Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good morning. As all of you know at this point, the President approved yesterday afternoon revisions to Executive Order 12333. I'd like to give you a brief road map of what we'll do while we're chatting with you this morning before we turn to your questions.

I'd like to say a word about the background to this executive order. Some of you will be familiar with it; others may not. Highlight a few significant points or points that we believe are significant about the actions taken by the President, summarize the process that led to these specific revisions, because there's been some interest in that, and then I'll talk very briefly about some of the structural changes that you'll find when you have an opportunity to review the order in its Part 1.

Now, some of you will be familiar with the structure of this executive order, but it contains three parts. Part 1 is where a number of the intelligence community structures are described; the relationships and roles and responsibilities of various senior officials in the intelligence community. In Part 2, this is where you'll find the longstanding and extremely significant protections for Americans' civil liberties. And then in Part 3, you'll find a series of definitions that largely track the statute.

I would say at the outset that this is an exceptionally complex executive order. I'm not sure -- depending on how you print it, it's either 26 or 28 pages, single-spaced. It's a foundational document for the intelligence community. So it may be that some of your questions we're not able to address completely here today, but we'll take those back and get you responses after we've had a chance to look further. We may also refer you to the Office for the Director of National Intelligence or the Justice Department for more detailed explanations in areas where they're going to be expert in how the order will be implemented.

The background, I think, most of you will know by now. This is a 1981 executive order signed by President Reagan. It's been amended two times during this administration, I would say to make technical adjustments, principally. So this is the first significant adjustment in the executive order in several decades.

With the passage by the Congress and signature by the President in the fall of 2004, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act -- significant provisions in this executive order became out of date. And so one of the things we'll stress, that it was absolutely necessary to revise and update -- modernize this order. And that's of course one of the reasons we undertook it.

The objectives of the order are fairly simply stated in the text itself, but as I said, it is a foundational document. It has a daily and significant impact on the activities of the intelligence community and the relationships in that important community. At the highest level, of course, the aim here is to create a more effective intelligence community, where these 16 agencies can be better integrated, work more collaboratively with one another, and also share more information freely. And these are themes you'll recognize from the reports of the 9/11 and WMD commissions, and also themes that the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has stressed repeatedly in public remarks and appearances before the congressional oversight committees.

At the end of the day, though, we don't want to lose sight of the fact that the goal of all of our nation's intelligence activities is to provide the President with information that's accurate, timely, and presented to him in a useful form that allows him to make better national security decisions.

So the question that's arisen that we'll take on up front is, why do this now? There are a number of reasons -- I think all combined they make a compelling case, but we'll be happy to take your questions on it.

The first, as I mentioned, is the order was simply out of date. It needed to be updated to conform to the new intelligence structures, to the intelligence reform law passed in 2004, reflect the roles and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence, and also provide implementing guidelines for a number of the recommendations from the 9/11 and the WMD commissions.

Another reason why it's taking place at this point is frankly we have three years of experience under our belts with the new structures under the IRTPA, so we've had an opportunity -- with, of course, the advice of Director McConnell, to judge where we've made progress, where we've been slow in making progress, and to make adjustments and clarifications that can help push these important reforms forward.

Another not insignificant point I'd mention to you is we have a fairly unique set of advisors at senior levels of the national security establishment right now with many decades of intelligence experience. Obviously, Mike McConnell is a superbly qualified director with decades of experience, leadership experience in the intelligence community. He's worked closely throughout this process with Secretary Gates, with a distinguished -- obviously a distinguished intelligence community background. The Under Secretary of Defense Jim Clapper, who's led a number of agencies in the intelligence community, and General Mike Hayden, who's, of course, doing a superb job leading the CIA.

So these four advisors really played a key role in developing these revisions to the executive order. And their presence on the President's national security team made this all the more important to do now.

Finally, I'd remind you that the IRTPA itself in section 1018 directed the President to issue guidelines concerning how the Director of National Intelligence would implement his authorities -- in particular, to ensure that nothing he did in that regard would abrogate the authorities of other department heads. So, in our view, these guidelines satisfy that requirement and constitute those guidelines.

Maybe the most important thing I can say is that, of course, the President is anxious to institutionalize a number of important tools that he and his successors are going to need to fight and win the war on terrorism. Recently passed the new FISA legislation, which was an important milestone, and ensuring that our intelligence community is organized correctly and as effective as it can be is another significant step in that direction.

With respect to the process, I think it would be unfair to say that this process either started this summer or was rushed to completion this summer. Rather, this all started early last fall with a project within the intelligence community in the Office of Director of National Intelligence, where they consulted with their intelligence community colleagues and developed a set of recommendations that they brought forward to the National Security Council.

It's been an extensive interagency process over many months with all of the relevant agencies participating fully. We've had good discussions, as you would expect; lively discussions as well. The principals, including those individuals I named earlier in the call, have been extensively involved in all of this, solving some of the hard problems, and literally met, discussed, and played a role in resolving issues at every stage of this process.

Finally, the President, of course, authorized these revisions, authorized the process, and was involved in every stage leading up to his approval yesterday afternoon of the final revisions.

Another point I would highlight to you is that because this is such a complex area, these relationships are complicated, the work they do is important, these revisions have truly been in the hands of intelligence professionals almost from the start, right up through the principals where you had these very extremely experienced individuals providing the President advice. So, for all of those reasons, we felt it was necessary to take this opportunity to revise, update and modernize the order this summer.

The last several weeks, I would just note we've been engaged in conversations with the relevant committees on Capitol Hill, a series of calls, staff-level briefings. I believe Director McConnell is appearing today before the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees to answer some of their questions in this area.

Although there's been a -- frankly a flurry of discussion and conversation with the Congress over the last several weeks, I would highlight to you that we've literally been in a conversation with the Congress and with the American people about the functioning of the intelligence community since the fall of 2004. I would direct you to a February session that Director McConnell had with the Senate committee, specifically on his authorities, the progress being made towards implementing these intelligence reforms. The issue was also raised at Secretary Gates's confirmation.

And today we've received relatively positive, favorable reviews from our engagements with the Congress. They think we're doing the right thing, and we believe we are as well.

I want to say a couple of words about some of the pieces of Part 1 before I turn it over to a colleague who will address the provisions that you'll find in Part 2 of this order. First I would ask you not to overlook the preamble. There's some very significant activity in the preamble of this executive order; some of it consistent with the original executive order, certain parts of it new.

But most importantly I'd say the President is charging his intelligence community to use all reasonable and lawful means to gather the information that we need to protect the nation. And also we've highlighted in the preamble the fact that all of the intelligence activities authorized by this order are to be undertaken in a manner that protects the constitutional rights of Americans. That's extremely important to us.

The second piece I'd draw your attention to -- and I apologize if you don't have a copy of the order in front of you; you will shortly -- in the goals section, you'll note there's a specific reference to the intelligence needs of state, local and tribal elements. This is an example of something that's changed, an important reform and recommendation coming out of the 9/11 and WMD commission, the work of the WMD and 9/11 commissions. And so it specifically called out that the work of the intelligence community is to take account of their needs.

And next I'd direct you to section 1.3 of the executive order. That's where you'll find a delineation of the authorities for the Director of National Intelligence. There are 24, in some cases detailed, provisions under that section. In each case, the Director of National Intelligence is either told he "shall" or he "may," depending on the topic, undertake certain activities.

Now, you'll want to spend some time looking at these, because they are complicated and it's very much the core of the executive order. I'll highlight just a few to you here today before we move on to Part 1.

The first is, in 1.3(a)(1), you'll find that the Director of National Intelligence is authorized to play a role in defining the term "national intelligence," what constitutes national intelligence. This was a new term coined in the intelligence reform law in 2004, and it allows the Director to issue guidelines that will tell the rest of the government when information pertains to more than one agency, which is the statutory definition.

The Director is also authorized to issue guidelines for the intelligence community obtaining access to that information, whether it resides in an intelligence community agency or outside of the intelligence community. And with respect to intelligence community access to information that doesn't reside in the intelligence community, other agencies in government that might be useful for intelligence analysts to have, the Attorney General will be approving those guidelines because it might pertain to U.S. persons or other protected information.

Second area I'd direct your attention to is in 1.3(b)(12); the Director is given the flexibility to appoint functional and mission managers. This is an important management tool within the intelligence community. And while the Director may exercise his discretion to appoint these functional mission managers, the President acted in this order to actually name three of them.

The CIA Director is named as the functional manager for human intelligence, HUMINT. The NSA Director, of course, as he has been, is the functional manager for signals intelligence, or SIGINT. And the Director for the NGA is appointed the functional manager for geospatial intelligence.

Next, I'd turn your attention to 1.3(b), sections 20 and 21. These are important provisions regarding the coordination of intelligence activities. The first thing I'd highlight to you is that the overall responsibility for ensuring that intelligence activities, whether they are undertaken in the United States or overseas, are de-conflicted, coordinated and integrated, rests with the Director of National Intelligence; core responsibility essential for the efficient functioning of our community.

Underneath that overall responsibility, you'll find specific roles assigned to the FBI and the CIA in human and human-enabled collection of intelligence in the United States, in the case of the FBI, and a parallel responsibility for the CIA overseas. And you'll note that's consistent with the section regarding the CIA Director's responsibilities in the IRTPA.

In section 21, the Director of National Intelligence is directed to work with other department and agency heads to ensure that the activities of our intelligence community, overseas and domestically, are de-conflicted, coordinated and integrated with the activities, related activities of non-intelligence community entities. And this will be one of many areas where the DNI will be directing his attention in the coming months to develop and issue guidelines that respond to this direction.

The next section I'd turn to -- and we're almost finished with the fast sweep through Part 1 -- is in 1.3(c). That's the issue that addresses issues in the IRTPA section 1018 concerning the fact that the DNI, in exercising his authorities, is obligated to respect and not abrogate the authorities, statutory authorities, of the department heads.

And what we've done here is repeated a statutory restriction in that regard, and then created a procedure by which the Director can go forward with important guidelines that he feels it's important to issue, new procedures he needs to put in place to better integrate the intelligence community, and then allow a department head, if he feels that some action, some guideline, some procedure by the Director impairs his statutory authorities, to raise that with the Director, the National Security Council, and ultimately the President. And we think this construction will allow the Director to move out relatively expeditiously with some of the important reforms that need to take place for the community to go about its business more collaboratively in a more closely integrated manner.

Finally, an area that's gotten some attention I know in the press that we saw this morning, and that concerns the Director's authorities with respect to appointments and removals of senior intelligence community officials. You'll recall the IRTPA assigned the Director a certain role in the selection of certain intelligence community senior officials. Those are by and large replicated in this section. You'll want to read it very closely. It was an area where we spent a good bit of time and it's somewhat complicated, so work your way through it slowly, and if you have questions we'll probably refer you to the Office of the DNI for more detail.

But what you'll notice is different about this over and above what you'll find in the intelligence reform law is that the Director is also given a voice in the removal, when that proves to be necessary, of senior intelligence officials. This provision also addresses the position of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, which was not referred to in the IRTPA.

And then the last thought I'll leave you with on the appointments and removals provision, and what required a lot of the very complicated construction that you'll see in the text is that most of these appointments actually -- and the removals -- actually reside with the President. So the Director of National Intelligence is really making recommendations to department heads and toward the President with respect to who's selected to occupy these positions and whether they should remain in their posts. And so I draw your attention to that when you have a chance to look at the text.

I have a colleague with me today who would like to go through some of the key points of Part 2 of the order. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: As mentioned in the introductory part of the call, Part 2 of the order is the portion that sets forth direction for the conduct of intelligence activities, and there specifically provides direction regarding the protection of rights of U.S. persons.

When you take a look at the order and compare it to the 1981 original 12333, I think you'll find that there were very, very few changes to Part 2 of the order. The revised order, as with the original order, affirms that all U.S. intelligence activities must be conducted in a manner that protects American civil liberties and privacy rights. The longstanding protections and safeguards, in other words, that are in place or that were in place and have been in place in the original executive order remained unchanged in this revised order.

The order, you'll note, on a more specific level, requires the Attorney General to approve all procedures regarding the collection of information on U.S. persons. That's not only in Part 2 of the order, but you also see very similar provisions broadly worded up front in the executive order, section 1.3(a), as well as in the Part 3 of the order -- 3.2, I believe, in particular.

Part 2 of the executive order also maintains the existing ban on assassinations, as well as preserving existing limits on human experimentation.

Finally I'd say that Part 2 also makes clear, as did the original order, that all statutes have to be complied with when the intelligence community is undertaking activities governed by specific statutes. So, for example, if the intelligence community is undertaking activity governed by the recent amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the intelligence community is obligated to comply in full with all of those statutory requirements and the procedures contained therein.

Part 3 of the executive order is the final part, and that, like its predecessor, or the original 12333, sets forth definitions and general provisions. A lot of the definitions have simply been updated to reflect what was enacted into law in the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act, and otherwise, with respect to Part 3, there have been no significant changes over the 1981 order.

So just to step back, I think if you were to set the two orders side by side, you would note that the overwhelming majority of the work done in this executive order has been done to Part 1, as was outlined. Part 2 remains essentially as it was issued in 1981. All of the procedures and protections that were in place remain in place, regarding privacy and civil liberties. And Part 3 is a general section updated to reflect Congress's 2004 statute. MS. BERGMAN: Operator, that concludes our opening remarks. We're now ready to take questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. BERGMAN: These two senior administration officials have gratefully agreed to speak to you on matters of intelligence, on the new executive order. If you would like to follow up with Gordon Johndroe after this call to discuss it further, he's more than willing to talk to you about that. But for the purposes of this call, we'd like to at least continue it for the rest of the reporters on this on this call, so please proceed with your question. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q All right. On the matter of civil liberties, I think one of the concerns that you're going to

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think what we would say to that is that the executive order reaffirms the nation's longstanding commitment to protecting civil liberties. It maintains all of the protections that are in place to do so. It requires that all procedures have to be approved by the Attorney General.

With respect to the terrorist surveillance program, I'm really not going to speak in any detail to that. The administration has spoken to it previously. I'd observe that -- and I'm going to leave it at that on that question. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can you speak to reports about the role the National Security Council is going to play in covert

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, I'd be happy to -- if you'll give me a second here I'm flipping through my well-thumbed copy of the executive order text. I think you're going to find on examination that there's no basis for that report. I did see it this morning and I will quote to you from section 1.2 of the revised executive order approved yesterday; it states that "the NSC shall perform such other functions related to covert action as the President may direct, but shall not undertake the conduct of covert actions." I think that's about as clearly as we can state it.

In the covert action area, you'll find it addressed in three sections. The section I referred to where the National Security Council's role and the President's role are elaborated, the conduct of covert action activities as in the law, as in the previous executive order and as in practice over many decades, is assigned to the Central Intelligence Agency; and finally, a role for the DNI in providing advice to the President regarding covert actions, and also in the oversight of the conduct of covert actions is included in section 1.3(b).

So I would encourage you to take a very close look at the text of the order. There is no change contemplated to the role of the National Security Council in regard to covert action. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Certainly. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We are on our way to Kennebunkport, Maine. We are halfway through the day, so sorry we're getting this a little bit late, but I think it worked out better in the end. He had his normal briefings this morning, and you know he had his statement on Iraq. He had the event with the Scouts in Action commendation. The President then gave his speech at the West Virginia Coal Association, so you have that.

Congressman Nick Rahall did travel up with us. I don't know if you had a chance to see him, but he visited with the President in the President's office on the way up there.

And I have a couple of announcements. I'm going to make the delegation announcement for the Olympics. The President, Mrs. Bush, and Ms. Barbara Bush will attend the Opening Ceremony at the Olympic Games in Beijing, China on August 8, 2008. They will also be accompanied by an official delegation that includes the following people: The Honorable George H. W. Bush; T. Randt, Jr., United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China, and his wife Sarah; Mr. and Mrs. Marvin and Margaret Bush; Mrs. Doro Bush Koch; and Mr. And Mrs. Roland and Lois Betts; and finally, Mr. Brad Freeman.

One thing that I've been asked about a couple of times this week and said that we were checking into was the CPSC bill -- the Consumer Product Safety Commission bill. We have had a chance to review it. I can announce to you today the President will sign that bill. We are committed to ensuring that the products that come into America are safe for consumers and that the regulating agencies have what they need in order to do their job. Fortunately, Congress made headway on some of the concerns that we had expressed and so that we are pleased that they included some of our suggestions, and especially from the action plan for import safety -- that was, I believe, from -- that Secretary Leavitt put forward.

We still have a few concerns, but not enough that would keep us from signing the bill. So the President will sign that as soon as they can get it to us.

I also was going to give you some proactive reaction, if that can be done, on -- there's a district court decision in a case today that regards a civil lawsuit regarding compelling testimony from Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in front of Congress. The decision that came down, it ruled against us. We disagree with the district court's decision; we are reviewing it, and once we have had a chance to do that, we'll consider whether the decision should be appealed. And then I can update you from there.

A couple of things to note: The court did not rule on the executive privilege claim. It did not order anyone to testify on privileged matters, and it did not order anyone to produce privileged documents. It did not decide that senior advisors to the President are not entitled to immunity from compelled testimony under any circumstances, and specifically mentioned national security and foreign affairs matters as possible areas in which immunity might be available. The court did not order the executive branch to produce a private log describing documents withheld on executive privilege grounds in response to Congress's subpoena. In fact, the court held that he lacked authority to order production of a privileged law in response to a congressional subpoena.

So the court has merely directed the executive branch to produce a log as part of this litigation to assist the court in deciding which, if any, documents are subject to a claim of executive privilege.

I just give you all of that because, even if you're not writing it, I think your folks back at your bureaus are. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I don't think the report says -- the report says that "covert action will be carried out by the

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. The National Security Council continues to play an important role in overseeing covert action activities, in reviewing new proposals for covert action activities, making necessary modifications to existing covert action activities -- all in the manner of providing advice to the President, who retains this authority ultimately. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No. I don't believe so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I have a question about the provision saying all the undertakings have to be governed by statute

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I don't think so. The point that -- I don't believe so at all. I think the point that we're trying to make there is when there is a specific statute that governs a particular activity -- for example, the collection of certain business records or financial records or the conduct of electronic surveillance -- the Congress, as many of you know, has put in place various statutes, some of them quite elaborate, to govern the conduct of those activities. And the intelligence community, when engaged in such activities, has to fully comply with those statutes. I don't believe there's any change at all on that front. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that's central in the -- to the case. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Oh, hi. Thanks very much for doing this. I thought the CIA Director was -- I had a couple of questions

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I think you're right. But I can provide, I hope, a useful clarification. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I would need to go back and check. I thought that we had. I see what you're saying. I believe that the court says -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There is no question that as the agency that includes the National Clandestine Service, and within internal intelligence community directives and guidelines, the Director of the CIA plays that role with respect to human intelligence.

What we're doing here in this executive order is the President is affirming that role, that the CIA Director will be the functional manager for human intelligence. And one of the requirements going forward for the Director of National Intelligence is -- through guidelines and directives -- is to flesh out what it means to be a functional manager, what it means to be a mission manager. But these were three important intelligence disciplines where we had clear leaders identified, and the President took the action to identify them as functional managers in this order.

So you're right. In practice, perhaps not much of an immediate change, since he's played that role within the intelligence community for some time. But this is being affirmed in an executive order signed by the President. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I believe that what the court says is they ruled against us and that you have to appear. It doesn't mean that you lose your executive privilege capabilities, but you have to appear. And the question is whether you have to appear or not. I think that's what it comes down to. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Not at all. I'd really encourage you to take a look at Part 2 of this order, and literally, to compare it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think so. I believe so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You will, in short -- you will in short order. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Right. And I will double-check that with the lawyer, with our lawyer back home. But in the meantime, DOJ can. But I believe that's what it is. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I feel confident telling you, though, when you do have that opportunity and set them side by side, that you will see that all of the protections that were in the original order remain in the order signed by the President yesterday. I also think that you'll see the importance placed on protecting privacy and civil liberties underscored up front in the order, in Part 1, and a provision that's been added to Part 3 to underscore the importance of the Attorney General approving procedures for the conduct of all the intelligence activities. That, of course -- that mechanism, of course, is one precisely designed to protect the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I may add one point here simply because I realize we neglected to mention it earlier in our -- when we were making opening remarks. Many people associate this executive order with the assassination ban and also the ban on human experimentation, and if we didn't mention it you should know that those provisions are unchanged, carried over from the existing executive order, and they appear prominently in Part 2 of this order. So there's no change in that area. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't think we had because we believe that they weren't subject to testifying in front of Congress. So we don't have to invoke it unless you go up there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would say we think this executive order clarifies the authorities granted to the DNI in the 2004 intelligence reform law in areas where he thought clarifications were necessary for him to further integrate the intelligence community. I don't think there's much benefit to be had by trying to evaluate whether they were strengthened, and if so by how much; rather, this has been a tremendously constructive and collaborative process where policy agencies came together to provide the Director with a clear statement of the authorities they think he needs to lead a better integrated intelligence community, and he's fully satisfied with it. So they've certainly served his needs. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Counsel's Office. And then, of course, the Justice Department, the lawyers there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Thank you. Can you say how you worked out the issue of the DNI rep in overseas missions? Will

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I appreciate the question; I'd seen some earlier media attention to that issue. Frankly, it's not discussed in the executive order. It came up only indirectly in our interagency discussions, and specifically in the area of coordination of overseas intelligence activities.

And so, as I outlined for you, the Director of National Intelligence has the overall responsibility for ensuring that we have a network of relationships, guidelines, procedures in place that all of our intelligence activities overseas and at home get coordinated, get de-conflicted, and get integrated. And then the CIA, through its representative overseas, is assigned a specific role relating to human-source activities and collection of information through human means. And the FBI has that responsibility here in the States.

So, no, there's nothing in the order that you'll find that addresses who oversees, for example, is that the DNI's representative or who is the CIA Director's representative. And I'd refer you to either the Director of National Intelligence or the CIA, if you want to talk more about that. But it's not addressed in this order. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I would assume so. Sometimes it takes a while for them to be able to review it all and make a decision. But we disagree with it, and I'm not going to prejudge a decision whether or not to appeal. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Well, it's not addressed explicitly. But do the authorities given to the DNI in that regard that

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's an interesting question. I will refer you again to the Director of National Intelligence for the facts. But as far as I know, the Director has in fact appointed in several instances representatives overseas to serve as his representative. In specific, people assigned to the various military commands overseas serve as the DNI's representative. In, I think -- and check my facts on this -- 100 percent of other cases the DNI's representative in a foreign capital is the same person as the Director of Central Intelligence Agency's representative, we know is the chief of station. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, the President is going to continue to talk about energy, yes. And I think that Republicans and Democrats across America are going to continue to talk about it, because if you look at all of the signs that the American public opinion -- where it's moving on these drilling issues, or looking for sources here in America in environmentally friendly ways, I don't think it's going to go away. We have said that the high prices that people are paying at the pump are not something that can go away overnight, so people are going to be living with this.

And increasingly, Americans are more educated about the need to add more supply to deal with the rising demand that's happening around the world. So the President will continue to talk about it. But I think, more importantly, constituents are going to start pushing Congress to try to get them to do more.

All we've asked this week is for Congress -- the Democrat leaders in Congress to allow for a vote. And they haven't done that. It looks increasingly likely that they'll skip town and go home on vacations and campaigning, and not actually deal with this one central question, which as we've said, would not have immediate impact, necessarily, on prices -- we don't know, and our market prognosticators -- but what it would do is send a signal that we're serious about trying to find more of our own resources here. And if we had done this 10 years ago, today's outlook might look very different.

But of course, the President is going to be in Kennebunkport this weekend, and then he leaves for his Asia trip on Monday. I'm sure in his bilateral meetings he'll have with the President of South Korea and then again in Thailand and China -- the issue of high energy prices is not something just Americans are facing, it's something that the whole world is facing. And so we'll update you on the road, but I believe that he'll be talking about it there, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Hi. One housekeeping issue, I just wanted to join Pam Hess's protest that it's being done in background

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: To my understanding that's not the case. You should check this with the Director of National Intelligence. These are people that he appoints to various positions. But as I understand it, there are in fact some non-CIA personnel assigned as the DNI's representatives to military commands.

But there are no instances where the past or the current DNI has appointed as his senior representative in the field somebody other than the CIA chief of station. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes. As you know, he met with the leader of Abu Dhabi, and he'll meet with this leader this weekend. It's a private and I would say important meeting, but also casual. These are our hosts from when the President went to UAE in January. He had a fantastic time when we went to the dinner in the desert. But he also is very intrigued by their work to modernize their economy. So I'm sure they'll talk about that. I'm sure they'll talk about the issue of energy. Counterterrorism cooperation is always a big topic when it comes to talking with an ally like that. So it will be a range of issues like that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I got you. And so when you say "the military commands," that is not -- we are not referring, for

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Not that I'm aware of. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think consumers are well aware that they're paying higher prices at the pump. But I believe that they also understand that the root causes of supply and demand is what's leading to these higher prices. So a couple of things need to happen. Here in our own country we have to start looking for more of our own sources, and in ways that don't get bogged down in litigation.

As you heard the President say today, when it comes to trying to do new energy projects your capital can get tied down for years and you won't be able to produce anything -- energy, whether it's for electricity or for your vehicles.

At the same time, we need to be looking for new technology that will give us more efficiency for using less of what we need. And the third track is finding renewables or alternatives to the traditional oil and gas and coal that we've been using. Coal we want to continue to use. We've figured out ways to do that in a clean-burning way. What we would ask the private sector to do is to reinvest to help build these new technologies and to look for these alternatives and these renewables, and to help us find the technologies that will help us be able to use less.

And I think if you look to what the private sector is doing, they are responding to the market. And one of the things that consumers have proven is that they will adjust their habits and they will drive less if prices continue to be as high as they are. So the market is working in that respect. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. BERGMAN: Please follow up -- and this goes for anyone on the call -- please follow up with Gordon Johndroe after this call on that matter. Thank you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'd actually refer you to the comprehensive plans that we have. And if you -- in fact, I would go back and look at that -- just for kicks this weekend, if you have a little extra time, go back and look at that 2001 energy document that the administration put forward. It talks about almost all of these issues: more nuclear power, more clean-burning coal, more wind power, solar power, renewable energy like ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, as well as finding more of our own traditional sources like in ANWR or the oil shale or out on the Outer Continental Shelf.

So we have a comprehensive plan. It's also been reflected not just in the document in 2001, but in every sequential budget that the President has had. I think in almost every State of the Union he's talked about these issues. So we're going to just keep pushing on that. And Congress has had in front of it lots of these issues -- for example, on the oil refinery issue, one of the President's ideas was to use closed military bases to site these new refineries, since we haven't built one in America since the 1970s. There's lots of little pieces that add up to this comprehensive plan that the President was talking about.

But you're asking me if there's new policy to be announced. I think we've announced a lot of it along the way. We're just waiting for Congress to act. We've acted where we could, from the executive branch standpoint, but we need Congress to do their job, too. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Oh, yes, just following up on your earlier point about Congress's role and the public's role in

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I've not seen Chairman Reyes's statement, so I think we'll not respond on this call. Give us chance to read it, and if you want to get back in touch with Cynthia and her folks later today, we may comment on that. But I haven't seen it, so I'm not going to speak to it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: In the fourth quarter of last year? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I just wanted to sort of follow up on James's question, because in speaking with some people yesterday

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, only to repeat what I said earlier. We have spent specifically on the provisions in the draft executive order the better part of the last two or two and a half weeks dealing with multiple committees on the Hill -- at the staff level, at the member level, making experts available to provide briefings.

So we've dealt with, for example, the intelligence oversight committees, the armed service committees, the international relations and foreign affairs committees, the homeland security and government affairs committees. We've addressed these issues to the leadership. There have been countless, countless hours by dozens and dozens of people who've been involved with this process -- discussing, reviewing, and walking through the provisions of the order -- various staffers, rooms full of staffers. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't think any of the analysts are saying that, necessarily. But I think what it does show is that -- if you look back, we were very transparent that we expected flat growth in the fourth quarter of last year. We ended up with the initial reports being at .6. Now it's revised back down. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Right, but I think that what they're saying is that they weren't consulted; it was just presented

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I won't speak to that. I know we made a concerted effort to reach out to folks on the Hill because of the fact that they have a keen interest in this, and should, and because in the fall of 2004 when we were discussing the then-drafts in conference of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, we committed to doing that, specifically with respect to the guidelines under section 1018. And we feel that we've met that obligation. MS. BERGMAN: Operator, we have time for two more questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I remember believing -- I remember believing, and I believe I said, that we were expecting growth to be pretty flat. And we were pleased -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think this is -- thank you for asking the question. I think this is an area where there has been some misunderstanding, and I would refer you to a careful review of the text of this executive order, as well as the law itself. In the law and in the executive order -- and I don't have that page in front of me right now -- the Director of National Intelligence is assigned responsibility to provide strategic management, oversight, direction -- you'll have to check the words -- in the conduct of U.S. government relationships with foreign intelligence and security services.

And consistent with those -- that strategic guidance and those -- that strategic framework, the Central Intelligence Agency in the law and this order is assigned the specific responsibility for the conduct of those foreign liaison relationships, and also the coordination of engagement between other intelligence community elements and those foreign security services.

So look very closely at the structure. It's the same in this executive order as it is in the law -- a role defined at the strategic level in managing such relationships for the Director of National Intelligence -- but the actual conduct of these relationships and the coordination of dealings with foreign security services is charged with the CIA. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, we can go back and check the transcripts, but there's -- nobody was saying that we expected big growth in that quarter. And I think actually people were quite -- not surprised -- not pleasantly surprised, but pleased that we were at .6. So now it's revised back. I mean, that happens.

But since then, you've had three quarters where we see a trend going in the right direction. A couple of reasons for that is the President recognized this problem early in the fall last year and worked to address it. When it looked like we needed an even bigger emphasis on the stimulus package, the President came back from his Middle East trip and worked with the leaders in Congress on a bipartisan basis and got it passed. And now we're seeing that stimulus package actually have an impact.

Now, the housing crisis has lasted longer than any of us would like, but we hope that this housing bill will be able to help us send a signal to the market to increase stability, confidence in the market, to help pull us out of it. In addition to that, I think nearly all of the stimulus checks are out, and the retailers are showing signs of renewed vigor in their sector.

But there's no doubt that the energy prices are a drag on this. And so we are going to have to keep working at it.

Okay? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: None. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: If you take a look -- I can add to that -- if you take a look at the 2004 reform act, you'll find it -- you'll find this particular provision that my colleague was referring to in section (k) of the section that delineates the authorities of the DNI. So it's 102(A)(k). Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I will gaggle tomorrow, probably around 10:30 a.m. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I just wanted to double-check, is there anything in this executive order that specifically addresses

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, there are none that I would direct you to. I mean, of course, it's critically important in the current arrangements under the IRTPA to have the FBI playing a significant role in the collection, dissemination and analysis of intelligence, and that's outlined in the executive order as a responsibility for the Director of the FBI. And then similarly, as I mentioned earlier, a role in coordinating intelligence activities in the United States that involves human sources or human-enabled means, is also set forth in section 1.3(b).

But, no, I don't think you'll find in the executive order any specific new authority or responsibility with respect to intelligence assigned to the FBI. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, there's nothing public yet, so we don't have anything -- no public events on the President's schedule. But we'll keep you updated as things change, because sometimes that's the way it is up here. He's looking forward to coming up to Maine to be with his family. His mom and dad are here, his brothers -- his brother and sister I believe will be here, as well. At least one brother that I know of. And they'll spend some time getting together. They'll hopefully be outside if it doesn't rain and spend some time in his last summer that the President is President of the United States. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay, and I just wanted to double-check one more thing. You said -- you talked about the need

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think we tried to address that a little bit at the outset. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: At this moment I have nothing to announce in terms of the schedule. But there is -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Good to see you. Earlier today, President Bush met with his Cabinet and spoke in the Rose Garden about the importance of addressing our nation's energy needs. And as you heard the President say, Democratic leaders in Congress need to stop standing between the American people and the vast energy resources we have here at home. And we believe they should allow a vote to expand exploration.

Tomorrow, President Bush will travel to West Virginia. He will discuss not only the high impact gasoline prices are having on Americans, but also the broader energy landscape. He will talk about our efforts to harness the power of new technology to strip out pollutants like sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury, and to capture carbon emissions from coal in order to allow coal to continue to provide over 50 percent of the electricity like it provides today. We're also attempting to try to reduce its impact on the environment and we're having some good success in our country in that regard.

Additionally, the President will discuss administration efforts to eliminate the barriers to expanding our use not only of coal, but of nuclear power, as well, which is a clean energy source which could power our economy for years to come.

The President recognizes, as do Republicans in Congress, that we need to increase the supply of all forms of energy -- wind, solar, alternative energy, renewable energy, and at the same time we should expand our safe and environmentally friendly domestic drilling here at home, in the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska, and also to start developing oil shale to a greater extent.

And so that's what you'll hear from the President tomorrow. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: When a President of the United States, no matter who it is, signs a bill, that's putting your name on it. And we said last week that there was a provision of the bill that we think bailed out lenders rather than helping homeowners, and we didn't agree with it, but we recognized that the timing was such that we needed the bill sooner than later. And having a prolonged veto fight that we were convinced we would win, and we proved that we would win, was not in the best interest of the housing market and of the credit market. And so that's why the President signed the bill today. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Sometimes there is. Sometimes we have ceremonies, and sometimes we don't. He's already having one today that's open press, and a big to-do in the East Room, celebrating America's generosity of helping people all over the world who have HIV/AIDS. This is a tremendous effort, bipartisan effort, that reauthorizes a program that has taken our international AIDS treatment from 50,000 people when he first took office to over $1.8 million people today. And this reauthorizes the bill for five years. And I would daresay that that deserves a larger signing ceremony than anything else that was passed this week in Congress. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well as I have read the coverage of it -- I haven't read the report, but as I read the coverage of it, there's obviously information in there that would cause concern to anybody. And we agree with Michael Mukasey that -- the Attorney General -- that there was concern. There should be concern any time anyone is improperly using politics to influence career decisions. We believe that is improper. We could absolutely not defend that. And we are pleased that the Attorney General has taken steps to change it there at the Justice Department. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that if you look at the report, and it is in line with what the Attorney General said at the time, which was that he was not aware of that going on. And so I don't think there's anything -- disappointment doesn't necessarily go to the Attorney General. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, I don't. The whole situation -- the whole situation in terms of the politicization -- or accusations of politicization -- if you look at career hires that should not have had any sort of questions put towards them as to what sort of party they represent, or what affiliation they might belong to, or who they might vote for -- those are inappropriate for career positions. And the President is glad that the -- Attorney General Mukasey made sure that that is no longer ongoing at the Justice Department. And it's nothing that we could defend, and we never have. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that we are -- overall disappointment in the situation, sure. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, this is according to Roll Call, they say a senior GOP aide says that Senate Republicans are

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't know which amendments they are, so I -- oftentimes they have these discussions to vote on whether or not there can be a vote. So if they move forward and they get this, I guess that would be a step in the right direction, but that's only one step. And remember, on -- especially when it comes to the Outer Continental Shelf, here at the executive branch, President Bush lifted his moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf drilling. Congress has to do the same. I don't know if that's part of the amendments or not, so -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Okay, so then I think that -- but remember, in Congress there's also a two-step process. The House would have to move, as well, and without that type of action, I don't think we'll be satisfied, and I don't think the American people will be satisfied either, and for good reason.

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

MR. WILDER: On Monday, August 4th, the President and Mrs. Bush will leave Washington to travel to Seoul, South Korea, to begin a seven-day trip to Asia that will also take them to Bangkok, Thailand, and Beijing, China.

To those of you who haven't been counting, this will be the President's ninth visit to Asia during his presidency, and reflects the importance of this most dynamic economic region of the world to the United States.

Crossing the International Dateline, the President and Mrs. Bush will arrive in Seoul the evening of Tuesday, August 4th [correction: August 5th], and they will hold a day of official events on August 5th [correction: August 6th] in Seoul.

The trip to Korea is at the invitation, of course, of President Lee Myung-bak, who is eager to return the hospitality that he and his wife enjoyed at Camp David in March. This year marks the 55th anniversary of U.S.-South Korean ties. The President looks forward to meeting with the South Korean President and his team on August 5th [correction: August 6th] to review the state of relations.

They will discuss the impressive progress that has been made and the transformation of the American military presence in Korea, and also discuss ways that they can begin to implement a global strategic partnership for the 21st century, so that Korea joins us, as they have begun to do, in helping to secure the peace in other regions of the world such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm sure they'll also discuss their efforts to get their respective legislatures to pass the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement that is projected -- when implemented -- to add $10 billion to $12 billion to the U.S. GDP annually.

President Bush will also have the opportunity to thank President Lee for his strong support for reopening the beef market. I would note that earlier this week, the first American bone-in beef reached Korea, this for the first time in five years.

Following the morning meeting and the joint press availability, President Lee and his wife will host a social lunch for the President and Mrs. Bush in Blue House. The President and Mrs. Bush will then travel to the United States Army Garrison at Yongsan for a combined troop event with American and Korean soldiers.

They will depart Korea in the afternoon [of August 6th], and travel to Bangkok, Thailand. This will be the President's second visit the Thailand, and it will be a very special occasion as we will be celebrating the 175th anniversary of U.S.-Thai relations. In other words, we established relations with Thailand, the first relationship we had in East Asia, under the presidency of Andrew Jackson in 1833.

President Bush will meet with Prime Minister Samak the evening of his arrival. They'll hold a joint press availability [correction: make joint statements] after their meetings and they will have a working dinner together.

As you may know, Thailand is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and one of our best relationships in East Asia. The President will congratulate the Thai people on the return to democracy in Thailand. He looks forward to his first meetings with Prime Minister Samak, and he will also be talking to Prime Minister Samak about the fact that Thailand will take over the chairmanship of ASEAN -- actually, it just took over the chairmanship of ASEAN and will be the chair of ASEAN for the next year and a half. So there are many issues that they can discuss together.

On Wednesday, August 6th [correction: Thursday, August 7th], the President will make a major set of remarks in Thailand. It will be his look at U.S. policy in East Asia, both what he believes he has accomplished in the last eight years, and also what he believes the future of America's presence in East Asia will be all about.

After that, he will visit a center in Thailand called the Mercy Center, which deals with children with HIV/AIDS. And then he will go on to have a briefing by non-governmental organizations and some American government organizations on the relief effort that occurred in Cyclone Nargis. He will have a lunch in Bangkok with Burmese activists, and hear their stories. And then he will be interviewed by the press in Thailand that broadcast into Burma, so that he can give a message directly to the Burmese people.

During the time that he is doing these events, Mrs. Bush will travel to Mae Sot, Thailand. There she will meet with refugees of the Mae La Refugee Camp. It is one of the largest refugee camps on the Thai-Burmese border. Following her visit to Mae La, she will travel to the Mae Tao Clinic. This clinic was founded, and is directed by Dr. Cynthia Maung. You may remember that Mrs. Bush had a television event with Dr. Cynthia Maung not long ago, and she is very much looking forward to getting on the ground and seeing the clinic in operation. This clinic provides free health care for refugees, migrant workers and other individuals who cross the border from Burma into Thailand.

If you have more questions on Mrs. Bush's schedule, either in Thailand or elsewhere, you can contact Sally McDonough of her office.

At the end of the day on Wednesday [correction: Thursday, August 7th], the Bushes will fly to Beijing. And I will not try at this point to talk too much about the schedule in Beijing because, frankly, the President's goal in Beijing is to attend Olympic sporting events, so that schedule is still in the works. He and his family will decide what events they'll be going to. And at this point, I actually don't have a complete list of the sporting events. I know some of them that he's interested in, but he'll be making his own decisions on exactly where he'll be going.

Let me just note that we will be in Beijing from August 7th through August 11th. Some of the highlights of the visit to Beijing will be the opening of our new embassy complex. You may know that last night the Chinese had an opening of their new embassy complex here. And we will open our new embassy complex in Beijing on August 8th. The President will be joined by his father, President Bush, 41, for that occasion, and it should be a very grand event. This is one of the largest embassies in the world, one of the largest embassy projects we have ever undertaken.

He will obviously also attend the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games while he's in Beijing. And he will have meeting with President Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao, and Vice President of China, Xi Jinping. He will also be attending a church service on the Sunday he's in Beijing, and I think one other event -- he will meet with many of the sponsors of the U.S. Olympic team to thank them for their support for the U.S. Olympic team.

At this point, I'll take questions. Yes, sir. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The International Olympic Committee today admitted it had agreed to a deal in which some Internet

MS. PERINO: Well, I would encourage -- I haven't seen what the IOC said in context. I want to make sure that that report is accurate, so I'd refer you to the IOC for specific comments from them on what they did or did not agree to, or what they said about this situation.

But let me take a step back and tell you, President Bush has long said that China has nothing to fear from greater access to the Internet, or to the press, or for more religious freedom and human freedom and human rights. And that's one of the things that he talked about yesterday with the dissidents he met with here at the White House. We want to see more access for reporters. We want to see more access for everybody in China to be able to have access to the Internet. It has grown over time, but we think that it would be -- that China would be enhanced and continue to prosper if it allowed for more freedoms. So that's what the President will be talking about on his trip there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Thanks, Dennis. The President has said that he does not see the Olympics as a political event,

MR. WILDER: I think the President feels very strongly that what he is doing in Beijing is, first and foremost, supporting the American Olympic team. American athletes have worked long and hard to get to these Games. He's a President who loves sports. He's a President who believes in competition and the Olympic spirit. And so, number one on his agenda is really to go to Beijing to support those athletes.

Secondly, I think he would answer this by saying that he always has human rights at the top of his agenda wherever he goes in the world. The President's freedom agenda is well known. The President's work on freedom for Chinese citizens is well known. Yesterday he met with five prominent dissidents. Some of those dissidents would not be in this country were it not for the efforts of this President. And so he has worked long and hard for the rights of the Chinese people.

So I think he would say to you that he understands that some people have a different view on this, but he believes that by going to Beijing, he respects our athletes, he respects the Chinese people who are proud of hosting these Games, and he also has yet another opportunity with the Chinese leadership to sit down and talk to them about these issues.

He doesn't shy away from these issues. I have been in almost every meeting he has had with the Chinese leadership in the last four years. He has always raised these issues. Whether it be the case of the Dalai Lama or the case of the house churches, the President is very conscious of the need for China to continue to move forward, to open up more to religious expression, to freedom of the press and other issues. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Why did the President decide to meet with these dissidents yesterday? And it seems as though the

MS. PERINO: Well, there are. But I think that there are a lot of people who see it differently from the President -- and that's okay. The President says he's going there to support our athletes and all the athletes who have made it this far in their sporting careers. So he will go to cheer them on. At the same time, the President has continued to press China and given them a chance to say -- telling them that the Olympics represents the best possible chance for you to share a compassionate heart and to show what the Chinese spirit can really be all about.

And there are clearly people who have suffered human rights abuses around the world that the President has met with repeatedly since 2001, and as he says, when he has his Freedom Institute, he'll continue to do that for the rest of his life.

But when you ask me about the lead-up to the Olympics, clearly there are people who have decided that now is the appropriate time for them to raise their voices. And the President was more than happy to meet with them yesterday. He gave them a lot of time to tell them their stories, and then he reassured them that his strong commitment to human rights and religious freedom will continue throughout his presidency and beyond. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. WILDER: I think it has made a difference. I would not say that progress is by leaps and bounds. The Chinese system structurally does not move very quickly in these areas. But I think we have seen, if you talk to Christians, certainly, about the growth of the church in China -- some people think there are a hundred million Christians now in China. That has happened in a relatively short period of time. And that means that while these churches may not be registered and the house churches may not receive the kind of treatment by the Chinese government we would like to see them receive, it does mean that people are able to express their religious faith in China. It's just that, unfortunately, these churches are now unregistered, as opposed to registered, and we would like to see the government -- very much like to see the government register these churches so that they aren't living, as it were, on the fringe of Chinese law.

So I think, certainly in the area of religion, if you look back over the 30 years of the relationship or even the last eight years of the relationship, the room for religious expression has grown in China. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I cannot. I am not able to comment on that story. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q In South Korea, the leadership there is very concerned and upset about the U.S. Agency for Geographic

MR. WILDER: We were contacted by the South Korean government at very high levels and asked to re-look at this question. The President directed Secretary Rice to check into this and see exactly what did happen with this change of designation. It was decided after that review that the change in designation was not warranted at this time. And so that database is now being restored to where it was prior to this change in designation, I think which occurred about seven days ago on the database.

We regret that this change in designation was perceived by South Koreans as some sort of change in our policy. Let me be very clear that our policy on this territorial dispute has been firm and consistent since 1952, and that is, we do not take a position on this territorial dispute; that we believe that South Korea and Japan need to work diplomatically to resolve this issue. But it is their issue to resolve. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Well, how about this element -- if true, your comment about Pakistan not doing enough -- all countries

MS. PERINO: I'm not prepared to say that from here. You can check around to other agencies and see if they would be. I think that when it comes to Prime Minister Gillani and President Bush, they are of one mind that the -- that al Qaeda and the terrorists pose a threat not just to the United States, but to Pakistanis, as well. And they saw that firsthand when Prime Minister Bhutto was assassinated.

We are going to continue to work with them. We are trying to work with their military. We've had good relationships with Pakistan over the years. But this is a tense time for everybody, as we work to do more to combat terrorism.

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

MR. WILDER: You know, I very much doubt that it will overshadow. First of all, I think on the beef issue, South Koreans are becoming more and more comfortable as American beef reenters the market. We understand the beef that has gone on the market is popular. And I think as more and more beef enters the South Korean market, you'll find that people -- that this issue will recede more and more.

In terms of the island issue, I think that it certainly didn't enhance the atmosphere for the visit, but on the other hand, the President has demonstrated leadership. And we have a very, very good relationship with the South Korean people. One of the things I think people forget in the midst of some of this is how firmly and strongly the South Korean people believe in the American relationship.

A million South Koreans a year come to the United States. There are many Korean Americans here. The links between our societies are strong. The relationship between President Lee and President Bush is a very warm one, even though they haven't known each other for very long. The South Korean support for the American troop presence in Korea is extremely strong. So I think that there is a very solid foundation to U.S.-South Korean relations. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, I don't believe they have spoken. I can check on that for you and see if he will. But I don't know of any plans to. The President has worked with Senator Stevens for many years. Obviously he is innocent under our system of justice until proven otherwise. And so we'll let the Justice Department handle the legal matter and not comment on it further.

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

MR. WILDER: The President eats a lot of American beef. And so we have suggested to the Blue House that it might be nice to have some on the menu. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, it's a fairly complex agreement when it comes to the broad issues of the economy -- let's see, the economy, security matters, diplomacy issues, political matters. While we've been working on this agreement with them, it's a negotiation; things go back and forth.

And while we've been working on it, the Iraqis have increasingly gained confidence in their political system, because they've been able to work together and get some of these laws passed. I just today, just now, saw that the Iraqis have called a special session of their parliament because they're going to try to address this Kirkuk issue, which is at the heart of the problem of trying to get their provincial elections law passed.

So while we've been trying to work on the agreement, they've been improving their capabilities. We've had the Basra raid, Mosul raid, Sadr City. And so the Iraqi security forces are improving. And so we're trying to figure out how do we continue to develop a broad-based relationship, one that is based on the respect of both sovereign nations, in a way that can help foster this democracy, and not move too fast, too soon, to disrupt any efforts to cement the gains that we've made.

So it's just taking a little bit longer. But they continue to meet, the negotiators continue to meet, and Prime Minister Maliki and the President keep in touch through their negotiators and also via their secure video teleconferences that they have every other week. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. WILDER: Well, certainly the message of the people who came to see the President is continuing concerns about the situation in China. For example, Reviya Kadeer, who is a Uighur from Western China, talked about the fact that some of her children are still being harassed; at least one of her children is in prison; that she is worried that the Chinese authorities will use the excuse of security, from her point of view, to harass even further the Uighur people.

And I think that is a legitimate concern. I think that the Chinese, while they have legitimate security concerns for the Olympics, have got to be careful that they respect the rights of all of their citizens, including their minorities.

Bob Fu, the pastor from Midland, Texas, who is very close to the house church movement in China, expressed his concerns about the fact that, as I was saying earlier, house churches in China are not registered at this point. And one of the things that he would argue that should happen is the beginning of registration of those house churches who want to be registered. I think that's an important message to the Chinese government, as well.

I don't want to go through all of the different activists and their views. But basically, it was a message that, keep up what you are doing with the Chinese government. Keep talking to the Chinese government about these issues. Open the door to religious freedom, and other freedoms more.

Some of them, quite candidly, obviously had a different view from the President on whether he should be going to the Olympics. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think we talked about this a week ago or two weeks ago, when we -- I'm not going to negotiate from the podium, but I can tell you that what we're trying to do is figure out what sort of aspirational goals we could look towards so that we could start to -- well, continue bringing more troops home based on successful implementation of our strategy. And trying to figure out what that horizon is just takes a little bit of time. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. WILDER: Some of them said that they had concerns that he was adding legitimacy to the Chinese government. The President simply said that while that is a concern, I also feel that by being there, by talking to the Chinese people, by honoring the Chinese people with my presence there, I can do more good. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: You know, things change almost every day and they make some progress, and just like in any negotiation you get close and then there's a little bit of a step back, and then you get a little bit closer. So we'll keep you updated, but I don't have anything imminent to announce for you yet.

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

MR. WILDER: Well, I think one of the dilemmas of this issue is that people want us to have influence on the Chinese government. They want us to take actions that move the Chinese government in certain directions. If you don't have a good working relationship with the Chinese government, how do you do that? And the President's answer would be, I need to be able to sit down with these leaders. I need to be able to look Hu Jintao directly and say, for you to progress, for China to move to that future of full attainment of the harmonious society you talk about, you must open up. You must allow people their individual rights, their individual creativity, their individual expression. If you don't, our experience, the experience of the world is, you won't get to that point.

So it's not that we're saying these are American values that you must import. That is not the message the President ever gives. Rather, it is the message of, if you want to achieve the full potential of your people, our experience is, and the experience of most of the world is that you've got to do this. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I just couldn't put a time frame on it. If I told you "yes" or "no," then inevitably I'd be wrong. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q When we hear that the President plans to carry a message of political freedom to Beijing, that

MR. WILDER: Well, you can deliver the message of freedom without politicizing the events of the Games. The President will have diplomatic meetings with the Chinese leadership that are separate from the Games, and in those meetings with the Chinese leaders he will, of course, bring up these issues.

Similarly, when he goes to church on Sunday, he will make a statement afterwards in which he discusses his view on religious freedom in China. So that isn't politicizing the Games. He will not go to the stadiums and do anything that is particularly related to these issues, but he will while he's in Beijing, as he always has done,