Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Hi. I don't have anything to start with. Sorry I'm late. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think let's see how the meeting goes. We don't believe that the Mugabe regime is a legitimate government. We think that because they ran a sham election last week, in which they intimidated every voter who would have voted against Mugabe, that the African leaders had an opportunity at this week's meeting to really dig into these issues. Because one of the single greatest challenges of regional instability in southern Africa is Zimbabwe. And let's just see how the meeting goes.

I think that they do understand -- a lot of those leaders in Africa understand and did speak out before the sham election. So I think we should let the meeting take place and see what happens.

I do think that it is unfortunate that the Mugabe -- Mugabe's actions has cast a negative light on some really good democratic leaders in Africa. I don't want them all to be painted with the same brush, because I do think that there are many of them who are working very hard to institute democratic reforms in their own way, commensurate with their culture and their traditions and their history.

And so I think that we will continue to put the pressure on. In the meantime, regardless of what happens at that African Union meeting, President Bush has instructed the Secretaries of State and Treasury to develop sanctions against the regime and we will be working on those. Those sanctions could also go against those who support the regime. So as Secretaries Rice and Paulson work on those, we'll continue to keep you updated. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: They could be. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We will press for strong action by the United Nations, but we could also act unilaterally. It could come in multiple ways. Obviously sanctions work best when there are multiple parties working in concert, like we are with the European Union when it comes to getting Iran to halt its uranium enrichment so that we can have talks with them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that we'll have to see. I don't know if that's necessarily clear. What we would like is for people, first and foremost, to feel safe in their own country and to let their voices be heard. I know that down in the area there's conversation about a possible power-sharing agreement. I don't know a lot about that; I think that it's a little bit too early to say. But first and foremost, we want people to feel safe in their own country.

More on Zimbabwe? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: I think that the President has taken a very firm stand on it. He's working -- he pushed very hard last week for the U.N. Security Council to put forward a president's statement, which has to -- which requires a unanimous consent by all 15 parties, including the South African leader. And then he called for the Secretaries of State and Treasury to work on sanctions against the regime and those who support it. And we will continue to press on it. The President is very interested in what's going to happen in the area. And I think that the African leaders, knowing that there is a huge problem of instability in their region casts a pall on all of them, and so I think that they'll have incentive to work for it to make something happen. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think -- I'm just not going to speculate on any such action. I don't know of any that's being contemplated.

I'm going to go back to April, because she had one, too, on this. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, as you're talking about these stiff sanctions, possibility of stiff sanctions on Zimbabwe

MS. PERINO: Well, again, I think that sanctions would be targeted to the leader and his cronies and then those who support the regime. But what we will continue to do is continue to provide food assistance to more than 1 million people, and then AIDS -- HIV/AIDS treatment to more than 40,000 people there in Zimbabwe who need that treatment. We'll continue to do that -- and I believe that the NGOs were allowed to go back in and to try to help feed those people; that happened I think a couple of weeks ago. But we're going to keep a close eye on it and we'll try to make sure that no one suffers humanitarianly [sic].

But this is also -- I mean, this is something that the leader of Zimbabwe -- now the discredited leader of Zimbabwe -- has done to his own country. And he's led them to this so that -- whereas this was a country that was a shining jewel in Africa, one that was going -- that was able to export food, it was the breadbasket of Africa, is now one that is one of the most impoverished nations. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm not sure President Bush has. I know Secretary Rice had been in contact with all of the leaders on the Security Council in order to make sure that presidents' statement went out. And Jendayi Frazer is still in the region and working on it.

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

MS. PERINO: It would be impossible for me to quantify. I don't know, Les. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Does the White House believe that in the United States there have ever been as many demonstrations

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that any time anyone -- any time there is suffering or people aren't allowed to live free as everybody is guaranteed the right to under God, as the President has said, that that should be condemned. I'm not going to comment as to how many protests there are against a regime. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm going to move on, Les. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm going to move on. Olivier. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can I just clarify a couple of things? One, when you talked about targeted sanctions against the

MS. PERINO: It could be, it's too early to speculate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, I think actually what I mean is I -- a lot of African nations -- Tanzania, for example -- have moved quite far forward in their democratic reforms. And unfortunately because of the way the world works -- this is not a criticism of the media -- but negative stories get attention and the stories about progress and the good work that people are doing in order to help their populations don't necessarily get the attention that they deserve. And so I just think that people would hear a lot more about the negative actions in Zimbabwe than they would about the positives in other countries and that that would be unfortunate.

Last one for you, April, and then I'll go -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay. Back on the sanctions, the British government has sanctions to include the fact that many

MS. PERINO: Travel bans are certainly possible. I don't know about the UK's specific sanctions, but travel bans are certainly a part of something that would be in the mix of consideration, and that would be something that the Secretary of State's office would institute.

I'm going to go back over here -- can I go to Sheryl -- okay, Sheryl. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, when Kenya had a political crisis the President sent Condi Rice to support efforts by Kofi

MS. PERINO: Could be; I'm not positive and I'll have to -- you know, we can check with the State Department or you can check with the State Department to see if that's something that they're thinking of. But I know Jendayi Frazer, who the President relies on greatly to help, such as she did in Kenya -- when we were there on our trip it was Secretary Rice that went with Jendayi to Kenya, as you know. I'll see; I just don't of anything in the works. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We'll have to see. I think that also it depends also on -- I think you're dealing with very different leaders in very different circumstances. I don't think you can apply the situation in Kenya directly to the situation in Zimbabwe; I think they're quite different in many regards. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I guess I might ask if you'd please take it -- last night, CBS "60 Minutes" had a horrific feature

MS. PERINO: Well, this is something that the President has raised with Prime Minister Maliki and our Ambassador is certainly aware of it. The President also spoke about it with the Pope in both of his meetings this year. So it is something that the President gets regularly updated on. He's concerned about it and he thinks that everybody should be allowed to worship freely. And he believes that Prime Minister Maliki agrees with him in that regard -- whether you're Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jew or otherwise -- that everybody should be allowed to worship freely and be free from persecution.

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

MS. PERINO: I don't know if I would put it that way, and I don't have the words right in front of me. But I was there, I think what the President -- a question was asked was, why did you ask Congress to move first, before just go ahead and taking unilateral action.

One of the things the President reminded them is that there's two moratoriums and you need both of them to be lifted before there could be any drilling in the offshore area. So he said that he's asking Congress to move and that he would work in concert with them and lift his at the same time so that there would be incentive to get it done at the same time. So I think that was more along the lines of what he said. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think -- in those exact words, I'm not exactly sure how he put it. But there was lots of different -- you could have done this lots of different ways. You could have lifted it first; you could have said, Congress lift it first; you could have said, let's do it at the exact same time together. And I think that because we've seen this Congress under the Democratic leaders constantly shove and push away any ideas on domestic exploration and production, that the President believes that first and foremost the onus should be on the Democratic leaders to allow for a vote to come up so that we could lift that moratorium and we can explore in environmentally safe ways oil on our -- off our own shores. He's prepared to lift his moratorium as well, but he thinks that if he does it alone and Congress doesn't act then nothing is going to happen, there's not going to be any change.

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

MS. PERINO: I couldn't comment either way, and I haven't on that story that was in The New Yorker. So I couldn't comment.

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

Q The President today when he signed the war supplemental basically ended a two-year fight with the

MS. PERINO: I think what this -- yes, the President believes that today in signing this war supplemental that provided our troops what they need in order to carry out the jobs they've been asked to do was significant. And the policy of making sure that the President of the United States, whoever it is, the Commander-in-Chief, is able to work with his commanders on the ground and make recommendations on troop levels and troop movements based on those recommendations is something that the President welcomes.

He thinks that that's the way that it should be, that Congress should not try to tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief or the generals when it comes to the war. And I think that because we have seen success in the surge, perhaps Congress decided that it was okay to allow the Commander-in-Chief to be able to move forward as he saw fit.

And I would say that, yes, it's a victory, but we have -- we're going to need more resources in the future. And this was a long, drawn-out fight with the Congress when it came to the spending. But the other part of it that's a victory, Wendell, is the supplemental came in at the same number that the President asked for. It was a slightly different look at the pie, but it was the same size pie. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But in that pie there was more money than the President wanted to spend for the GI Bill; it included

MS. PERINO: I don't think -- look, that's not the way a negotiation or a compromise works. First and foremost, the President wanted, on the policy side of things, transferability, for any member of the military to be able to transfer his GI benefits to his children -- his or her children, or their spouses. That's one of the things the President brought up in the State of the Union. He's heard over and over again -- you ask the military, what's one of the things that you need, and they ask for that transferability.

The original proposal that came out of the Senate did not include transferability. So while the number might have been slightly higher than what the President originally thought of, the fact that it included transferability was something that the President thought was a key win, and he was very happy to sign the bill today.

And in addition to that, when it comes to the unemployment benefits, obviously we're going through a time of continued economic uncertainty. There's been a slowdown; there are many people looking for a job that haven't been able to find one. Thankfully, our unemployment rates have not been as high as in the past, and so we don't think that we need to do this as aggressively, in terms of extending unemployment insurance benefits, because the original proposal from the Democrats was for a 20-week -- 26-week extension. The bill the President signed today includes a 13-week extension. So I think that it's a very fair compromise.

Toby, did you have another one? Go ahead. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q U.S. forces in Iraq reportedly killed a relative of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during

MS. PERINO: I think you'll need to call MNFI. I don't have any information on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

Q Two quick questions. As far as the situation in Afghanistan is concerned, Afghanistan's Attorney

MS. PERINO: What's your question, Goyal? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Do you want me to answer the Afghanistan question first or the Pakistan question? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Okay. Here's the thing. In Afghanistan, one of the things -- in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in other places, one of the things that we have to do as the United States and as part of NATO is help build the institutions that will help make law and order something that everybody can count on. And that's one of the things that we'll continue to work with, in terms of Afghanistan.

They're starting at a very different place than many other countries. They're starting from ground zero, and it's going to take a long time to build up the institutions. And when it comes to the FATA region, obviously we have devoted resources over the years, significant resources, in order to help build up capacity for the security forces, but as well as economic development and political reconciliation and helping to try to bring those tribal chiefs together. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: As I said last week, I didn't have any information on it. There might be an idea floating around the State Department, but nothing concrete.

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

Q Dana, before leaving on the 4th of July recess, the Senate confirmed 29 non-career nominees, including

MS. PERINO: Well, Congress has a short amount of time when they get back in order to get some more things done. And one of them has to be following through on more of these nominations. Obviously, there are the non-political career and military appointments that the President would like to see put to a vote; done quickly. These people have had their lives on hold. Many of them don't know where their children are going to go to school. We're already -- we're almost in July, as of tomorrow. So yes, that's first and foremost a priority.

But when it comes to judges, this Congress has really dragged its feet. And they said that they would be able to confirm a certain number of judges a month, and they really fell behind on that. And I don't know if they'll be able to make up for lost time, but we certainly think that our judges need to be confirmed, especially because people who are out in America and want their day in court are, in many places, waiting for months, if not years, in order to actually get that day. And in Michigan, we were just now able for the first time in the President's seven-and-a-half years, to seat a full bench in the 6th Circuit up in Michigan. So it's not a good reflection on how the Senate has been managed over the past couple of years. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Elaine is the last one. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q On al Qaeda, this morning you were talking about the hunt for al Qaeda. The President, of course

MS. PERINO: I think Senator Lieberman, unfortunately, could be right. And the only reason I say that is because we know that there are people who are very dangerous who are trying to attack us every day. The President has been looking for Osama bin Laden since September 12th. That effort has never let up. And we are dealing with a very -- very dangerous terrain, difficult physical environment, very secretive people hiding in caves, an enemy that respects no uniform, respects no civilians, just absolutely wants to destruction. And the President has said that whenever and whenever -- whenever and wherever we get actionable intelligence, we will take action to make sure that they're brought to justice.

Now, when it comes to being the number three in al Qaeda, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, or al-Libi, those people have had a tough time of it. We've been able to track them down. And all the other work we've done in attacking senior leadership within al Qaeda has helped us prevent attacks in America. But the reason I say it's unfortunate that Senator Lieberman could be right is that with all these people -- terrorists -- plotting to kill innocent people, not just in America but elsewhere, amongst our allies, or even innocent Muslims like we've seen in Iraq and elsewhere -- they only have to be right once. And we have to be right all the time.

And not only is it important we go after them, but we also help provide an alternative vision. Like I was saying this morning, we try to help establish a better economic environment, or a better political environment so that people can have hope in an alternative vision in these areas, such as in the FATA region in Pakistan or elsewhere.

And so he could be right, but we're doing everything we can to prevent it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Good morning. I think you probably all heard the President's statement this morning about developments in the six-party talks involving the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. I wanted to provide a little more detail on some of the things that the President talked about, and then I'd be delighted to answer questions.

First, let me talk a little bit about what the North Korea -- North Korea has done, and this really involves implementing a series of agreements that began in September of '05, a follow-on and more refinement in February of '07, then again in October of '07, and in the first and second phase of the process outlined in those documents.

North Korea was to disable its nuclear facilities, beginning with the plutonium facilities at Yongbyon. And that process is coming along pretty well and pretty far along. That process has been overseen by representatives of the six-party talks. The United States has been very much involved with support as we go forward with the IAEA. And that process continues.

The second thing that North Korea was to do in the so-called second phase was to declare its nuclear activity. And what provoked, of course, the President's statement this morning was that the North Koreans did provide to the Chinese, who have been the convener, if you will, of this six-party effort, their declaration. This will describe their nuclear activity. It is a good first step in getting the kind of disclosure and transparency into North Korea's nuclear activities as part of and a step towards their disablement, dismantlement and termination of those activities.

The North Koreans, as part of that process, have indicated that the six-party representatives will have access to their facilities, including the reactor core, including waste sites. They will make available documents, records, operating manuals and the like -- they've already made available over 19,000 pages of documents -- and that the six parties will have access to personnel involved in their nuclear programs.

This is important because it is part of this process to be able to verify the declaration that the North Koreans have filed. And I want to emphasize, this is not something that's being imposed on the North Koreans. They have agreed to this process, and they have agreed to make available the things that I've described. And we are looking for, in the next days ahead, to the six parties agreeing on verification principles, a verification protocol, and to the monitoring mechanism that will oversee this process. And we expect these things to be in place in the next 45 days.

Now, the premise of these documents I described in this six-party process has been, as the President said, action for action. And in these prior agreements, the six parties committed that if North Korea would take these steps in Phase Two, then the United States would take two actions: One, there would -- and these are the actions that the President announced this morning -- one is a proclamation that lifts the Trading with the Enemy Act as it applies to North Korea. And I want to come back to that and describe a little bit what that means. And secondly, the President was committed and did today notify the Congress of his intent to lift North Korea's status as a state sponsor of terror within the next 45 days.

In addition, part of this Phase Two has also been the delivery of fuel oil or the economic equivalent. That is something that was committed to -- fuel oil to North Korea -- and that obligation is being carried out.

In terms of the lifting of the status of North Korea under the Trading with the Enemies Act, it has the following consequences. There are certain -- really, three categories of sanctions that are in place in part because of this legislation that will be lifted. They involve some requirements of licensing for Americans who want to import goods from North Korea into the United States; there are some provisions that affect U.S. persons participating in shipments of third countries to North Korea; and finally there are some prohibitions with respect to certain financial transfers by the North Korean government.

These will expire so far as they look to the Trading with the Enemies Act as the statutory basis for their being imposed, and these will be lifted.

There are two other prohibitions that result from North Korea being on the Trading with the Enemies Act that are going to be kept in place by an executive order that the President also signed today, and these involve the interaction of U.S. persons with ships that are flagged under the North Korean flag, and secondly the freezing of certain kind of assets that were first frozen in 2000.

So these are symbolic acts -- that is to say, getting North Korea off the Trading with the Enemies Act, and also the prospect of lifting their status under the state support to terror. They have some consequences in terms of easing sanctions. I will tell you, and the North Koreans understand, that the degree of easing of sanctions is relatively minor. North Korea remains one of the most sanctioned regimes not only by U.S. bilateral sanctions, but also under the U.N. Security Council resolution 1718, and actions taken by other countries.

The prospect for North Korea, of course, is this is in response to the actions they are taking, and the prospect that as they take further actions to carry out the commitments they made in September of '05, then sanctions will lift, and some benefits will start coming to North Korea, such as the fuel oil that was part of Phase Two.

We appreciate the declaration, obviously, that North Korea has provided to China today, and that will be ultimately circulated to the six parties. That said, we have some concerns that will be addressed as part of this verification and monitoring process that we talked about today.

One of those, of course, is just exactly how much plutonium has North Korea produced, and the access to records and personnels and to sites that the North Koreans have said the six parties will have will help answer that question, because understanding how much plutonium North Korea has produced, of course, is the step to ultimately having that plutonium removed from North Korea as part of the denuclearization of the Peninsula to which North Korea has agreed.

Secondly, there's concerns about the uranium enrichment program. This was something that was really discovered in 2001-2002 time frame. The North Koreans initially affirmed the program; they subsequently denied it. They have basically said that they are not now engaged in any enrichment activities, and they will not be engaging in uranium enrichment activities in the future.

That said, our intelligence community has some concerns about their past activities and has some concerns about potentially ongoing activities. And we have been learning more about these potential activities, as part of this six-party process. That's one of the things that has been useful about it. And the second thing is that it provides a framework for us to be able to pursue these concerns with North Korea and to get to the bottom of this issue of the uranium enrichment program, because it would be one of the programs that North Korea has agreed to end as part of the six-party process -- because, remember, it is a denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and the ending of all nuclear programs and activities by North Korea. That's what North Korea has agreed to; that's what this process is about.

Obviously we're concerned about their proliferation activities. Everybody knows about the activity with respect to Syria and North Korea assistance in building a nuclear reactor in Syria. We want to get to the bottom of that so we understand what that activity was to make sure there is not continuing activity going on between North Korea and Syria, or activity with respect to other locations as well.

And that is why, of course, the verification and monitoring regime that we talked about -- the verification and monitoring protocol is so important, and we believe it will -- using the access that North Korea has agreed to give us, will allow us over time to get to the bottom of these questions. But I want to emphasize the "over time." This is a process. It is going to take time. This is an important step today. I think it marks some real progress in this process that we have had -- not had before, but as the President emphasized, it needs to be followed by a series of other steps. And this is going to take some time.

So a good day. More to do. And I'd be delighted to answer any questions. Terry. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Could you clarify -- does North Korea come clean about its cooperation with Syria on its nuclear

MR. HADLEY: Right. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: What they -- the accounting they have given is, we are not now engaged in any enrichment program or any proliferation activities and will -- we will not in the future. But, of course, part of being able to confirm that they're not now engaging in these activities is to be able to understand what they did in the past, because that is the only way we can be able to say we understand what was done in the past, we have seen that being wound down, and we therefore have confidence that they are not undergoing that activity.

So the declaration they've made, what the disclosure they made is, we're not engaged in this activity now, will not engage it in the future. We've made it very clear in this process and in the documents that constitute the declaration, that we have concerns about their past activities in Syria and in the enrichment area, and that raises questions about whether they have, in fact, are engaging in none of that activity today.

We've made those concerns clear. The North Koreans acknowledge those concerns. They know we are going to want to be pursuing them in this six-party process, and that's, of course, what is ahead of us.

You had a second part -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: They do. They don't say it in terms of number of bombs. That is something that is a so-called Phase Three issue that we will get to, the process by identifying and moving the plutonium out of the country, whether in bomb form or not. What they agreed to do, and what they do in the declaration, is say how many kilograms of plutonium their activities to date have produced. And one of the things, of course, we want to do is to be able to verify the accuracy of that number, and the North Koreans have, as I said, made very clear that they will give us the access to the facilities and documents, the persons that will hopefully allow us to do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Yes, it's pretty easy to do the math, because we generally know -- have some sense of the weapons that they tested, generally know what kind of plutonium -- how much plutonium is required to make a nuclear device. So it's a good starting point, but obviously we have more to do.

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

MR. HADLEY: Well, addressed in the sense, Bill, of they say they're not engaged in these activities now and won't in the future. They also have acknowledged in writing that we have raised concerns about their enrichment activities in the past and their actions with respect to Syria. And they have, as you've noticed, have not been out publicly denying that -- or discounting these concerns. So we're in a situation of not quite admitting, not denying, but opening the door for us to be able to try and get greater clarity. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Well, we will see. We've made it clear that in order for this process to go forward, which has further obligations by them, but also further benefits for them in terms of ultimately moving to normalization of relations and the like, we've made it very clear that for us to move forward, we are going to need to be able to get to the bottom of these issues with respect to plutonium enrichment and proliferation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Well, we've -- they've set up a process; they've said we will have access. We've said we were going to be making the questions, and that we need to get answers and be satisfied or we aren't going to be able to move forward. It's pretty clear.

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

Q Secretary Rice said that the U.S. has the information to verify the dismantlement of the nuclear

MR. HADLEY: Yes. Yes. This is a very closed regime. And part of this process is to see if we can get this regime to open up with respect to the nuclear issues. And our hope, of course, is that -- and it's in the September '05 document -- that the opening up that we hope the regime will do on the nuclear issues in order for us to get satisfaction on these three issues will be part of a gradual process of opening this regime, because we think that is the way, ultimately, we're going to be able to do something which is something all of us would like to do, and that the President talked about today -- have this regime open up and provide a better life to their people. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Yes, there is a monitoring mechanism, and we have the commitments from the North Koreans for the kind of access that I described. One of the things, for example, that will be very important is to get a better understanding of their uranium ore and processing activities up front, how much uranium ore were they able to pull out of the ground, because that will tell you how much they might have had available for proliferation for a plutonium program, for an enrichment program, and potentially, proliferation overseas, which, of course, would be extremely troubling.

The thing that will be difficult to get our hands around is other arrangements like they had with Syria, other facilities either in Syria that we have suspicions about, perhaps, or other facilities and patterns of cooperation with other countries. That's why access to the people involved in the nuclear program is going to be very important, because in the end of the day, those are programs driven less by material and more by brains, and brains are in the hands of their people. And so that's why we think access to their personnel is going to be very important.

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

Q Once the Trading with the Enemy Act provisions are lifted and North Korea is removed from the terrorism

MR. HADLEY: Right. At this phase, very little, very little. There are all kinds of reasons why, for most companies, North Korea is not particularly attractive at this point in time. And secondly, there are a whole series of sanctions that are in place because of North Korean human rights activity, because of their 2006 nuclear tests, because of their proliferation activities of various sorts. So, this is not opening the door, at this point in time, for commercial relations.

Now, as we move forward in implementing the September '05 agreement, and as this process moves into later phases, that is one of the prospects that is open. But in terms of economic benefits now, substantial economic benefits, relaxation of trading, we're too early in this process at this point. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I think it is symbolic. I think, for the North Koreans, I think it is important to them not to be on a list that says "enemies," and not to be on a list as supporters of terror. And that's what they asked for, and we've said, again, in terms of this step-by-step process, action for action, if they took these actions, we would take the action that the President took today.

Steven Lee. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q How many kilograms did they declare in their thing? And do you believe that that's a complete

MR. HADLEY: One, I have not seen the declaration. It is going to be released by the Chinese today. It is, so far as I know, not yet back in Washington. I know what they have talked about, and it is a number that is in -- within the range of our intelligence community, but our intelligence community does have a range. And one of the things we will be trying to do is to be able, with this process, to narrow that range to get to the point where we think, yes, they've -- where we want to be is, yes, we think with pretty good confidence they've disclosed all the plutonium they produced.

I think one of the things we did in this process, to be honest, is I think we learned a bit. I think what we learned was the notion that they could, in December, provide a document which on its face would be so compelling that we could say it's complete and correct, no further work required, was probably unrealistic. And that is why we have emphasized, and have worked with our six parties and with the North Koreans -- I want to emphasize that -- this has been a cooperative process. This is not something we're imposing on the North Koreans, it is something that they have agreed to and will be part of in the six-party process.

What we really needed to have is a declaration that is verifiable, that will allow us in a process of verification and monitoring to gain confidence over time that what they've told us is true. And I think we signed on for a two-dimensional process, and I think we learned over time we need a three-dimensional process that's going to take place over time.

The second thing I would say on that is we also want to -- while that process goes forward, and assuming the North Koreans participated in good faith -- we also want to be able to move forward in the process of moving from disablement to dismantlement, and ultimately getting the plutonium, whether in weapons form or otherwise, corralled and given up in some form, because, again, that's what the North Koreans agreed to in September of '05.

Yes, ma'am. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Two questions. The President this morning in his remarks said that if North Korea makes the wrong

MR. HADLEY: The six-party framework in which we have been operating has always had two heads to it, sort of a Janus face. One is, when the North Koreans are willing to cooperate and to negotiate, it is a forum for negotiation. But in those periods over this process where they have stepped away from the negotiations, it has also been a forum for coordinating pressure on North Korea. And it's really been from the very beginning this notion that North Korea has a strategic choice to make: If it cooperates, carries forth on its commitments, then it has the prospect for improving its relations with the international community, ultimately normalization of relations, economic benefits, trades, and all the rest. But if they make the other choice of confrontation and being unwilling to carry out their obligations, then there will be consequences.

To the extent applicable, and to the extent we can do it legally, we would reimpose past sanctions. We would also have the option to get additional sanctions. But it, again, would not be just the United States; it would be all the countries of the six-party talks, and both acting individually, but also with respect to U.N. Security Council sanctions, because, as you know, there is -- Resolution 1718 authorizes such sanctions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: We largely are.

Yes, ma'am. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Steve, how does this compare to the deal the North Koreans made in the last months of the Clinton

MR. HADLEY: I don't think so. This has been a pretty ongoing process. Let me say a little bit about the -- this is the '94 framework agreement under the prior administration. I would say that was a good-faith effort to deal with this problem, and -- but it went awry. And unbeknownst to that administration, while they were moving forward under the framework agreement to deal with North Korea's plutonium program we discovered North Korea was pursuing a uranium enrichment program, which is one of two paths to get the nuclear material you need for a bomb, either through the plutonium path, uranium enrichment.

The '94 agreement assumed and thought it had agreement by North Koreans to give up both paths. The only one that was known at the time was the plutonium path. And unbeknownst to the administration, while they were moving on the -- to implement that agreement, North Korea was pursuing an enrichment program.

We confronted them with it in 2002. They, as I mentioned earlier, initially acknowledged and then subsequently denied. In any event, they walked out of the six-party framework.

So what we tried to do was learn the lessons from that effort to try and do it better this time. That's what we would -- you would expect us to do. And there are really three or four things we learned. One is that the bilateral relationship was not going to have enough weight to get this job done; that if you were going to get North Korea to make the decision to give up its nuclear programs, you were going to need to have coordinated effort, both diplomacy and potentially sanctions, from all those countries on which North Korea depends. And that's why we went into the multilateral framework involving China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.

Secondly, we learned a little bit about how to structure the negotiations. There were considerable benefits that North Korea was going to get up front, in terms of the financing and construction of a light water reactor, really before they moved into dismantling their nuclear infrastructure. And we thought that, in the end of the day, did not work out. And that's why we have this action for action, as -- rather than give them benefits on the expectation they will carry out their commitments, we got the commitments up front, and asked them as they carried out their commitments, then they would get some benefits -- initially lifting of sanctions over time and increasing benefits over time.

Third, that agreement was premised on a freeze during the period that the light water reactor was going to be constructed. The problem with a freeze, of course, is that it's just a freeze. And when the North Koreans walked out of the framework agreement in 2002-2003, it was a few months before they were back in the business of producing plutonium.

So that's why we called, in the first and second phases, for a disablement, which is ongoing, which we -- our objective has been that if the process breaks down, it would take at least a year for them to get back into the business. But it was also disablement on the road to and in contemplation of dismantlement, and that's what we want to get to, not have a long phase -- certainly not a freeze, but even a long phase of disablement before you get into the dismantlement process.

So this is not a criticism. The '94 agreement was a good-faith effort. Unfortunately, the North Koreans did not want it to succeed. We have tried to learn from that. We think we have constructed a better framework that has been more effective, and that is what we will hand over to the next administration, and hopefully they will be in a position to continue this.

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

Q What is your response to criticism that, in effect, a term paper is being accepted that isn't complete

MR. HADLEY: Well, I think the most serious issues are front and center. Because, remember, as best we can understand, it is the plutonium program that produced plutonium that was in the weapons that North Korea tested in 2006. And it is the plutonium infrastructure that can, if it is not dismantled, churn out additional nuclear materials for nuclear weapons. So we think getting our hands around that program, knowing exactly how much plutonium was produced, getting that at some point given up, or as we say, abandoned by the North Koreans, and getting that infrastructure disabled and dismantled is the most immediate source of nuclear material for North Korea and the most threatening source.

So we think that's a priority. But at the same time, we have recognized that we do have a declaration by the North Koreans on these other items -- that is to say their assertions that they're not engaged in either proliferation or uranium activity and will not in the future. But we also have a mechanism that will allow us to get satisfaction, we hope, over time, of the concerns we have.

So this is not accepting a passing grade. In some sense it is we're passing the paper back and asking the student to come in and work with us cooperatively to resolve the questions we have about their draft. That's what we're trying to do.

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

MR. HADLEY: No, the statutory requirement is that in the prior six months the country engaged in support to terrorist activity, defined as activities by individuals or groups that is a terrorist incident. And we do not have any evidence, and it is the -- and this is -- we've taken a look at this question in terms of our own intelligence -- we do not have any evidence that North Korea has engaged in that kind of support.

So, by the book, in terms of the statutory language, they are entitled to get off that list. It is not a concession that we've made, or a determination we made for other political reasons. This was done by the book. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Well, one of the things he said in his statement this afternoon is we have a lot of problems with North Korea. We have problems about how they treat their own people. This is a country that is -- where the people are in difficult straits. And as you know, we've entered into arrangement to provide food assistance, and we think it's a good thing that North Korea has worked with us so we can provide that assistance. We've been very concerned about human rights in North Korea, the lack of freedoms by the people in North Korea. We're obviously concerned about their nuclear activities. We're concerned about their ballistic missile activities. We're concerned about the threat they potentially pose to their neighbors because of their ballistic missiles and because the large conventional forces they make.

So we have a long agenda with North Korea. And as the President made clear today, we are in the process of addressing the nuclear issue, but before we can have the kind of relationships we would like with North Korea, and like with the North Korean people, these other issues are going to have to be addressed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can you just shed a little more light on the level of plutonium production? And you mentioned

MR. HADLEY: I don't -- I'm not sure we've declassified that, so I can't give it to you. And let me be clear this way: We think you can get a sense of the number of weapons, but the big point is we want to understand the amount of plutonium and have a process by which that plutonium is taken out of circulation.

If you know you got all of the plutonium and you have a process by which it's all going to be brought forward and taken out of circulation, in a way, how much of that was actually in bombs and how much of it was still on the staff -- shelf, in a way, is less important so long as you know you're getting all of it. And that's the point. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

Q Two questions. One, what happens if, over the next, say, 45 days, you are dissatisfied with what

MR. HADLEY: Well, part of it is that we're not resting on hope or faith. We're asking for disclosures and a process of monitoring and a verification protocol which will allow us to be able to judge the truth and completeness of those answers. So we're not depending on faith. Second of all, this -- and that is, of course, what we hope will be the vehicle for truth.

And secondly, you have to ask yourself, what are the alternatives to this process? If your goal is to denuclearize the nuclear -- the Korean Peninsula and to try to do it in a framework that over time gives you opportunities to address the other threats that North Korea poses to its neighbors, you know, what's the alternative to this Korean program? And we took a look at whether there were alternatives that offered the prospect of getting progress on these accounts.

As the President said today, we concluded -- he concluded -- that multilateral diplomacy that is tough-minded, that is action for action, that is not based on faith but has a process available for monitoring and verification, offers the best prospect of dealing with this problem. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Well, what the President said clearly is that we obviously have -- we'll be watching what North Korea does in the next 45 days. We'll be monitoring their activity. One of the -- our real priority is to get the verification principles and the verification protocol in place in this 45 days, and actually get some steps underway. We are hopeful that that can happen in that 45-day period.

And as the President said to you, we'll sort of look and see where we are in 45 days. Our expectation is that we will move forward, we will make the progress, and that he will be able to, in 45 days, go ahead and -- the process for finally lifting the status as a state sponsor of terror will go forward.

But again, he has this 45-day period and he's made very clear that we will be watching and we will be working very hard with our others in six-party talks to get this verification protocol and framework in place.

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

Q Steve, inevitably this process, this announcement, along with the Middle East peace talks, will

MR. HADLEY: I don't think we see it in that framework, partly because we see, and the President sees, what he did in Iraq in very much as a -- in a multilateral context. It was actually action taken to enforce 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, one of which said there will be serious consequences if Saddam Hussein did not disclose the truth about his nuclear and other activities. It did not address terrorism, did not address the treatment of his own people, did not address the threat he posed to his neighbors. So we went through, I think, 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, and we had the support of most of the European countries, but not all, and had a coalition of well over 30 nations, many of whom are still with us in Iraq.

So I think the point is we have tried to use the multilateral instrument, but it's also been clear that if multilateral diplomacy works -- is going to work -- there has to be consequences if countries do not go along with the will of the international community. That was something we saw in Iraq, and that is something we see in the six-party talks in terms of the willingness of the six to move to a sanctions mode if North Korea decides to elect for confrontation rather than cooperation with the international community. MS. PERINO: I think we should just take one or two more. MR. HADLEY: One or two more.

Terry, did you have a follow-up? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Hello. One announcement for you. Tomorrow President Bush will deliver remarks at the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives National Conference. During his speech he will highlight the Initiative's record of helping millions in need across the country and around the world. We are working on getting you excerpts that will be released later this afternoon. I have two, though, that I can give you now.

One, he will specifically say on the philosophy behind the Faith-Based and Community Initiative the following: We followed a principle rooted both in our Constitution and the best traditions of our nation. Government should never fund the teaching of faith, but it should support the good works of the faithful.

And then on government support for faith-based and community groups, the President will say: Putting hope in people's hearts is the mission of our nation's faith-based and community groups. Groups like yours know that you are only as good as your results. It does not matter if there is a crescent on your group's wall, a rabbi on your group's board, or Christ in your group's name. If your organization puts medicine in people's hands, food in people's mouths, or a roof over people's heads, then you are succeeding, and the government should support your work.

And as I said, those excerpts will be released later this afternoon. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I didn't -- I haven't seen the President to be able to talk to him, and the federal government did not have a brief in this case. And so I'm not able to really give you a specific reaction. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We can try, but I think it's important to note that the federal government has not weighed in or briefed on this case. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Has the President ever considered an executive order that would ban torture specifically? There

MS. PERINO: Well, we certainly respect the views of George Shultz. And one thing I would point to is that we have a set of laws that have been passed during this administration, and an executive order, in fact. There was the Detainee Treatment Act, there was the Military Commissions Act, and then there was the President's executive order interpreting Common Article 3.

So we feel like we have taken steps to address that issue. And I would also point out that we face a very different enemy today than America has ever faced before. We face an enemy that respects no borders, respects no uniforms, and certainly has no regard for civilians, especially innocent women and children and the elderly. So we take his position seriously, but we do think that we have the mechanisms in place to address the issue. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, the Queen of England has stripped Robert Mugabe of his knighthood and I think people in this

MS. PERINO: I think what you will see, and what the President will talk about today with the U.N. Security Council permanent representatives -- who he's going to meet with in just a couple of hours -- that this is an issue where the whole world needs to be speaking in a unified way and which they can work together to bring pressure to bear. And it's really important -- the President has pointed out how important it is that, increasingly, the African leaders have banded together to put pressure on the Mugabe regime.

So it's not just across a continent or across an ocean -- that the Queen of England or the President of the United States are speaking individually; that there is a chorus of voices who are unified saying that the blame for the situation that we have in Zimbabwe, which is deplorable, can be squarely laid at the feet of the Mugabe regime. And we have called for an end to the violence, and the U.N. Security Council will continue to talk about this. We are working to make sure that it remains firmly on the agenda so that people just don't forget about what's happened down there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: If you're asking me about military action, I don't know of any plans of that sort. But what I can tell you is that increasingly African leaders are pushing. And in fact, this weekend, President Kikwete of Tanzania, who chairs the African Union this year, is going to be having a conference this weekend in order to talk about several of the issues facing sub-Saharan Africa, and one of them, the priority agenda item, is what's happening in Zimbabwe. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I just said, if you're asking me in terms of military plans right now -- I didn't say it's not an option, but I'm not saying it is an option. I don't want you to read anything into my comments, Jim. You're leading me down a path that -- you're trying to get me to say something that is not something I know is being contemplated right now by the United States or anyone else. So I think what I would leave it at is that the President is working with the U.N. Security Council to speak with one voice, to bring pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime.

And I think that because you have African leaders increasingly pushing, that sounds a little bit different than just countries like the United States or the United Kingdom making comments. But if your neighbors are also making such demands, then you might have a different reaction, and we hope that that's true. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, they continue to work on it, and I couldn't put odds on it either way. But we continue to work on it. We think that it's critically important that we have some sort of mechanism to -- legal mechanism to make sure that our forces can operate legally there. So they had a good conversation about it, and obviously the negotiators continue to work on the issue. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, I don't think -- no, I don't -- the negotiators are getting into the details.

Go ahead, David. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Thanks, Dana. I heard reports today that say that there is pressure coming from Israeli officials

MS. PERINO: This is a rumor that I hear quite a lot from reporters being brought to us. And what I can tell you is that President Bush believes that we can solve this issue diplomatically, and that everyone's preference is to solve it diplomatically, not just here in the United States, but with our allies and certainly with Israel. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm not in Israeli intelligence, so I couldn't tell you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, back in January, when Mexican authorities arrested a suspect in connection with the death

MS. PERINO: I will look into it. Your note to me a little bit earlier was just something I had not known about, so I need to check into it. I wasn't able to check it with anybody in the time just now. But we'll check on it, and we'll see.

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

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. The Washington Times this morning published Senator John Kerry

MS. PERINO: They're calling for the lifting of the ban? Let me check what our official position is on it. Obviously, the President has wanted to do nothing but help people that have HIV/AIDS, and has done so across the world. So let me just check into it for you.* Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The New York Times reported this morning from San Francisco that the Presidential Memorial Commission

MS. PERINO: I just don't think it dignifies a response. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think your question doesn't deserve an answer. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't think they were the first to report it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No. Since she's not here to defend herself, I'll pass. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Sorry, who has said? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q European officials, one would be the EU ambassador to the U.S. Anyway, Senator Coburn has a hold

MS. PERINO: I think that we've made tremendous progress towards getting this bill passed in the Senate. I think that while we would like to have it passed tomorrow, I don't think that we're putting a deadline on it in terms of the G8. We really want to make sure Congress does this before they leave for their recess in August. And we think that they could be -- they're in a position where they could actually get something done. And I think that I would go back and look at some of the progress we've made, and maybe check back with Senator Coburn's office, because we've been actively engaged with them, and I think we're making good progress. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, obviously we have our Leg Affairs team, and then of course Ambassador Mark Dybul from the State Department is actively engaged, as well. And President Bush himself talks to members of Congress about it to make sure that they know how important he thinks it is that they pass this bill because of all the good work that it's doing. And I think that members of Congress recognize that, as well. I think we're just working on these details. There have been some concerns, but I think that we're able to address them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know in particular, but -- I'll check for you, but I think that I would check back with those offices because I do think that we've made some progress.

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

Q Dana, on Monday you said -- back to Zimbabwe -- the Mugabe regime was never going to allow a free

MS. PERINO: Well, a couple of things. I think that we do believe that the people of Zimbabwe spoke very clearly on March 29th and that -- but consistent with their constitution, there was going to be a run-off, and it's that run-off that was not going to be free and fair. And therefore, we think that the government of Zimbabwe currently is an illegitimate government because they didn't allow for their free and fair election.

So I think that you have to go back and look. I do think that MDC won that election on March 29th, but consistent with their constitution was headed to a run-off. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that -- they just finished -- I think Tuesday, they finished a U.N. Security Council president's statement -- I'm sorry, it was Monday -- U.N. Security Council statement, which, remember, that has to be agreed to by all parties. It's a 15-member organization that everybody has to speak with one voice. And so they had a tough negotiation, but I think at the end of the day, everyone agreed on what we thought was a very strong statement. But if you look at what the African leaders are saying and what other world leaders are continuing to say, as Jim mentioned, then the pressure on the Mugabe regime is getting tighter.

What's so tragic is that Mugabe doesn't appear to care and he doesn't care about the safety of the individuals there who -- regardless of whether they even voted or not, they just absolutely sent out terror -- terror squads and killed people. And then, I think also, tragically, whereas Zimbabwe used to be a net exporter of food, it's now an importer of food, and many people, millions of people are reliant on non-governmental organizations to help feed them, and they were banned from the country. So we have starvation on top of the other deplorable actions of the Mugabe regime. And that's why the neighbors of the region are also crying foul on the Mugabe regime, because it doesn't just -- it's a humanitarian issue and it's also quite destabilizing for that African -- that part of Africa.

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

MS. PERINO: I said today that the President appreciated the fact that Attorney General Mukasey had already implemented all the recommendations that the Inspector General had put forth, and he expects that those should be implemented fully across the board, and that no politicization in terms of hiring practices should be allowed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Was he not surprised? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I didn't ask if he was surprised or not. But we do know that he was thankful that General Mukasey had taken this on and had implemented the recommendations of the Inspector General.

Go ahead, Paula. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that there's a long way to go, because the House passed a bill and the Senate passed a bill. The House, remember, has -- had a very strong vote, and in regards to the President's position, we have a veto-proof margin in the House. So I think that congressional leaders have every reason in the world to try to work this out in conference in a way that they could get a bill to the President that he could sign.

So we are going to continue to work with them. We think that they have a lot of good provisions in the bill, including GSE reform, which we have said for a long time is essential. What we disagree with is the bailout for the lenders that was included in the $4 billion block grant proposal. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't. I just know that it's taking place and that one of their main agenda items and the first order of business will be about Zimbabwe. But we can check and see if we can get more. Ambassador McGee spoke about this yesterday a little in a conference call with reporters, and his transcript is available on the State Department website.

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

MS. PERINO: I'd refer you to my answer to Jim. But, no, I don't think -- I have no reason -- I have no reason to suggest that. I think that the pressure is starting to build. And it's because of the leadership of the U.N. Security Council through the President's statement. But all of us are impatient and anxious and concerned for the well-being of the people who are there suffering in Zimbabwe. And it's hard to imagine what they're going through; I'm sure they feel like there's no end in sight. But I hope that they can take heart knowing that the international community is speaking with one voice and condemning the Mugabe regime and expressly working to make sure that the NGOs are able to get there in order to help people who are starving and in need of food. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And on the -- on North Korea. Chris Hill says that whenever this first declaration comes, it's

MS. PERINO: I didn't see Chris Hill's comments. Obviously he's a little bit closer to this issue than I am. What I can tell you is that we will rigorously verify any declaration that the North Koreans put forward. Remember that part of this is that -- part of the deal is that if North Korea submits its declaration, they also have to dismantle and disable the Yongbyon plant. And that gets us closer to where we want to be, which is a denuclearized Peninsula. And also, it gives us further progress on our steps to cooperate on other goals such as a peace regime on a Korean Peninsula; a normalization of relations; a new mechanism to cooperate on peace and security in Northeast Asia, which is something that the neighborhood has talked about wanting to do; and, of course, an opportunity to improve the lives of the North Korean people, many of whom also suffer from the effects of starvation.

So in short, the six-party framework has given us an opportunity to get to this point where we are looking forward to getting a declaration, but also dismantling and disabling one of the places where they were developing weapons. Now, when that declaration comes, as Secretary Rice and the President have said, that we will rigorously verify that document. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I wouldn't necessarily say that. We've had people on the ground there, we have technical experts there, and I think that we have learned a lot. In fact, Secretary Rice said the other day that we learn more on a regular basis, and the more we learned, the more we believe that we were right to have a concern, but also that we now have a mechanism and a framework for conversations to take place amongst the six parties -- China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, the United States and North Korea. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that they'll do a little socializing, but they'll also do a little business, as well. President Bush met with the Crown Prince back in January -- January of 2008, and really enjoyed the hospitality, and learning more about the United Arab Emirates and all that they're working to do to modernize their country. And President Bush wanted to return the favor and the hospitality and to have them here to have a conversation about cooperation in terms of trade and investment, but also talk about issues such as working together to cooperate in tracking down terrorists that aim to harm them and us. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: He's coming in tomorrow. I think you guys have that on the schedule. That will be something that -- the press covers the arrival and then he's staying the night. And so there will be meetings the next day and then I think they take off Friday. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't think so, now that -- we're going to have a Camp David day. So maybe everybody can -- of course, subject to change, but I don't think so.

Go ahead. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Who? You? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I think there's a lot of people sharpening their knives for a vacation day.

Go ahead in the back. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: You're talking about the State Department -- I'm sorry, state sponsor of terrorism list? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Look, I think that we are confident that we will rigorously verify this document. And just remember, we've been on the ground there for quite a while, and Chris Hill has been there. We have a lot of information to go on already. So I think that we have given ourselves the right amount of time to be able to tackle this problem in the best way possible. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HEIN: Good afternoon. This is Jay Hein. Thank you for joining this call and for your interest in the conference. Tomorrow, Thursday, the 26th, and Friday, the 27th, the White House is convening over 1,000 policymakers and faith-based and community leaders, researchers and others who are interested in the initiative. The purpose of this national conference is to survey the landscape of the changes that have been made and the progress that's been achieved since the President launched the Faith-Based and Community Initiative during the second week of his first administration.

So it's a longstanding initiative. The initiative has evolved and expanded throughout the federal government -- the White House and in federal agencies, in policy reform and innovation. Thirty-five governors have implemented similar initiatives following the contours of the President's leadership. The initiative also has an international dimension.

The conference attendees will hear from the President of the United States and Cabinet officials on Thursday -- the federal government perspective. And on Friday, we'll hear from many of the leaders from the field themselves, as we focus on social entrepreneurship -- a concept that's very important to the President. And as we seek to help the helpers, these are the leaders in communities that we have served by changing policy to be more accommodating of new partnerships, and by training these leaders who provide community services with direct training, such as this conference will provide, because -- in addition to the plenary speakers, we will have workshops on all the areas of great human need that they're engaged in and serving and our federal programs administer. And we'll also hear from Senator Lieberman, who has been a great champion of this initiative on the Hill.

So what I'd like to do is just close there, by making brief comments on the front end so I can answer your questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, it wasn't quite full funding that the President had asked for, so in that regards, the President is not satisfied. And I think that everyone can look at the situation -- and bringing up obviously the one that Kathleen just mentioned, in terms of violence on the border -- this initiative, this Merida Initiative is specifically aimed at trying to deal with that problem, from the drug trade and the other violence that is happening along the border. So we're going to continue to work with Congress, and we would hope that in the emergency supplemental that we expect for them to be able to pass this week that they would include full funding and everything else. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Hello. I wanted to see if you feel that there's any fair and comprehensive way of measuring the

MR. HEIN: Right. There's a couple of different ways to measure it and, if I understand the question correctly, are you talking about funds to faith-based and community groups, broadly speaking? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MR. HEIN: That's what I'm asking. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think it would probably have been a good idea if they had. It would have been a good meeting. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HEIN: Right, right, I understand. Well, that's why I wanted to clarify because there's distinctions between faith-based and secular, for example, and I can address that. But I think that the appropriate starting point is that this initiative is one of the most intentional efforts by any administration to understand what these partnerships look like in their current form, in addition to all the new strategies we're seeking to grow them.

So when we took office, there wasn't good data -- to your question -- about who was receiving the fund, and what the profile of these organizations was like, you know. As you're familiar, federal agencies operate programs in their own domain; within a federal department like HHS, there are multiple programs and those program officials run their operation.

Well, we took a look all across government to begin to collect data on which organizations were winning these grant competitions, and what type of organizations they were. And we were able to draw distinctive between faith-based and secular. We were able to see geographically where these organizations are located. And that, as a first attempt, has been useful just because it's created now a statistical landscape, with which we can better understand the state of play, and then to begin to ask important governing questions about how we might be able to improve. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to speculate on a meeting that I don't remember, that I don't know it happened. I just will say I don't know, but I think it would have been a good idea had there been a meeting. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HEIN: The data collection was first issued for the fiscal year 2003. And we have made that -- those reports publicly available, and we'd be pleased to send the latest report to you following this call, if you'd like. But I would say that at tomorrow's conference, we have the 2007 data that we'll be releasing. So that will be presented at the conference. But we do have the past several years' data available. As a matter of fact, the shortcut version is, we keep that information on our website: fbci.gov.

And we can help you, following this call, if you'd like, to navigate the site to find it. But all of the detail is present in those reports, and, as I said, we'll be releasing new results for fiscal year 2007 at the conference tomorrow. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We'll see. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: I think that -- remember that there are phases. There's a phase one, two and three. This is just the, hopefully, becoming -- we're coming to the second phase here. And hopefully we will be able to move forward on something that we've been waiting for quite a while. So there's experts on the ground, weapons experts on the ground, nuclear experts on the ground, and everybody who has been there is a high-caliber, high-quality person who knows a lot about what they're doing. It's not like you and I going over to look at it. They actually know a little bit more about the substance of it. So I think that we have to have faith in not just our experts, but remember other experts from the countries of China, Japan, Russia and South Korea have been there, as well. So I think there's a lot of knowledge, and let's just wait and see what the North Koreans do, if they do it, and then we'll take it from there and hopefully provide you more information. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HEIN: Well, this initiative was indeed an invention of the President. He created the White House Office and the centers at federal agencies, the executive order. And there has been a strong embrace and wide replication since he's launched this initiative. I did mention in my introductory comments that are 35 governors who have implemented their own initiatives -- that's 19 Democrat, 16 Republican governors. Matter of fact, 12 states have experienced gubernatorial transition since the Faith-Based and Community Initiative has been started in the states. And in every case, even when the parties changed hands in those states, the initiative has been maintained, which is, I think, a strong statement that this is not a political initiative; this is a programmatic governing initiative. And considering that the question about how governments can form stronger and more effective partnerships with their nonprofit sector, you're seeing that type of consensus forming that we need intentional strategies such as we'll be discussing over the next couple of days.

And I think that's led to both presidential candidates now speaking to the initiative at least at a high level -- Barack Obama at a CNN forum. Senator Obama made a specific statement about his interest in keeping the Faith-Based and Community Initiative, and as I understand it, Senator McCain has also made reference to the initiative. I think he's on record saying something in the order of this initiative being one of the more successful initiatives of the Bush administration, suggesting that he, too, might be interested in keeping it.

But I think the more fundamental point is that the Faith-Based and Community Initiative now is policy and practice. It's deeply embedded all across federal government, as we changed policy to create equal treatment for faith-based organizations. And as we've launched innovation, as will be profiled at the conference, that has created new strategies on addiction recovery and prisoner reentry, and addressing other human needs. You'll hear about the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and how indigenous nonprofit partnerships are central to that strategy; that the Faith-Based and Community Initiative is now manifest and a new way of doing business across the federal government. And that will be a lasting achievement. It will also be an achievement that pays dividends regardless of the political calculus in 2009. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: That there will be some sort of communication. I'm working on it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HEIN: Sure. It's actually an open invitation; it was broadly publicized. And this conference is actually part of a series. We hold approximately a half-dozen of these type conferences each year. We've held them all across the country over the past five years. A few of the conferences have been billed as national conferences, where we take a little higher profile. But other conferences held in states oftentimes are held in partnership with governors, and consider regional strategies and approaches.

But we advertise on our website and through our listserv and other contacts. And so it was an open invitation. And I think an interesting data point -- we have space in the ballroom for a little over a thousand people, we have a wait-list. I think we've had somewhere in the order of 1,600 or so that have registered, which I think is a remarkable statement about the continued and, indeed, growing interest in the initiative. Here we are, seven years later, we'll talk about a lot of the accomplishments of the initiative, the results, but there's a great appetite for, you know, for thinking new strategies through and forming new partnerships. And the attendance figures I think speak to that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm working on it. I'm not exactly sure yet. But it could be that it's just a statement from me at first, and then we'll get you some more soon after that. But I don't want anyone to think that we're going to get up at 3:00 a.m. and do a statement in the Rose Garden. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HEIN: Right, it's several-fold. The President's remarks will feature the progress that's been made. I just made reference to the fundamental way that the federal government does business differently now, and he'll describe that, the philosophy behind it. He'll chart the progress that's been made, the achievements and the results. And the members of his Cabinet that will be present and others who will speak will unpack those achievements, each in their own domain. For example, Secretary Chao will speak to prisoner reentry, and Ambassador Dybul will speak to the PEPFAR program.

So at once, the conference -- that looks back and gives meaning to the changes that have been made over the past seven years, but it's also a training conference, so a thousand or so social entrepreneurs will be in attendance. They'll be receiving direct training from all the federal agencies that administer this initiative on how to better provide after-school services, or housing -- affordable housing solutions for the poor, or employment services for the dislocated worker -- all the great human needs that the faith-based and community groups are engaged in in their communities. They'll receive direct training on it.

It will also be a platform for us to talk about some of the research that is forming to look at the Faith-Based and Community Initiative, and in particular, the programs that are administered by it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: One announcement. President Bush continues to call on the Senate to swiftly clear the pipeline of all pending nominations. Currently there are 394 nominations pending in the Senate. These nominations cumulatively represent more than 50,000 days of missed opportunity in roles that are critical to our nation's security and prosperity. Most of these nominations are for military promotions, career promotions, or non-controversial appointments whose terms expire at the end of this administration. And before leaving for its 4th of July recess the Senate should fulfill its constitutional obligations to provide these pending nominees a fair up or down vote. The President believes it's time for the Senate to finally judge the President's nominees by their qualifications and not by the political calendar.

With that, we'll take questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think you've got to take a step back. One, I think that, first of all, we know that Americans are concerned about the economy; we have been concerned about the economy. And the President worked very hard to make sure that we put in place a stimulus package that was put in place earlier in the year. And we made it clear then, and we have continued to, that it's going to take a while for the stimulus to take effect.

We know that about 75 million Americans have received their checks -- that's about a little bit more than halfway through the process. There's some evidence that they are spending that money, and that's what the purpose was for, to -- people could do whatever they wanted with the money, but our economists believed that they would spend it. But it's going to take a while to see that reflected in economic numbers such as retail sales.

We are confident that it will have the impact that we thought it would towards the latter half of the year. We believe that the long-term resilience of our economy is very strong. And Secretary Paulson, last week, gave a speech in which he said -- and I consider him our best authority on the issue -- that our economy is resilient, deep and competitive, and that the long-term fundamentals are very strong, and that if it were him, he would not bet against the U.S. worker, the U.S. economy, or the U.S. financial system. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Sure. Gasoline was certainly high, because it was around that time that at least one reporter said that there might be $4 gasoline. So higher energy prices have been having an impact. That's one of the reasons that we're working to do something to send the market a signal that we want to increase supply so that we can start to bring back into balance the law of supply and demand.

It's going to take a while, and we've been very careful and cautious to make sure that we tell people there's no magic wand that anybody can wave. That's not just the President, but members of Congress, as well.

One thing that is happening on the energy front is an increase in conservation here in our own country, which is to be expected when you have higher prices. And that, coupled with aggressive research and development into new technologies, like battery-powered vehicles, will get us into a better position in the long run. But for the short term, it's important that we make sure everyone understands there's nothing we can do overnight. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Haven't spoken to him about it, but obviously President Bush has been very interested in pushing R&D. And I think that since 2001 we've spent $21 billion on alternative fuel and efficiency type of technology.

And one thing that's very encouraging that the President has heard across the board from the private sector is that venture capitalists are increasingly investing in companies, entrepreneurial companies, that are looking to the next wave of energy technologies, or the next wave of vehicles that we'll be able to drive that, one, will be safe, but will also run on -- less polluting vehicles and ones that don't use traditional oil and gas.

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

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that Secretary Rice said it best yesterday when she said that there might be some ideas out -- floating out there, but there's nothing concrete at the moment. In regards to us reaching out and talking directly to the Iranians, President Bush goes out of his way every time he talks about the Iranian issue, which is often; he gets asked about it and he brings it up proactively himself.

But our concern is not with the Iranian people. We respect them, we respect their culture, we respect their heritage, we think that they are good entrepreneurs. It's their regime that is continuing to isolate them from the international community. The international community is speaking with one voice in that regards, as well.

One of the things that we did last month was make sure that the incentives package that was released from the U.N. Security Council -- I'm sorry, from the EU plus 3 -- was the fact that we made that public so that everybody can see -- and hopefully Iranians that are able to have access to the media and have access to the Internet would be able to see that the United States and its allies does not have any problems with them as individuals; that we are actually wanting to work with the Iranians. We've provided a path forward for civilian nuclear energy, and we want to have a relationship with them. But their regime has to agree to halt the enrichment of uranium before we can do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We've tried to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I'll refer you to the State Department for any ideas that are floating over there. But what I would say is that we seek opportunities to talk directly to the Iranian people wherever and however we can. And that includes sometimes through radio broadcasts, or through Internet broadcasts, or through newspapers if we can, and also just by speaking directly when the President is at a podium. Whenever he talks about Iran, I think you can go back and look, that he always takes the time and the care to make sure that he speaks directly to them.

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

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

MS PERINO: I think that -- I don't know a lot about U.S. interest offices, but I know that there's -- as I read, there's one in Cuba. So I think that we've -- it's not unprecedented, and so I don't think it's inconsistent, no. And again, this is directly for the people. Just like we don't have any -- that we care very deeply for the Cuban people; we have a problem with the regime -- the same is true when it comes to Iran.

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

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that we already think that it's an illegitimate government. We think that the MDC group won on March 29th, won that election; however, agreed to a runoff election, as consistent with the Zimbabwe constitution. I think anybody looking at this, given what the Mugabe regime has said, that they were not going to allow for a free and fair election.

And so what happened yesterday was the international community, through the U.N. Security Council, spoke with one unified voice to say that the problems that this regime has created can be solely laid at their feet. And it was important that that be a presidential statement, the President's statement out of the U.N. Security Council, because it has to be unanimous. Remember, South Africa is a part of that 15.

I know that later this week, I think this weekend, the African Union, which is currently chaired by President Kikwete in Tanzania, will be hosting a meeting to talk about various issues, but Zimbabwe is going to be at the top of that list. And the President praises the fact that many African leaders have come out stronger in speaking out against the Mugabe regime, and trying to push that -- put that pressure on the Mugabe regime so that they would change their tactics. But we are obviously very concerned about the violence that has taken place, and we remain concerned for the safety of anybody of Mr. Tsvangirai's party. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I'd refer you to our -- we have a statement of administration policy that we've put out which talks about it in detail. We do think that there are some really good aspects of that Senate bill, and we have been working closely with them to try to change the bill in a way that we think it could be something that the President could sign.

A couple of things that we like are especially the section on GSE reform, which would create a new regulator with appropriate authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So there are also aspects to the FHA modernization that we think should be in the bill. It does ban risk-based pricing, which we think is a mistake, so that's something that we would like to see addressed in the conference.

The most significant concern that we have with the bill is that it would provide for $4 billion to states to purchase already foreclosed homes. And our concern is that that just helps the banks, that doesn't help the consumers and the people who are trying to stay in the homes.

So I think that they're on the right path, in terms of working on a housing bill that would help the American people, but these are significant concerns, and I believe there's actually a veto threat that we have out regarding the concerns that we have. But hopefully in Congress they will be able to work something out. And we are working closely with them.

I was going to call you Laurent, but you are Olivier. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: Well, I think -- look, President Karzai welcomed the idea, and I think that the Pakistanis may have even started to compile a list of names of people that would be a part of that jirga, but that it's not a completed process yet. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes. The President was updated on it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay. And there's legislation running through the Congress now that would give Filipino veterans

MS. PERINO: I did not attend that meeting, so let me check and we'll get back to you.

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

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. In the President's real hope that we will have a presidential

MS. PERINO: I think that the reporters are going to have to take that up with the presidential nominee that you are referring to. But I think you have your facts wrong in terms of the legs of that trip. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Wrong flight, going the other way. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q One of two major-party apparent nominees has also broken what The New York Times reported as an

MS. PERINO: I think the President believes that the American people are going to have to weigh all the issues, and that will be one of them, and make a decision in November.

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

Q Dana, back on Zimbabwe. Some are saying that the elephant in the room is South Africa -- and has

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't know when -- I couldn't tell you when the last time that they spoke, but obviously Secretary Rice has been in contact with them. And I would point you back to the fact that this U.N. Security Council President statement yesterday had to be agreed to unanimously before it could be agreed to -- I'm sorry -- and released. And South Africa was a part of that unanimous agreement. And I believe that the international community spoke very clearly, with one, unified voice, and laid the blame at the feet of the Mugabe regime, and condemned the violence. And so South Africa was a part of the course that was shining a light on the problems that we have with the Mugabe regime. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And on another subject, the President supports John McCain as far as being the next President of

MS. PERINO: Again, I'm not -- I'm just not going to get into it and get the President involved in disputes between the campaigns. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I also saw that the individual who said that apologized. And so I think I would point you to that apology. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The President said he wants to go to South Korea, and he still may before the end of the year. But on this trip he's just going to go to the G8. And I would actually say that we're closer to finalizing this agreement on beef, and the U.S. Trade Representative feels very confident that we'll be able to seal it before too long. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: In terms of what Congress is going to do? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think you have to ask Congress. I mean, we still believe that a free trade agreement is essential for the people of South Korea. We think it's a good deal for American consumers and businesses, and Congress is -- continues to put up barriers to free trade agreements. We think that that's wrong, but I haven't heard anybody say that the recent protests regarding American beef that took place in South Korea have had much of an impact on Capitol Hill. And I think that everybody has been working towards -- very constructively to try to redo the package. That's what the Trade Representative worked on, Susan Schwab, and she reports that we are close to be able to finalizing this issue. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: There are times that it could, but I would point out President Bush is going to meet with President Lee in Japan while they're there for a bilateral meeting. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I wouldn't rule it out, but I'm not saying that it's for sure going to happen then. But he is -- he does have additional foreign travel this year.

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

MS. PERINO: Well, I just think that you have to look at facts on the ground in terms of the reporting. I don't know -- I don't know what the parameters were for the GAO report. I think that from what I've read of it, it's inconsistent with the reporting on the ground that I've seen -- that I've read from reporters of the news media who were there. And certainly it doesn't -- it's not consistent with some of the facts that we have here. And I would point you to the rebuttals that the State Department and the Treasury Department provided to GAO, saying that they thought that their report was way off-base.

Progress in Iraq is undeniable. And I think one of the things that you can point to is not just the political and security gains, but certainly the economic gains that they've had, as well. And we should all be celebrating that and working towards it.

But we do have a lot more work to do. I mean, don't get me wrong, there's -- we still have tens of thousands of troops there. They're in harm's way and they need all the resources that they have requested -- the President has requested on their behalf. And we are hopeful that the United States Congress would be able to finalize that legislation and get the troops the money they need before they leave for their next recess.

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

Q Thank you. Two quick questions. One, Dana, Indian parliament is now trying again for the last

MS. PERINO: Well, we'd like to see progress in India and that would certainly help our Congress, as well. But the President keeps regularly updated on. He thinks it's a very important agreement. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Tom Casey, the spokesperson at the State Department, talked about this earlier today. They've seen the allegations. They take them seriously, and they said that they would be responding accordingly. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Hello, everybody. I don't have anything to start off with, so -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Will attribute that to Bill Plante. (Laughter.) Look, look back to what we said going into the conference, which is that this is going to take a long time for us to deal with. There's no magic wand, it's not going to be a problem that we solve overnight. And I don't think anybody anticipated that this conference was going to have an immediate impact on price or on the stock market, which, of course, we don't run predictions on anyway.

So what we need to do is take a longer-term view, make sure that we are sending a signal to the market that we want to increase supply here in our own country, as well as continuing on our conservation efforts to decrease demands so that we can get this balance back in place. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that the important thing to do in regards to the long-term planning is to send a signal to the market so that they know that this time the government of the United States is serious. For several of the energy debates over the past decades the answer has been, no, let's just continue to get more oil from overseas and not focus on the conservation efforts. But we've had over the past several years a concentrated effort to both bring down demand here in our own country by fuel economy, by widening efficiencies and other things that we've done even in the federal government, but in addition to that, looking for ways that we can increase domestic production here in our own country.

So there's a long-term answer and there's a -- there's not a real good short-term answer. And we've been very explicit about that from the beginning. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We absolutely are sympathetic. We understand. Many of us are consumers, too. We know that this is actually having a larger impact and a disproportionate impact on low-income people, as well, and these are people that have to get to work every day just like we do. So the important thing that we need to do is continue on -- to continue the conservation measures, work on a way to send a signal to the market that we're serious about increasing domestic production here in environmentally sensitive ways, and in addition to that, find ways that we can continually express to the American people not to expect a short-term response. There's not going to be a short-term response, and it would be irresponsible for anybody to suggest there would be. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, that's what we've been saying for a while. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, you're saying it's about supply and demand. But back in May when we were in Saudi Arabia,

MS. PERINO: I don't know, I was there on that trip and I don't remember necessarily that part of it. Maybe you could refresh my memory, because you've got it all underlined there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Mr. Hadley did a gaggle where he said, what the Saudis are saying -- he said this in May -- "What

MS. PERINO: One of the things that he -- I think that they were talking about is refining capacity, because there's different types of oil that come on. And I don't pretend to be an expert; there's plenty of energy experts and you all can interview them. But there's an issue of refining capacity, and the type of oil that you get and what type of refineries are able to process that oil so that it can make it into our gas tanks. And not all the oil that is being put on the market is something that we can directly utilize here. And so I think what they were saying is that they could put out this different type of oil on the market, and there might not necessarily be a buyer.

So I think that there's that aspect of it. And that's one of the things the President has called for, which is, one, expanding refinery capacity here in our own country, as well as possibly even building more refineries. But there have been considerable roadblocks to that in terms of the permitting and environmental -- basically putting up roadblocks to make sure that these types of refineries aren't built in people's neighborhoods.

And so I think across the board there's many different things that need to be done, and consumers, who are also constituents of their elected leaders here in Washington, are starting to put the pressure on leaders to not just have a policy of "no" on the Democratic side, but to work with the Republicans. There's several bills out there that we could work on, including offshore oil development. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I would say that we have always said, going back to anytime I've talked about this over the past several years, that the decrease of supply or the leveling off of supply while demand is increased, that is really the big -- the problem. The law of supply and demand is Economics 101. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And last thing. Senator Obama is saying speculation is a big part of this. The administration

MS. PERINO: We believe the fundamental problem is the basic one of law -- the basic law of supply and demand. We do think that speculation could have impact on the day-to-day volatility in the market. But over the long term what we have seen is a leveling off of supply and a dramatically rising -- rise of demand, and that is what the fundamental problem is.

But in terms of the day-to-day volatility or turbulence in the market, perhaps that can be attributed to speculators, and the CFTC is looking into that aspect and all the other aspects that go into this, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think the best place for that discussion and that review is at the CFTC, and we'll let that independent agency look at it and then review any of their recommendations. I know that Walter Luken is heading that up. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, the leader of the opposition in Zimbabwe has abdicated his run for the presidency. I'm wondering

MS. PERINO: Absolutely. The United States is going to the U.N. Security Council today; we want the world to be speaking with one voice to condemn the violence and intimidation that has taken place against the opposition and also against the Zimbabwean people. It was abundantly clear that the Tsvangirai party won on March 29th. And consistent with their constitution, they agreed to a run-off. But subsequently, President Mugabe decided to subvert democracy and to thwart the will of the people of Zimbabwe, to the point that the opposition leader has decided he would no longer participate in the run-off in order to protect his own people.

And it's tremendously sad for the people of Zimbabwe, and it's very troubling. What we are looking for is for the world to be speaking with one voice in strongly condemning the violence and making sure that anything that we do continues to put pressure -- bring pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime so that the will of the people can be realized. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think you have to look at what Secretary Rice said this morning -- I'll just recap it here -- which is that the opposition clearly won that election on March 29th. They agreed to a run-off election, consistent with their constitution. Following that, President Mugabe made it abundantly clear that he wasn't going to allow the will of the people to be realized and had set about, with horrible intimidation measures and killings of innocent people and jailings of innocent people, such that even now the opposition leader is reportedly seeking refuge in one of the embassies because he fears for his life and for that of the people who have been following him.

We do not believe that the Mugabe regime can be considered legitimate until a free and fair election is allowed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: That's right. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: As I understand it, there is a technical step that would need to be taken for him to formally pull out of the race with a letter. But I think that he's made his intentions very clear. And while we are disappointed that we have this outcome, we understand the decision that he made. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, we'll have to see if he takes this next step in terms of a letter. In fact, he might have already done that; I don't know. I'm certainly, obviously, not on the ground there. But I think that he's made his intentions very clear. And regardless of that, April, the Mugabe regime was never going to allow a free and fair election to take place on Friday. I think that the world had come to realize that, which is why they're going to take it up once again at the U.N. Security Council today.

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

Q Dana, at the gaggle this morning you -- back on energy and politics -- you suggested the public

MS. PERINO: Well, it's not as easy a line to walk as I would like. Obviously you've heard the President; he's spoken himself, and I've said here that the President supports John McCain for President, he believes that he's going to win. And I think that -- I got a lot of questions over the weekend on whether or not we had agreed with Senator McCain's position, and obviously we did because we had the same one. And I think that comes from serious people taking a serious look at a serious problem, which is our energy one, and that is that any of those people looking at that problem could come to the conclusion that we have to unlock the resources that we have in our own country and allow us to explore and produce more oil in domestically -- I'm sorry -- domestically, but also in environmentally friendly ways, because we know how to do it best here in terms of producing that type of fuel here. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, one, I think that you've seen me here -- I haven't done a lot of it in the past and -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: It's not necessarily -- look, I just answered a question about Senator Obama's position. And you know, I'll have to see how it goes. I don't -- I intend to express what the President believes, which is that he believes John McCain should be the next President of the United States, and agrees with his views on offshore oil drilling. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I've done a couple in the past, but I don't think I'm necessarily in as high a demand as Tony Snow was. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

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

Q Secretary Rice said the Mugabe regime -- and this is a quote -- "cannot be consider legitimate

MS. PERINO: No, I don't believe so, and I believe Secretary Rice and David Miliband, the Foreign Minister for -- of the UK, are on the same page. And one of the things that they'll do at the U.N. Security Council today is continue to hammer on this need for the world to speak with one voice. And increasingly you've seen, Wendell, the African leaders, many African leaders coming out and expressing their dismay over what's going on in Zimbabwe and calling for the free and fair election. And I think that that is something that we are wanting to continue. We are wanting to make it stronger. And so the U.N. Security Council is one of the best places for us to do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The way I would put it is that we think that every leader could do more, because obviously this is a problem that is not just affecting one of its neighbors to the south, but it affects all of Africa. And on a human level, it affects all of us. And the President is very concerned and gets updated regularly -- he got updated this morning by the NSC expert on this issue, as well.

Go ahead. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, we'll -- what we've been waiting for is for North Korea to issue to the Chinese, as the chairman of the six-party talks, its complete and accurate and verifiable declaration. And there is word that they would try to do that by Thursday. This is a deadline that the North Koreans themselves have put out there. We'll see if they decide to do that. And from there, as you can see from the agreements that we've had, there is action for action.

But the key is we want a denuclearized North Korea, but part of getting there is getting this declaration. Before any other actions are taken, that declaration has to be reviewed and considered verifiable. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Only based on past experience, that deadlines have been kicked down the road before. But I couldn't say either way whether or not they'll meet this one. We hope that they do, but when they do and if they do, it has to be one that is correct and verifiable.

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

MS. PERINO: Well, I'll refer you to the State Department on that. Obviously, Secretary Rice spoke at length about this last week, and what we know is that there was cooperation between the two. And so we all know that, and we made it clear that we would let the whole world know that, so the world is operating from the same perspective. So we'll see what the declaration says, but the bottom line is, all of us know it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: What we want to see is a correct declaration and one that is verifiable, but I'm not going to prejudge it before we see it.

April, again. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Yes, ma'am. Dana, back on the energy issue, you said we should not expect a short-term fix. Are

MS. PERINO: April, that's impossible for me to say. I think that anyone who would pretend to be able to predict the market from this podium would be foolhardy. But what I can tell you is this: There's a sustained problem that we've had over the past several years where we are not producing enough oil to keep up with the rising demand, not just in our own country but in countries around the world that are increasingly enjoying more prosperity -- which we welcome, but at the same time we have to figure out ways for more conservation, more alternative fuels, and more renewable fuels.

And so that is a problem that is going to last for the next seven months and beyond, and it's something that we believe needs to be tackled in a way that would be sustainable. The Congress should be able to do this before they leave. There's a few different actions that they could take before they leave for their August recess, and we would encourage them to do so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm going to go right over here. I'll come back over there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Have I set a date for the six-party talks? Well, no, I don't think so. They obviously -- we talk regularly with all of our six-party members, and I believe Secretary Rice will be in Japan later in the week. She's there for a ministerial before the G8. But many of her partners will be there in terms of talking about the six-party talks, so she'll be there later in the week. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that this is a date that they -- that's been out there for a while. It's not anything that -- I didn't necessarily think of it as new because I'd heard and read about it in the past, so this is something -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, I don't. It had to have been within the last year, I guess. Maybe the last six months.

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

MS. PERINO: That's correct. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q That's correct. Republican congressman Mike Pence of Indiana has introduced the Broadcaster Freedom

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't know if that's necessarily the case, but it sounds like you have some lobbying work to do up on Capitol Hill, so we should dispatch you up there and see if you can get it done. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm going to go to Ed Henry. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't. We haven't announced the trip yet, but in regards to the South Korean deal with the -- regarding the beef issue, the U.S. Trade Representative thinks that they have gotten to a place that we could agree on regarding the age of the cow that could be sent over as beef to South Korea. And we'll see if they -- if the South Korean government is able to move forward on that. And any announcement about a trip will hopefully be forthcoming soon. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. CONNAUGHTON: Hello, this is Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. And I just want to give you an update, after two intensive and constructive days of discussions among leaders' reps to the 16 major economies.

Just to refresh you all, this is the fourth meeting of leaders' representatives. These are people like me who directly report to their Presidents or Prime Ministers. And our goal is to pull together the agenda for a meeting of the leaders of the world's major economies on -- to discuss energy security and climate change. That leaders meeting will take place in conjunction with the G8 in Toyako, Japan. And the meeting will immediately follow the G8 meeting.

This will be the first time the leaders have come together in that number and in that configuration, to have a candid exchange about some of the most difficult issues related to advancing the agenda on climate change.

Our mission was, over the last four meetings, was first to begin to flesh out some of the more challenging areas that required high-level leadership, build confidence in support of the U.N. negotiations that are now underway under the Bali Action Plan, and hopefully to provide some political impetus to reach an agreement on a new outcome by the end of next year in Copenhagen -- the idea being that the work we do this year is going to be essential to rapid progress next year. There's a very aggressive agenda to try to conclude negotiations on a new agreement and it's going to be quite complex and require a lot of pressure from the top.

Just to highlight the issues we've been discussing -- we've been talking about the general direction of the major economies in providing leadership in addressing greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with promotion and sustaining economic growth, and poverty eradication especially in the developing countries.

The interlinked challenges of energy security and food security, as well as sustainable development have always been at the forefront of the leaders' thinking. And this discussion has been no less. We've always worked to be sure that we're taking into account those features as we discuss the elements of an agreed outcome for next year.

The pieces of the discussion relate to the Bali Action Plan indication that we are striving to achieve agreement on a long-term global goal; that would be a shared goal among all countries -- not just the major economies -- for addressing greenhouse gas emissions. We also discussed the nature of midterm goals, actions of the parties, and how those will take shape over time and how they might be addressed in a new agreed outcome.

We talked about the idea of pursuing a series of early actions which are focused on things that we can do now together as major economies without -- before even a new agreement is reached. And these would be in furtherance of our longstanding commitments under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the U.S. is a party to, along with the other major economies.

There was also lengthy discussions on adaptation, which has emerged as an issue of significant and increasing importance. I just remind you -- adaptation is how you work toward your economies being more resilient to the effects of climate change. And this is especially an area of focus for lesser developed countries who have lesser capabilities of adapting to climate change.

And we had -- will have an extensive discussion on financing, in particular with the focus on financing for the lower costs and broader dissemination of advanced technologies; long discussion on technologies and all the aspects of their development; exchanges among the parties with respect to shared research efforts; and then all the various tools by which we can get existing technologies and new technologies out into the marketplace. And that agenda is now quite substantial.

And then finally there was the discussion of whether this process of meetings among major economies is worth continuing, and there appears to be strong interest in that taking place, which I think is an indication of the value of the meetings.

For those of you who haven't been out with me before on these -- these meetings are private, high-level, and we really are able to sort of press on some of the tougher issues that have been eluding the climate negotiators. So the meetings themselves are valuable as senior officials take a closer look at the details of the climate negotiating process to try to see where there are opportunities for moving forward.

Let's see, what else? So when the leaders meet, they will -- we're preparing an agenda for them, we're preparing a document for them, and this work of this meeting puts all that into their hands. So I'll be returning to talk to President Bush about how our progress has been, and then the leaders will meet and then make their collective views known at the time of the major economies meeting.

So that's all my background. Look forward to your questions. Thank you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. CONNAUGHTON: The details of our work are actually being submitted to leaders for their consideration individually. And then they will come together to discuss those details, and then jointly communicate on that. So at this time, we -- I'm not in a position to discuss that, as I need to discuss it with the President first. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Thanks for holding the call. I guess a slightly different phrasing on the question that was just

MR. CONNAUGHTON: The long-term goal is a new issue. It was not a subject of discussions among any of the countries until it was put on the table by several countries in conjunction with the G8 meetings last year in Heiligendamm. And then that found its way into the Bali Action Plan, and it was a pretty big deal for all the countries to agree that they be considering a global vision that they would share and they would try to translate that into a specific shared goal.

And so, in that respect, first of all, there's -- I want to be sure you're clear -- there's no agreement on a long-term goal until the end of next year when all the parties come together in agreement. So this is a significant step -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Wait, wait, wait -- wait, the President said at the 8-plus-5, his goal was by the end of this year

MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yes, I was just -- Andy, I was just trying to clarify that when you said "agreement," I didn't want those who are not steeped in the details to get the impression that when the leaders speak in a couple weeks, that that's the end of the discussion. Actually, it's the beginning of the discussion. It then has to go out to more than 170 other countries.

So in that respect, we have -- all I can say at this time is that we have advanced the discussion. This is a -- the long-term goal is a very complex subject, as you look at the various scenarios for how you get from here to there. And so we had many, many hours of discussion around that.

So I can leave it at that. It is receiving very significant deliberation, and we'll see what the leaders have to say. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Good morning. As Dana would say, we're on our way to Naples, Florida. The President taped the radio address this morning. In the President's radio address, he'll reiterate his call for Congress to lift its ban on oil drilling in ANWR -- that's the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- and in the Outer Continental Shelf -- call on them to remove its block on oil shale leasing, and expand and enhance our refining capacity so we can meet the energy challenges we face.

Here's a quote from the radio address: "If congressional leaders leave for the 4th of July recess without taking action they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act."

The President also had his normal briefings this morning. At 1:00 p.m., the President attends a Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart Florida Victory Committee Luncheon. It's at a private residence in Naples, Florida. At 5:40 p.m., the President attends an Elect Pat McCrory for Governor and North Carolina Republican State Executive Committee Reception. It's in Raleigh, North Carolina. And then we return to the White House at 8:20 p.m.

One thing, I saw some news coverage this morning on the number of Americans out there who have not yet filed their income tax returns to receive their rebate checks. And I just want to reiterate our calling for -- say this a number of times from the White House and from the podium for Americans, especially senior citizens and veterans out there who don't normally file for income tax returns, to make sure they go out there and file so that they can get their rebate from the stimulus checks.

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

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

MR. FRATTO: It's an -- on operational matters like that I just don't have any comment. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Not that I'm aware of. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Concerned? I don't know. I think -- I think Scott has probably told everyone everything he doesn't know, so I don't know if anyone should expect them to see anything new today.

Anything else? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q On the oil front, it doesn't seem likely that Congress is going to move to lift the ban on drilling

MR. FRATTO: Well, we're always looking at the markets. As you know, there's a meeting this weekend in Saudi where producers and consumers will have an opportunity to discuss what's going on in the oil markets, and Secretary Bodman is going there. We always continue to look for ways that we can try to get more supply into the market, of course. I don't have anything to announce right now.

But there's no question that I think a number of members of Congress are probably rethinking the policy on the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR, and certainly with respect to leasing and refineries, especially as they go home and they hear from the constituents in their districts. Americans are increasingly concerned. I think if you'd asked Americans two, three or four years ago what their views were on drilling in certain areas, it probably wasn't as popular then either. It is now, because I think most Americans understand the common sense that if prices are rising rapidly and supply is short, and we are finding ourselves dependent on foreign and maybe unreliable sources of energy, then what we ought to be doing is trying to increase that output here at home, especially if we know there are sources of oil and other forms of energy here. Read more Comment (0), Email this.