS. PERINO: April, I think that you're -- one, you're trying to get me to comment on an investigation that the U.S. Secret Service is conducting. And it's not appropriate for the White House and the President's spokesperson to be getting themselves involved in an investigation that the U.S. Secret Service is conducting. And I'm sure they are conducting it with integrity and that is what the President would expect. So let me just leave it at that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: I'm not dismissing that. For the time, we're focused on cell phones. I'm not going to get into speculation on other areas, but I'm not saying that there are not other areas. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: As you said, April, this was at a training facility -- okay? And let's just see what -- the investigation comes out. I don't think I've ever heard any complaint about how the U.S. Secret Service has performed in protecting any of the people that they are supposed to protect, from the President to Secretary Rice, and I certainly don't think I've heard any complaints from the Obama campaign. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: At this point we're focused on May 21st -- today. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Okay. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Pardon? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to what -- earlier today in the briefing room that Dan Fisk said that we do believe that they would work. And I think what's important here is that the President is saying, all right, Raul, if you say that you're going to allow people to have cell phones, let's actually really let them have them. As Dan was saying this morning, the average income -- monthly income for a Cuban is $12, and a cell phone is about $120 plus the service plus the activation fee. So they're completely out of reach for the majority of people in Cuba.

What the President wants to do is say, let's call you out on that. If you are serious about allowing people to have a cell phone, let's make sure that they can actually have them and use them. And so that's what we're trying to do here. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Currently under existing rules, nongovernmental organizations now are -- can get a license to provide computers to civil society activists and dissidents on the island. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: What he said -- what Dan said this morning is that included in this change is not only do you allow for the device to be sent, but that American -- Cuban Americans who are living here in America could pay for the service, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: Well, in this case the State Department and the Department of Commerce will work together to change the regulatory structure. It's a federal register; it's not an executive order. Most of the embargo is actually contained in federal regulations. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: As far as I know, from what was said this morning, yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: At this point we're going to continue to look for those areas where we think we can help the Cuban people -- again, not prejudging what those may be. But right now we are focused on the events today, the plight of the Cuban people, and then specifically, how we can enhance their ability to communicate amongst themselves and with the outside world. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm sure that this is all given consideration. And Dan Fisk this morning -- I don't have any other information except for what the expert said this morning, that he believed it would work. Certainly this is something that would have to be taken into consideration in a policy process. I'm sure it was, and I'll see if there's any more I can get for you.

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

MR. FISK: I don't have a complete answer on that. It has to go through a process. My understanding is it's going to -- the change is not effective today, but it will be relatively quick, from what I understand talking to the agencies that are involved. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, this is much more -- let me go back and look at the drafts; they've been moving through the system and I saw an early one earlier in the week. This is really about a slightly -- giving an update on where we are in Iraq, but mostly to thank the troops for their service and to welcome them back. These are troops that are returning on success, so the President will spend a little time with them. In addition to that, the President will spend time at a memorial service with families of the fallen before returning home. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FISK: We're looking at a matter of a couple of weeks. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Let me just take a look. I don't recall from the read that I had two days ago, so I'll take a look. But obviously the President agrees with Director Nussle that the Congress needs to get its work done. They're going to blow past this self-imposed deadline. And there's another one -- there's another recess coming up in between. We don't have very much time for them to get their work done, and the time -- time is of the essence. And Secretary Gates has talked about how urgent the need is.

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

MS. PERINO: Dan -- I'm sorry -- Dan, I think that -- it's not a loosening of the embargo. I think we need to make sure that that's clear. MR. FISK: No, no, I mean, this is, again, this is a case of -- as we have allowed other material support to go to the Cuban people or to activists, this is -- we think this is consistent with that policy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think, remember, that this is a changing of the existing regulations. There's -- the embargo is based on doing business because the regime makes you do business with just the regime, and the money doesn't get passed on to the people who are living in Cuba. There is already an existing regulation -- and I don't have all the details at my fingertips -- that allows for gift parcels to be sent from Cuban Americans to their families back in Cuba. What this did is allow for, if you were putting together a care package, to put a cell phone in it, as well. That has not been allowed before. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: As I understand it, as he just said, it's a change in the already established policy that allows people to send gift parcels to their family; we're allowing now cell phones to be a part of that gift parcel. And we -- despite really annoying cell phone violations, we still think it's a good idea. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: What I just said is -- no, I think it's separate from the embargo. That's how I would describe it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q One other question, too, about the money. In order to get service in Cuba, presumably you have

MS. PERINO: Let me go and back and see how it will work because what -- that doesn't correspond with what Dan said this morning at the gaggle. So I'll go back and find out in terms of where they believe the service is paid for. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, the United States in not participating. This decision was undertaken by Israel. We were not surprised by it, and we do not object to it. We hope that this is a forum to address various concerns we all have with Syria -- Syria's support of terrorism, repression of its own people. And so we will see how this progresses. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, one -- I think if you look at their announcements, one of the things that they said is that they will have to -- that the condition is that they have to loosen their support for Hezbollah and Hamas and to end their terror. I mean, that was not unlike other things we've said before. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Right, and I don't have any other information, so let me go back, and then I'll get back to you.

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

MS. PERINO: I would not put it that way. I think that we'll see how this goes. We appreciate that Turkey is trying to play a constructive role in the discussions, but we do believe that Syrian support needs to end for terrorism, and that includes their intervention in Lebanon. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We'll get back to you as soon as I get back.

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

MS. PERINO: Farm bill, on the timetable for the President -- we do expect the President will veto it at some point today, so let the phone calls to my office begin: "Has he done it yet? Has he done it yet?"

This bill is bloated. It is bad for American taxpayers. And when grocery bills are on the rise, Congress is asking families to pay more in subsidies to wealthy farmers, at a time of record farm profits. We believe that the fact that they wanted to spend more than $20 billion over the current baseline is way too much to ask from taxpayers right now. We think that they hid new spending with timing shifts. There's a report today that one of the provisions in the bill actually would provide even more subsidies to farmers.

And so the President has been clear all along on this bill. We worked hard to try to get to a place where we could sign a farm bill. We were very clear with what our provisions would be, and at the end of the day Congress decided to go in another direction. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We would like -- if you look at the vote count, an override is probably likely, just looking at the raw numbers of it. But I do think that members are going to have to think about how they will explain these votes back in their districts at a time when prices are on the rise. People are not going to want to see their taxes increased for farmers that we believe are already well taken care of in the marketplace. So -- there are also some other interesting pieces of the bill. For example, the increasing government intervention in the sugar markets is something that we strongly object to, amongst other things that you've seen in our statements of administration policy.

So as soon as the President vetoes that bill we will let you know. And in the meantime we'll be continuing to work with members of Congress to explain why the President is going to veto this bill and why he thinks it's a bad deal. And then they'll have to decide when it goes down to a veto vote how they're going to counter their vote.

Anyone else on farm bill? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The decision for Israel to have conversations and discussions with Syria was made by Israel, a sovereign state. They had kept us apprised from the beginning of the initiative, so earlier today I was asked if we were surprised, and no, we were not. We believe that progress toward peace in the region would be certainly welcome. And the President recognizes that it will need to be a comprehensive peace. Israel is going to need to have good relations with their neighbors. So there needs to be good relations between Israel and their Palestinian neighbors, Israel and their Syrian neighbors, and Israel and their Lebanese neighbors. And issues such as Shebaa Farms when it comes to Lebanon are going to have to be resolved if we are going to have a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

What we hope is that this is a forum to address various concerns that we all share about Syria -- the United States, Israelis and many others -- in regards to Syria's support for Hamas and Hezbollah, the training and funding of terrorists that belong to those two organizations. We believe it could help to help us further isolate Iran so that we could get a position where they would verifiably suspend their nuclear enrichment program, so that we could bring them to the table and have conversations about how we integrate them into the international community.

We certainly appreciate the role that Turkey has been willing to play to mediate these discussions. And then Israel will keep us apprised as they are ongoing. I don't have a lot of detail as to all that they're communicating through the Turkish delegation with, but we did know about it. We do believe that we're going to have to have Israel achieve a relationship with their neighbors to the point where they can function as a state and have security in their democracy.

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

MS. PERINO: Sure. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Just one question, since you already had one. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I would say that we were not surprised by the Israeli announcement today. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Scott Stanzel, during Monday's briefing, spoke of the need to expand oil exploration in ANWR, the

MS. PERINO: I don't know -- I'd have to consult Scott Stanzel on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that you dismiss -- I think you need to go back and look at what the Israelis said and what I have just said, which is that we would hope that Syria would end its -- that these talks would result in Syria ending its sponsorship of terrorism. We don't know where this will go. We'll have to see how it progresses.

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

MS. PERINO: I was kidding. There's no room for humor. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Can we make this the last one, because I got to go to the East Room. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Not in this room. (Laughter.) Look, our position on why we need to increase domestic exploration and production here in our own country is well known. It is critical if we are going to send a signal to the world market that we are serious about becoming more self-sufficient in our own country. And concerns about the caribou I believe have been taken into consideration, and that we have demonstrated that we have the technologies to be able to drill in a way that would protect the environment -- not only the natural resources there, but also the caribou. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q With all the criticism that has come within the Republican Party since the special election defeat

MS. PERINO: Aware of it? Let me see if I can reach him in terms of a comment. I think that he is aware of it. He knows that it's really important for Republicans to be running on two main issues: one, being strong on national security and making sure that they get out there and commit to keeping Americans' taxes low. And we've had a -- we have to make sure that we have really good candidates, and make the case for why we should win in November. So I'll see if I can get you more. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: All right, last one, please. Last one. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: They did? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: That's seems like a really large Congress. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I had not heard that. I knew that we had had a significant numbers of flights that have gone in. So let me check with USAID, and we'll have a comment. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, you know, he spoke to Mrs. Kennedy the other day. The other day? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Did he? Okay. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Monday? Yes, the other day. The other day. I don't have a call today. I don't -- I know that Senator Kennedy's Chief of Staff, immediately after the President was informed yesterday -- not coordinated it, but they called separately and on their own called the Chief of Staff's office to make sure that the Chief of Staff could tell the President to make sure that he was aware. And so the President, as he said, was visibly saddened by it. He's deeply saddened by the news. And we'll see if I can get you anything more regarding either a phone call or a on-camera statement for you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.