    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2008, Book I)]
    [April 29, 2008]
    [Pages 587-600]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    The President's News Conference
    April 29, 2008

        The President. Thank you. Good morning. This is a tough time for our
    economy. Across our country, many Americans are understandably anxious
    about issues affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to
    mortgage and tuition bills. They're looking to their elected leaders in
    Congress for action. Unfortunately, on many of these issues, all they're
    getting is delay.
        Americans are concerned about energy prices, and I can understand
    why. I think the last time I visited with you it was like--I said it was
    like a tax increase on the working people. The past 18 months, gas
    prices have gone up by $1.40 per gallon. Electricity prices for small
    business and families are rising as well.
        I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems,
    yet time after time, Congress chose to block them. One of the main
    reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping
    up with growing demand. Members of Congress have been vocal about
    foreign

    [[Page 588]]

    governments increasing their oil production, yet Congress has been just
    as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home.
        They've repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR.
    The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to
    produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which
    translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every
    day. That would be about a 20-percent increase of oil--crude oil
    production over U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices.
    And yet such efforts to explore in ANWR have been consistently blocked.
        Another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity.
    It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery,
    yet in this area too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand
    capacity and build more refineries.
        As electricity prices rise, Congress continues to block provisions
    needed to increase domestic electricity production by expanding the use
    of clean, safe nuclear power. Instead, many of the same people in
    Congress who complain about high energy costs support legislation that
    would make energy even more expensive for our consumers and small
    businesses.
        Congress is considering bills to raise taxes on domestic energy
    production, impose new and costly mandates on producers, and demand
    dramatic emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants and increase
    reliance on expensive natural gas. That would drive up prices even
    further. The cost of these actions would be passed on to consumers in
    the form of even higher prices at the pump and even bigger electric
    bills.
        Instead of increasing costs and imposing new roadblocks to domestic
    energy production, Congress needs to clear away obstacles to more
    affordable, more reliable energy here at home.
        Americans are concerned about rising food prices. Unfortunately,
    Congress is considering a massive, bloated farm bill that would do
    little to solve the problem. The bill Congress is now considering would
    fail to eliminate subsidy payments to multimillionaire farmers.
    America's farm economy is thriving. The value of farmland is
    skyrocketing, and this is the right time to reform our Nation's farm
    policies by reducing unnecessary subsidies. It's not the time to ask
    American families who are already paying more in the checkout line to
    pay more in subsidies for wealthy farmers. Congress can reform our farm
    programs, and should, by passing a fiscally responsible bill that treats
    our farmers fairly and does not impose new burdens on American
    taxpayers.
        Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and
    keeping their homes, and I don't blame them. Last year, I called on
    Congress to pass legislation that would help address problems in the
    housing market. This includes critical legislation that would modernize
    the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
    and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance
    subprime loans. Yet they failed to send a single one of these proposals
    to my desk. Americans should not have to wait any longer for their
    elected officials to pass legislation to help more families stay in
    their homes.
        Americans are concerned about the availability of student loans. The
    recent credit crunch makes it uncertain that some students will be able
    to get the loans they need. My administration is taking action through
    the Department of Education's lender of last resort program, which works
    to arrange loans for students who are unable to secure one from a lender
    on their own. In other words, we're helping. Congress needs to do more
    by passing a bill that would temporarily give the Federal Government
    greater authority to buy Federal student loans. This authority would

    [[Page 589]]

    safeguard student loans without permanently expanding the Government's
    role in their financing.
        In all these issues, the American people are looking to their
    leaders to come together and act responsibly. I don't think this is too
    much to ask, even in an election year. My administration will reach out
    to Congress. We will work to find areas of agreement so that we can deal
    with the economic pressures that our American taxpayers and American
    families are feeling. I ask Congress to do its part by sending me
    sensible and effective bills that I can sign, instead of issuing or
    sending bills that simply look like political statements. We can work
    together. We can help Americans weather this difficult period. We can
    keep our country moving forward.
        Now I'll be glad to take some of your questions. Jennifer [Jennifer
    Loven, Associated Press].

    National Economy/Energy

        Q. Thank you, sir. You have said that we need to wait until the
    first stimulus has taken effect to act again. But since it was passed,
    gas prices have gone up, foreclosures have gone up, there have been
    layoffs, news just this morning that consumer confidence is down yet
    again.
        President Bush. Yes.
        Q. Isn't it time to think about doing more?
        And on another issue, would you support a summer moratorium on the
    Federal gas tax?
        The President. First of all, the money is just now making it into
    people's bank accounts. And I applaud the Speaker and the leader of the Senate and
    minority leaders there to--for working together to get this done. And
    now, after a period of time, the money is beginning to arrive, and we'll
    see what the effects are.
        And we'll look at any idea in terms of energy, except I will tell
    you this: that if Congress is truly interested in solving the problem,
    they can send the right signal by saying, we're going to explore for oil
    and gas in the U.S. territories, starting with ANWR. We can do so in an
    environmentally friendly way. They ought to say, why don't we--I
    proposed, you might remember, taking some abandoned military bases and
    providing regulatory relief so we can build new refineries. I mean, if
    we're generally interested in moving forward with an energy policy that
    sends a signal to the world that we're not--we're going to try to become
    less reliant upon foreign oil, we can explore at home as well as
    continue on with an alternative fuels program.
        Yes, sir.

    National Economy/Energy/Oil Supply

        Q. So was that a yes on the moratorium?
        The President. No. I'm going to look at everything they propose.
    We'll take a look.
        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Were you premature in saying that the
    U.S. economy is not in a recession when food and energy prices are
    soaring so high?
        And what more can you do to persuade Saudi Arabia during your
    upcoming visit to reconsider output levels and cut prices?
        The President. Yes. Look, I mean, you know, the words on how to
    define the economy don't reflect the anxiety the American people feel.
    The average person doesn't really care what we call it. The average
    person wants to know whether or not we know that they're paying higher
    gasoline prices and that they're worried about staying in their homes.
    And I do understand that. That's why we've been aggressively helping
    people refinance their homes. That's why I continue to call upon
    Congress to pass legislation that will enable people to stay in their
    homes.
        These are tough times. People--economists can argue over the
    terminology. But--and these are difficult times, and the American people
    know it. And they want to know whether or not Congress knows it. I think
    an important signal to send on energy, just like I said, is to say,
    okay, we're going to go find oil here at home.

    [[Page 590]]

        We can--we're transitioning to a new era, by the way, a new era
    where we're going to have batteries in our cars that will power--enable
    people to drive 40 miles on electricity. There's going to be more
    ethanol on the market, more alternative fuels. It would be--our driving
    habits will change. But in the meantime, we need to be sending a signal
    to the world markets that we intend to explore here in America. We can
    also send a clear signal that we understand supply and demand. And then
    when you don't build a refinery for 30 years, it's going to be a part of
    restricting supply, and therefore, we ought to expand our refining
    capacity by permitting new refineries and getting after it quickly.
        On the electricity front, as you know, I'm a big believer in nuclear
    power, except we keep getting mixed signals out of Congress, and the
    regulatory system sends mixed signals.
        And so--and then to your question on the Saudis, look, I have made
    the case that the high price of oil injures economies. But I think we
    better understand that there's not a lot of excess capacity in this
    world right now. Hopefully, high prices will spur more exploration to
    bring excess capacity on, but demand is rising faster than supply. And
    that's why you're seeing global energy prices rise. And that's why it's
    important for us to try to take the pressure off by saying, we're going
    to start exploring here at home.
        John [John Yang, NBC News].

    Alternative Fuel Sources/Price of Food

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about an area----
        The President. You're welcome.
        Q. ----where food prices and energy policy come together; that's
    biofuels.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. The World Bank says about 85 percent of the increase in corn
    price since 2002 is due to biofuel--increased demand for biofuels. And
    your Secretary of State said that--indicated yesterday that she thought
    that might be part of the problem. Do you agree with that? And what can
    the United States do--what more can the United States do to help make
    food more affordable around the world?
        The President. Yes, actually, I have a little different take. I
    thought it was 85 percent of the world's food prices are caused by
    weather, increased demand, and energy prices--just the cost of growing
    product--and that 15 percent has been caused by ethanol--or the arrival
    of ethanol.
        By the way, the high price of gasoline is going to spur more
    investment in ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. And the truth of
    the matter is, it's in our national interests that we--our farmers grow
    energy as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that
    are unstable or may not like us.
        In terms of the international situation, we are deeply concerned
    about food prices here at home, and we're deeply concerned about people
    who don't have food abroad. In other words, scarcity is of concern to
    us. Last year, we were very generous in our food donations, and this
    year, we'll be generous as well. As a matter of fact, we just released
    about $200 million out of the Emerson Trust as part of a ongoing effort
    to address scarcity.
        One thing I think that would be--I know would be very creative
    policy is if we would buy food from local farmers as a way to help deal
    with scarcity, but also as a way to put in place an infrastructure so
    that nations can be self-sustaining and self-supporting. It's a proposal
    I put forth that Congress hasn't responded to yet, and I sincerely hope
    they do.
        That would be Jim [Jim Axelrod, CBS News].

    Price of Gasoline/National Economy/2008 Presidential Election

        Q. Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you. I just want to follow up
    on the idea

    [[Page 591]]

    of the gas tax moratorium, if I may, because you're indicating that
    perhaps you'd be open to it. You mentioned in your opening remarks
    that----
        The President. I'm open to any ideas, and we'll analyze everything
    that comes our way, but go ahead.
        Q. Well, we're talking about perhaps the most immediate relief to
    people who are buying gasoline every day, because it would be an 18.4-
    cents-a-gallon tax cut. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are in favor
    of it; Senator Obama is not.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. But Americans are hearing about this every day. So could you
    flesh out, perhaps, some of your thinking about why this would be a good
    idea or not, why you would agree with Senator McCain or Senator Obama?
        The President. No, I appreciate you trying to drag me in the '08
    race. And this is the first attempt to do so, and I can understand why
    you would want to do that.
        I will tell you that, first of all, the American people have got to
    understand that here in the White House, we are concerned about high
    gasoline prices. We're concerned about high food prices. We're concerned
    about people staying in their homes. And we're concerned about student
    loans, just like I described. And Congress can be helpful. Congress,
    they can show leadership by dealing with these issues.
        And we'll consider interesting ideas. But, Jim, what I'm not going
    to do is jump right in the middle of a Presidential campaign. We'll let
    the candidates argue out their ideas.
        Q. Well, would----
        The President. I just told you, I'll consider the ideas. If it's a
    good idea, we embrace it; if not, we're analyzing the different ideas
    coming forward.
        Wendell [Wendell Goler, FOX News Channel].

    Alternative Fuel Sources/Energy

        Q. Mr. President, you just said there's not a lot of excess supply
    out there. Some energy experts think we may have already passed or be
    within a couple of years of passing the maximum oil pumping capability.
    In other words, we may be close to tapping all we've got. Do you think
    that's the case? And if you do, why haven't you put more resources into
    renewable energy research, sir?
        The President. Wendell, we've put a lot into ethanol. And we're--
    matter of fact, the solution to the issue of corn-fed ethanol is
    cellulosic ethanol, which is a fancy word for saying we're going to make
    ethanol out of switchgrasses or wood chips. And we're spending a lot of
    money along those lines.
        But energy policy needs to be comprehensive. And we got to
    understand, we're in a transition period. The problem is, there's been a
    lot of focus by the Congress in the intermediate steps and in the long-
    term steps--the long-term steps being hydrogen; the intermediate steps
    being biofuels, for example, and researching the biofuels and battery
    technology--but not enough emphasis on the here and now.
        And so you ask--you say that people think we can't--there's not any
    more reserves to be found. Well, there are reserves to be found in ANWR.
    That's a given. I just told you that there's about 27 million gallons of
    diesel and gasoline that could be--from domestically produced crude oil
    that's not being utilized. And not only that, we can explore in
    environmentally friendly ways. New technologies enables for--to be able
    to drill like we've never been able to do so before--slant hole
    technologies and the capacity to use a drill site, a single drill site,
    to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn't damage the
    environment. And yet this is a litmus test issue for many in Congress.
    Somehow if you mention ANWR, it means you don't care about the
    environment. Well, I'm hoping now people, when they say ANWR, means

    [[Page 592]]

    you don't care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.
        Yes, sir. Rog [Roger Runningen, Bloomberg News].

    Strategic Petroleum Reserve

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning.
        The President. Good morning. [Laughter] I like a friendly guy here
    in the Rose Garden.
        Q. Sir, 14----
        The President. Would that be you, Rog, a friendly guy here in the
    Rose Garden? [Laughter]
        Q. Thank you.
        The President. Yes. Mr. Sunshine, they call you. [Laughter]
        Q. Fourteen Senators, including your own Senator, Kay Bailey
    Hutchison from Texas, calling on you to stop filling the Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve. You've been asked that several times over the past
    few years.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. I know what your answer has been. But do you think now, with the
    rising prices, the record high oil prices, it's time to change course?
        The President. In this case, I have analyzed the issue. And I don't
    think it would affect price for this reason: We're buying, at the
    moment, about 67,000 to 68,000 barrels of oil per day, fulfilling
    statutory obligations to fill up the SPRO. World demand is 85 million
    barrels a day. So the purchases for SPRO account for one-tenth of one
    percent of global demand. And I don't think that's going to affect
    price, when you affect one-tenth of one percent. And I do believe it is
    in our national interest to get the SPRO filled in case there's a major
    disruption of crude oil around the world.
        I mean, one of the--for example, one of the things the--Al Qaida
    would like to do is blow up oil facilities. Understanding we're in a
    global market, a attack on an oil facility in a major oil exporting
    country would affect the economies of their enemy--that would be us and
    other people who can't stand what Al Qaida stands for. And therefore,
    the SPRO is necessary, if that's the case, to be able to deal with that
    kind of contingency. And if I thought it would affect the price of oil
    positively, I'd seriously consider it. But when you're talking about
    one-tenth of one percent of global demand, I think the--if you--on a
    cost-benefit analysis, I don't think you get any benefits from making
    the decision. I do think it costs you oil in the case of a national
    security risk.
        Martha [Martha Raddatz, ABC News].

    Afghanistan/War on Terror

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to switch to Afghanistan.
    There was another attempt on President Karzai's life. There are
    operations going on there right now. Is the strategy succeeding? Are we
    winning in Afghanistan?
        The President. Yes, I think we're making progress in Afghanistan,
    but there's a very resilient enemy that obviously wants to kill people
    that stand in the way of their reimposition of a state that is--which
    vision is incredibly dark. I mean, it's very important for the American
    people to remember what life was like in Afghanistan prior to the
    liberation of the country. We had a government in place that abused
    people's human rights. They didn't believe in women's rights, they
    didn't let little girls go to school, and they provided safe haven to Al
    Qaida. In the liberation of this country, we've achieved some very
    important strategic objectives: denying Al Qaida safe haven from which
    to plot and plan attacks and replacing this repressive group with a
    young democracy.
        And it's difficult in Afghanistan. I mean, it's--if you know the
    history of the country, you understand it's hard to go from the kind of
    society in which they had been living to one in which people are now
    responsible for their own behavior. But I am pleased with a lot of
    things. One, I'm pleased with the number of roads that have

    [[Page 593]]

    been built. I'm pleased with the number of schools that have opened up.
    I'm pleased a lot of girls, young girls, are going to school. I'm
    pleased health clinics are now being distributed around the country. I'm
    pleased with the Afghan Army, that when they're in the fight, they're
    good.
        I wish we had completely eliminated the radicals who kill innocent
    people to achieve objectives, but that hasn't happened yet. And so I
    think it's very much in our interests to continue helping the young
    democracy, and we will.
        Yes. Obviously, you've got a follow-up.
        Q. But do you think we're winning? Do you think we're winning?
        The President. I do. I think we're making good progress. I do, yes.
        Q. Can I just add to that? A couple of weeks ago----
        The President. No, you can't. This is the second follow-up. You
    usually get one follow-up, and I was nice enough to give you one. I
    didn't give anybody on this side a follow-up, and now you are trying to
    take a second follow-up.
        Q. They didn't try.
        The President. I know you try.
        Yes.
        Q. Can I just say that----
        The President. No, they just cut off your mike. You can't, no.
        Q. A couple of weeks ago, you said----
        The President. Now she's going to go without the mike. This is
    awesome. [Laughter]
        Q. A couple of weeks ago, you said that in Iraq, in 2006, you said
    we were winning and the strategy was working to keep up troop morale.
        The President. Yes.
        Q. How can we believe that you're not doing the same thing here?
        The President. Oh, you tried to ask me that question before. It's a
    repeat. Look, I said----
        Q. No, I'm talking----
        The President. Can I finish, please? The question you asked me
    before at the exclusive I gave you on the ranch was, ``You said that we
    were winning in the past.'' I also said that there was tough fighting.
    Now, make sure you put the comments in place.
        So what I'm going to tell you now is, we're making progress in
    Afghanistan, but there's tough fighting. I'm under no illusions that
    this isn't tough. I know full well we're dealing with a determined
    enemy. I believe it's in our interest that we defeat that enemy. And so
    yes, we're making progress, but it's also a tough battle. We're facing
    people who are willing to strap bombs on themselves and walk into places
    where the innocent dwell or the innocent shop and kill them.
        Is it in our interest to confront these people now, whether it be in
    Afghanistan or Iraq or Europe or anywhere else? And the answer is,
    absolutely, it's in our interest. And the notion that somehow we can let
    these people just kind of have their way, or, you know, let's don't stir
    them up, is naive or disingenuous, and it's not in our Nation's
    interests. We are in a global struggle against thugs and killers, and
    the United States of America has got to continue to take the lead.
        And so in Afghanistan, yes, we're making progress. Does that mean
    that we're--that it's over? No, it doesn't mean it's over. We're in a
    long struggle, as I've told you many a time, against these jihadists.
    You defeat them ultimately by the advance of democracy. See, this is an
    ideological struggle. These aren't isolated, kind of, law enforcement
    moments. We're dealing with a group of ideologues who use asymmetrical
    warfare--that means killing innocent people--to try to achieve their
    objectives. And one objective is to drive us out of Afghanistan, Iraq,
    the Middle East, or anywhere else where we try to confront them.
        And so yes, I mean, look, is it tough? Yes, it's tough. Is it
    difficult? Absolutely. Is it worth the fight? In my judgment, yes, it
    is.
        Yes, ma'am.

    [[Page 594]]

    Syria/North Korea/Iran

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. What is the impact--[inaudible]?
        The President. I can't hear you too well. Sorry, got a flawed mike.
    Martha, what did you do to the mike? [Laughter]
        Q. Thank you, sir.
        The President. She wanted an exclusive again. Anyway. [Laughter]
        Q. Mr. President, thank you, sir. And previously, when asked about
    Israel's September bombing of the Syrian facility, you refused
    aggressively to discuss it. Then suddenly last week, your administration
    released classified photos and details of that bombing, intelligence
    officials claiming that it showed that this facility was a North Korean-
    designed nuclear facility being actually built with the help of
    Pyongyang. Why the turnaround, sir? What did you hope that that would
    accomplish? And what do you say to lawmakers of both parties on Capitol
    Hill who are quite concerned that, indeed, if this was what this
    facility was, that it took some 8 months for you to inform them, sir?
        The President. Thank you. Let me correct the record. We briefed 22
    Members of Congress on what I'm about to tell you. First, we were
    concerned that an early disclosure would increase the risk of a
    confrontation in the Middle East or retaliation in the Middle East. As I
    mentioned to you early on, we did notify 22 Members of Congress, key
    committee chairmen. And I was--I'm mindful that there was going to be
    this kind of reaction. And we--of course, we wanted to include more
    Members of Congress at a time when we felt the risk of retaliation or
    confrontation in the Middle East was reduced. And so that moment came
    upon us and then extended the briefings.
        We also wanted to advance certain policy objectives through the
    disclosures. And one would be to the North Koreans, to make it
    abundantly clear that we may know more about you than you think, and
    therefore, it's essential that you have a complete disclosure on not
    only your plutonium activities but proliferation as well as enrichment
    activities.
        And then we have an interest in sending a message to Iran, and the
    world for that matter, about just how destabilizing a--nuclear
    proliferation would be in the Middle East, and that it's essential that
    we work together to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at
    getting Iran to stop their enrichment programs. In other words, one of
    the things that this example shows is that these programs can exist and
    people don't know about them and--because the Syrians simply didn't
    declare the program. They had a hidden program.
        And finally, we wanted to make it clear to Syria and the world that
    their intransigence in dealing with--helping us in Iraq or destabilizing
    Lebanon or dealing with Hamas, which is a destabilizing force in our
    efforts to have a Palestinian state coexist peacefully with Israel, that
    those efforts are--it gives us a chance to remind the world that we need
    to work together to deal with those issues. So that's why we made the
    decision we made.
        Yes, sir.

    Congress/Legislative Priorities

        Q. Mr. President, you've expressed frustration with Congress,
    obviously, over the economic--wanting them to do more on the economy.
    They've blocked you on Colombia. They've blocked you on the FISA issue.
    Are you frustrated? Are you angry? And do you have any real hope of
    being able to work with this Congress this year?
        The President. Yes. I am--I believe that they're letting the
    American people down, is what I believe. The--on the FISA issue, it is
    hard to believe that it's okay to pass the Protect America Act in August
    of 2007, and that act--and that people in Congress can't--don't believe
    that act is relevant in 2008. I mean, the act was set to expire; it did.
    And yet this threat hasn't gone away.

    [[Page 595]]

    And I can only--it's either lack of leadership or a lack of
    understanding of the issue. And either way, it's not good for the
    country. We need to make sure our professionals have the tools to
    protect the American people from attack.
        The Colombia free trade agreement--this economy is--as I mentioned
    to you, it's a sour time. It's tough for the American people. And yet
    the Colombia free trade agreement would benefit our economy. And the
    reason why is, is that many goods from Colombia come into our country
    duty free. And yet our goods going to Colombia are taxed through tariff.
    And the American people expect the President and the Congress to at
    least insist that a foreign country treat us the way we treat them. And
    in this case, the benefits will be more exports, more midsized and small
    businesses exporting into Colombia. About 9,000 exporters into Colombia
    today; 8,000 are midsized and small businesses. And when you can export
    more, it helps the economy. And one of the bright lights of the economy
    has been the amount of exports going overseas.
        So rather than playing politics or whatever rationale that they have
    made for Colombia, they ought to be saying, this is good for our
    economy, it's good for workers, it's good for small businesses.
        And so I'm perplexed, I guess is the best way to describe it, about
    why there's no action, inactivity on big issues. And because the two
    issues you mentioned--FISA, protecting America, and Colombia, protecting
    America's economy by encouraging growth--are important to people whether
    they be Republicans, Democrats, or Independents.
        Sheryl [Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times].

    National Economy/Energy/Taxes

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. You're welcome.
        Q. I'm still waiting for my exclusive at the ranch.
        The President. Yes. [Laughter]
        Q. Mr. President, today I'm--[laughter].
        The President. I'm at a loss for words. If only you'd have been at
    the White House Correspondents' dinner, I would have invited you.
    [Laughter] Anyway, please, go ahead.
        Q. Well said.
        The President. It's an inside joke, for everybody listening.
    [Laughter]
        Q. Mr. President, you have spoken today about opening ANWR for
    drilling and also refineries. But these are clearly long-term solutions
    to the problem of rising gas prices. What can you tell Americans about
    what your administration is doing in the short term?
        And secondly, have you been briefed on tomorrow's GDP numbers, and
    are you concerned----
        The President. No, I haven't been.
        Q. Okay--and are you concerned that they will show us to officially
    be in a recession?
        The President. I think they'll show that we're--it's a very slow
    economy. I can't guess what the number will be, and I haven't been
    shown, truly.
        And by the way, opening up ANWR is not long term, it's intermediate
    term. But it sends a clear signal, is what it does. It sends a clear
    signal to the markets that the United States is not going to restrict
    exploration, the United States is going to encourage exploration.
        And in the meantime, we have done--increasing CAFTA, for example.
    But the market's going to do as much for encouraging conservation as
    anything else is now. And so I firmly believe that--you know, if there
    was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it, of course. It's--I strongly
    believe it's in our interest that we reduce gas prices--gasoline prices.
    I mean, it would be like a major tax cut for people. And----
        Q. But what----

    [[Page 596]]

        The President. But let me finish, please, Sheryl. Strike one on the
    exclusive. [Laughter] Excuse me, strike two. [Laughter]
        That--you made me lose my train of thought, of course. Maybe that's
    what you were attempting to do. No, I think that if there was a magic
    wand and say, okay, drop price, I'd do that. And so part of this is to
    make--set the psychology right that says to the world, we're not going
    to become more beholden on your oil; we're going to open up and be
    aggressive and have an aggressive energy policy. Secondly, we're going
    to be--send the signal we're going to be building new refineries.
        But there is no magic wand to wave right now. It took us awhile to
    get to this fix. That's why I told you that if Congress had responded--
    as a matter of fact, Congress did pass ANWR in the late 1900s--I mean,
    1990s--and the 1900s--1990s, but it didn't go forward. And it's in my
    considered judgment, given the technological advances, to say, this is--
    we'll destroy the environment is just--I don't think it's an accurate
    statement.
        And so I think it's very important, Sheryl, for Congress. The other
    thing Congress can do, if you want to send a good signal during these
    uncertain times, is make the tax cuts permanent, is to let people--send
    the signal that people are going to be able to keep their money. And I
    think that will help the psychology of the country.
        Yes, Mark [Mark Knoller, CBS Radio].

    Hamas/Situation in the Middle East

        Q. Mr. President, do you feel----
        The President. Yes, you can use a mike.
        Q. Do you feel your foreign policy in the Middle East has been
    undermined by Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas leaders? What harm does
    it do for him to have met with Hamas leaders?
        The President. No. Foreign policy and peace is undermined by Hamas
    in the Middle East. They're the ones who are undermining peace. They're
    the ones whose foreign policy objective is the destruction of Israel.
    They're the ones who are trying to create enough violence to stop the
    advance of the two-party state solution. They are a significant problem
    to world peace--or Middle Eastern peace.
        And that's the reason I'm not talking to them. And that's the reason
    why--it's just important for people to understand that this is a--we're
    in a--we're witnessing a struggle between those who understand liberty
    and believe in the advance of liberty and those who want to stop the
    advance of liberty. And Hamas has made their position very clear.
        Unfortunately, they're getting help. In Syria, they get help.
    There's rumors about Iranian help. And these countries that I just named
    are--take, for example, Lebanon. I talked to Prime Minister
    Siniora today. Here's a struggling democracy in
    the heart of the Middle East that is--whose internal politics are being
    influenced by Syria, Hizballah--as a result of Iranian influence with
    Hizballah, all aiming to destabilize the country, which should be a
    clear signal about the intents of--the intentions of groups like
    Hizballah and Hamas.
        And so when you want to talk about peace being difficult in the
    Middle East, it's going to be difficult. But it's even made more
    difficult by entities like Hamas, who insist upon lobbing rockets into
    Israel, trying to provoke response and trying to destabilize--even
    destabilize the region more.
        And anybody can talk to who they want, but I just want the people to
    understand that the problem is Hamas. And until Hamas changes or until
    there's a competing vision in the Middle East for President
    Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad to offer to the Palestinian people, that's all the more
    reason to try to define a state. And that's why I'm going to the Middle
    East, besides going to the 60th anniversary of Israel.
        Yes, Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News].

    Hamas/Middle East Peace Process

        Q. Thank you, sir. Did any good come out of President Carter's talks
    with Hamas?

    [[Page 597]]

    And did anyone in your administration ask him not to do it? And will it
    have any impact on your trip to the Middle East?
        The President. I didn't talk to him, and I don't know. I don't know
    what the conversations were, and I don't see Hamas changing. It's up to
    Hamas to change. And you get these meetings with these people, and they
    say one thing and do another. And this is the way it's been now for 7\1/
    2\ years in this administration, watching Hamas be a destabilizing
    influence.
        And I supported the elections, by the way. And curiously enough,
    they won the elections against Fatah because they ran on a noncorruption
    campaign. The sad situation is, now they've been given power, they
    haven't delivered for the people in Gaza.
        And my mission is to--when I go to the Middle East--is to continue
    to work with both Israelis and the--President Abbas and his Government on a variety of fronts: one,
    coming up with the vision, helping them find the common ground on the
    vision; but also working with the Israelis to empower the Palestinians
    in the West Bank to be more in charge of security, to have less
    obstacles with which to deal with, to help the Palestinians with
    economic vitality and growth. There's some very interesting initiatives
    that are being developed there.
        I'm still hopeful we'll get an agreement by the end of my
    Presidency. Condi is heading back out
    there. I've been in touch with President Abbas
    here in the Oval Office, and I talk to Prime Minister Olmert, and the attitude is good. People do understand the
    importance of getting a state defined.
        But Hamas is--look, when you're Israel and you've got people lobbing
    rockets into your country, you're going to take care of business. But
    you got to ask, why is Hamas lobbing rockets? And one reason why is
    because they're trying to destabilize and create chaos and confusion.
    And to answer whether or not the people's conversations with them were
    more effective: That's all we got to do, is watch and see how Hamas
    behaves.
        Richard [Richard Wolf, USA Today].

    Congressional Action on Supplemental Appropriations/Veterans' Benefits

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Congress is preparing to add a couple
    of things to your supplemental spending request for Iraq. And I'm
    wondering, some of these seem like things you could support: extending
    unemployment benefits and, particularly, additional help for Iraq and
    Afghanistan war veterans in terms of educational benefits. Are these
    things you might agree to, even though you have set a $108 billion
    ceiling on the package?
        The President. Richard, 108 is 108. And I made my position very
    clear to Congress, and I will not accept a supplemental over 108 or a
    supplemental that micromanages the war, ties the hands of our
    commanders.
        We will work with Congress and--on these veterans' benefits. I'm a
    firm believer that we ought to treat our veterans with respect. In the
    State of the Union, I talked about the idea of transferring--a soldier
    being able to transfer educational benefits to spouse or children. We've
    sent legislation to that effect up to Congress; we would like for them
    to move on it quickly. But the 108 is 108.
        Michael [Michael Allen, Politico].

    2008 Presidential Election/U.S. Foreign Policy

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if there's a big, urgent
    problem facing the country, coming down the road, that you worry your
    successor will neglect or postpone. That is, when the politics are done,
    after the war on terror, what do you think should be at the top of the
    list of the person who moves into that office?
        The President. Yes. I don't think John McCain is going to neglect the war on terror, and I do think
    he'll be the President. Here I am interjecting myself in the '08

    [[Page 598]]

    campaign, just like I told you I wouldn't. That's unfair, isn't it?
        He--it's very important for the President to
    understand that America is still in danger of attack and that we're
    dealing in--with an ideological struggle that can only be solved with
    the spread of liberty. And a concern of mine, as you've heard me say, is
    that the Nation has had the tendency in the past to become isolationist
    and correspondingly protectionist. And I would hope whoever the
    President is--and I do believe it will be John--will be willing to
    resist the impulse, the temptation to say, well, it's not worth it
    anymore to confront an enemy; it's not worth it to try to do the hard
    work of helping democracies thrive and succeed. Because not only is it
    worth it; we will succeed in laying the foundation for peace if we have
    faith in the capacity of liberty to be transformative.
        I'm also concerned about protectionism. This lad right here asked me
    about Congress's intransigence on Colombia. I think it reflects the fact
    that there is a strong protectionist sentiment in the United States.
    People--good people--believe it is not in our interest to be opening up
    markets. You might remember the CAFTA trade vote. We won by one vote,
    and it was a tough vote to get. And now the Speaker pulled a unique maneuver to stop the Colombia from
    moving forward. And it's a sign of--that the country is losing its
    confidence to a certain extent, that protectionist policy is better than
    confidently trading and treating unfairness in the marketplace.
        And so my worry--not worry--my hope is, is that whoever the
    President is understands that America is a force for good in the world,
    that we're--that in the spread of liberty, we're adhering to a universal
    value. It's not an American value, it's a universal value, the notion of
    liberty. And you've heard me say it a lot. I do believe it's a gift from
    the Almighty to every man, woman, and child. And if you believe in that
    and act on that, you're really acting on a platform of peace, because
    ultimately, liberty yields the peace you want. It's transformative and
    powerful. And I believe that people will be making a mistake if they
    say, we can't compete economically, and therefore, let's throw up walls.
    And yet the tendencies here in America are pretty strong right now.
        There's a lot of concern around the world, by the way, about
    America's retreat. They're wondering whether or not America is going to
    remain a leader. They're wondering whether or not, for example, will
    capital be welcomed back into our country. And so it's the ``isms'' that
    bother me--isolationism and protectionism.
        April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks].

    National Economy/Zimbabwe

        Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. Yes. You're looking good in yellow.
        Q. Thank you.
        The President. How's the baby?
        Q. She's good.
        The President. Good. Yes.
        Q. Thank you. You're trying to get me off.
        The President. No.
        Q. But it's okay.
        The President. Is it true you named her Georgia?
        Q. No. Is that okay with you?
        The President. It's your baby. [Laughter]
        Q. Anyway, moving on to the subject of the day, I talked to James
    Clyburn before this press conference. He said, ``As a man thinketh, so
    are we.'' And Americans believe we are in a recession. What will it take
    for you to say those words, that we are in a recession?
        And also, on Zimbabwe, what's the next step? And does South Africa
    play a part in that?
        The President. Yes, thank you. I've answered my--the question on the
    words and terminologies. I will tell you that these are

    [[Page 599]]

    very difficult economic times--very difficult. And we'll let the
    economists define it for what it is. I would hope that those who worry
    about recession, slowdown--whatever you want to call it--make the tax
    cuts permanent as a way of helping to address this issue. Because if
    you're somebody out there trying to plan your future and you're worried
    about the future and you think your taxes are going to go up, it's going
    to cause different behavioral patterns.
        Secondly, I do want to thank the Members of Congress. And the
    man you talked to is a leader and did a
    very good job of helping shepherd through this billions-of-dollar
    package that is now beginning to hit America's pocketbooks. And we'll
    see how that goes. I hope it's as stimulative as we think it will be.
    But you can tell the good man you talked to, who is a good guy, that I
    fully understand that people are concerned. And they're concerned about
    high gasoline prices. They're worried about high food prices, worried
    about staying in their homes.
        The new issue, of course, is student loans. The House of
    Representatives passed a bill that--sponsored by Mr. Miller, George Miller, that is a--that we think can do the
    job. I hope the Senate moves a version of it very quickly so that we can
    help address this issue. I mean, one of the things that Government can
    do is either create more anxiety or less. And if you think your taxes
    are going to go up, that's going to make you anxious. If you think the
    Government is going to step in with a good policy that will help your
    child get a student loan, that will make you less anxious.
        One of the things we've done on homeownership is the HOPE NOW
    Alliance, which, hopefully, makes people less anxious. Hopefully, it
    helps--has kind of brought some sense of not only concern but action
    into the marketplace. And I was told this morning that HOPE NOW has
    affected about 1.4 million homeowners and helped a lot of them
    refinance, get refinancing, or helped a lot of them get different
    interest payment schedules, all aiming for creditworthy people to be
    able to stay in their homes during this difficult period.
        Zimbabwe--first of all, the will of the people needed to be
    respected in Zimbabwe. And it is clear that they voted for change, as
    they should have, because the--Mr. Mugabe has
    failed the country. It's a country that used to be an exporter of food;
    it's now got terrible human conditions there.
        Secondly, the violence and the intimidation is simply unacceptable.
    The Government is intent upon--and is--intimidating the people there.
        We support the U.N. Security Council discussions that are going on.
    But the truth of the matter is, April--and you mentioned this--it's
    really incumbent upon the nations in the neighborhood to step up and
    lead and recognize that the will of the people must be respected and
    recognize that that will came about because they're tired of failed
    leadership.
        Thank you all for your interest. Enjoyed it.

    Note: The President's news conference began at 10:31 a.m. in the Rose
    Garden at the White House. In his remarks, he referred to Prime Minister
    Fuad Siniora of Lebanon; President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister
    Salam Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority; Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of
    Israel; and President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Reporters referred to
    former President Jimmy Carter; and Rep. James E. Clyburn.

    [[Page 600]]