[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 44, Number 28 (Monday, July 21, 2008)]
[Pages 986-997]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference

July 15, 2008

    The President. Good morning. It's been a difficult time for many 
American families who are coping with declining housing values and high 
gasoline prices. This week, my administration took steps to help address 
both these challenges.
    To help address challenges in the housing and financial markets, we 
announced temporary steps to help stabilize them and increase confidence 
in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two enterprises play a central role 
in our housing finance system, so Treasury Paulson has worked with the 
Federal Reserve Chairman, Bernanke, so that the companies and the 
Government regulators--put the companies and the Government regulators 
on a plan to strengthen these enterprises. We must ensure they can 
continue providing access to mortgage credit during this time of 
financial stress.
    I appreciate the positive reaction this plan has received from many 
Members of Congress. I urge Members to move quickly to enact the plan in 
its entirety, along with the good oversight legislation that we have 
recommended for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is a part of a--
should be part of the housing package that is moving its way through the 
Congress. And I hope they move quickly. The newly proposed authorities 
will be temporary and used only if needed. And as we work to maintain 
the health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we'll work to ensure that they 
remain shareholder-owned companies.
    To help address the pressure on gasoline prices, my administration 
took action this week to clear the way for offshore exploration on the 
Outer Continental Shelf. It's what's called OCS. Congress has restricted 
access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. I've called on 
Congress to remove the ban. There was also an executive prohibition on

[[Page 987]]

exploration--offshore exploration. So yesterday, I issued a memorandum 
to lift this executive prohibition. With this action, the executive 
branch's restrictions have been removed, and this means that the only 
thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources 
is action from the U.S. Congress. Bringing OCS resources on line is 
going to take time, which means that the need for congressional action 
is urgent. The sooner Congress lifts the ban, the sooner we can get 
these resources from the ocean floor to the refineries to the gas pump.
    Democratic leaders have been delaying action on offshore 
exploration, and now they have an opportunity to show that they finally 
heard the frustrations of the American people. They should match the 
action I have taken, repeal the congressional ban, and pass legislation 
to facilitate responsible offshore exploration.
    Congress needs, also, to pass bills to fund our Government in a 
fiscally responsible way. I was disappointed to learn the Democratic 
leaders in the House postponed committee consideration of the defense 
appropriations bill, and they did so yesterday. They failed to get a 
single one of the 12 annual appropriations bills to my desk. In fact, 
this is the latest that both the House and the Senate have failed to 
pass any of their annual spending bills in more than two decades.
    There are just 26 legislative days left before the end of the fiscal 
year. This means that to get their fundamental job done, Congress would 
have to pass a spending bill nearly every other day. This is not a 
record to be proud of, and I think the American people deserve better.
    Our citizens are rightly concerned about the difficulties in the 
housing markets and high gasoline prices and the failure of the 
Democratic Congress to address these and other pressing issues. Yet 
despite the challenges we face, our economy has demonstrated remarkable 
resilience. While the unemployment rate has risen, it remains at 5.5 
percent, which is still low by historical standards. And the economy 
continued to grow in the first quarter of this year. The growth is 
slower than we would have liked, but it was growth nonetheless.
    We saw the signs of a slowdown early and enacted a bipartisan 
economic stimulus package. We've now delivered more than $91 billion in 
tax relief to more than 112 million American households this year. It's 
going to take some time before we feel the full benefit of the stimulus 
package, but the early signs are encouraging. Retails sales were up in 
May and June and should contribute--and will contribute--to economic 
growth. In the months ahead, we expect more Americans to take advantage 
of these stimulus payments and inject new energy into our economy.
    The bottom line is this: We're going through a tough time, but our 
economy has continued growing, consumers are spending, businesses are 
investing, exports continue increasing, and American productivity 
remains strong. We can have confidence in the long-term foundation of 
our economy, and I believe we will come through this challenge stronger 
than ever before.
    And now I'll be glad to take some questions from you.
    Mr. Hunt [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Corporations/U.S. Financial Institutions

    Q. Mr. President, are America's banks in trouble? And does the 
rescue of Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac make more bailouts inevitable by 
sending the message that there are some institutions that are too big to 
fail and that it's okay to take risks?
    The President. First, let me talk about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 
A lot of people in the country probably don't understand how important 
they are to the mortgage markets. And it's really important for people 
to have confidence in the mortgage markets and that there be stability 
in the mortgage markets. And that's why Secretary Paulson announced the 
plan this weekend, which says that he needs authorities from the 
Congress to come up with a line of credit for these institutions, if 
needed, and that he ought to have the authority to invest capital, if 
needed.
    And so the purpose was to send a clear signal that, one, we 
understand how important these institutions are to the mortgage markets, 
and two, to kind of calm nerves. The truth of the matter is, by laying 
this out, it

[[Page 988]]

is--makes it less likely we'll need to use this kind of authority to 
begin with, which, by the way, is temporary authority.
    As you--talked about banks. Now, if you're a commercial bank in 
America and your deposit--and you have a deposit in a commercial bank in 
America, your deposit is insured by the Federal Government up to 
$100,000. And so therefore, when you hear nervousness about your bank, 
you know, people start talking about how nervous they are about your 
bank's condition, the depositor must understand that the Federal 
Government, through the FDIC, stands behind the deposit up to $100,000. 
And therefore--which leads me to say that if you're a depositor, you're 
in--you're protected by the Federal Government.
    I happened to have witnessed a bank run in Midland, Texas, one time. 
I'll never forget the guy standing in the bank lobby saying, ``Your 
deposits are good. We got you insured. You don't have to worry about it 
if you got less than $100,000 in the bank.'' The problem was, people 
didn't hear. And there's a--became a nervousness. My hope is, is that 
people take a deep breath and realize that their deposits are protected 
by our Government.
    So these are two different instances--mortgage markets on the one 
hand, banking on the other.
    Q. And banking--do you think the system is in trouble?
    The President. I think the system basically is sound; I truly do. 
And I understand there's a lot of nervousness. And--but the economy's 
growing; productivity is high; trade's up; people are working. It's not 
as good as we'd like, but--and to the extent that we find weakness, 
we'll move. That's one thing about this administration, we're not afraid 
of making tough decisions. And I thought the decision that Secretary 
Paulson recommended on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the right 
decision.
    Matt [Matt Spetalnick, Reuters].

National Economy/Legislative Agenda

    Q. Mr. President, you mentioned the latest retail sales, but they 
actually show a smaller boost than economists had expected from the 
Government rebate checks. Given the latest economic data, are you still 
insisting that the United States is not headed for a recession? And are 
you willing to consider a second stimulus package if needed?
    The President. Matt, I--all I can tell you is we grew in the first 
quarter. I can remember holding a press conference here and that same 
question came about, assuming that we weren't going to grow. But we 
showed growth. It's not the growth we'd like; we'd like stronger growth. 
And there are some things we can do. One is wait for the stimulus 
package to fully kick in and not raise taxes. If the Democratic leaders 
had their way in Congress, they would raise taxes, which would be the 
absolute wrong thing to do.
    Secondly, they can pass housing legislation that reforms FHA as well 
as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And by the way, a part of that--as I 
mentioned in my opening statement, a part of that reform will be a 
strong regulator to help these institutions stay focused on the core 
mission, which is mortgages.
    They can pass energy legislation. I readily concede that, you know, 
it's not going to produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it is going to 
change the psychology that demand will constantly outstrip supply. As I 
said in my remarks, it's going to take a while to get these reserves on 
line. But it won't take a while to send a signal to the world that we're 
willing to use new technologies to find oil reserves here at home.
    And the other thing Congress can do is work on trade legislation. 
One of the positives in the economy right now is the fact that we're 
selling more goods overseas. And they need to open up markets to 
Colombia and South Korea and Panama.
    John [ John Yang, NBC News].

National Economy

    Q. Mr. President, just to follow up with Terry's question a little 
bit. You talked about the mortgage markets and banks. Are there other 
entities in the economy that are so crucial to the stability and 
confidence in the economy--I'm thinking particularly of General Motors, 
which today is cutting jobs, announcing they're going into the credit 
market to raise billions of dollars--are there other entities that are 
so crucial to stability that

[[Page 989]]

require Government action to show support for them?
    The President. Government action--if you're talking about bailing 
out--if your question is, should the Government bail out private 
enterprise? The answer is, no, it shouldn't. And by the way, the 
decisions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--I hear some say ``bailout''--I 
don't think it's a bailout. The shareholders still own the company. 
That's why I said we want this to continue to be a shareholder-owned 
company.
    In this case, there is a feeling that the Government will stand 
behind mortgages through these two entities. And therefore, we felt a 
special need to step up and say that we are going to provide, if needed, 
temporary assistance through either debt or capital.
    In terms of private enterprises, no, I don't think the Government 
ought to be involved with bailing out companies. I think the Government 
ought to create the conditions so that companies can survive. And I've 
listed four. And one of the things I'm deeply troubled about is people 
who feel like it's okay to raise taxes during these times. And it would 
be a huge mistake to raise taxes right now.
    Plante [Bill Plante, CBS News].

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Corporations

    Q. Mr. President, you just said twice that the--Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac should remain shareholder-owned companies. If that's the 
case, because of the implicit Government guarantee that they have, or 
that is understood--has been understood by the markets--their exposure 
is higher and their reserves are lower than any normal business's--
should they be privatized altogether and be subject to normal business 
rules?
    The President. Well, the first step is to make sure that there's 
confidence and stability in the mortgage markets through the actions 
that we have taken. Secondly, we strongly believe there ought to be a 
regulator. That's something--this is the position I have been advocating 
for a long time. And the reason why is, it's going to be very important 
for these institutions to focus on their core mission, which is to 
provide refinancing for the mortgage industry. And hopefully, these 
measures will instill the confidence in the people. And we'll see how 
things go.
    Q. But they should still have that public guarantee then?
    The President. You know, there is an implicit guarantee, as you 
said. They ought to be focusing on the missions they're expected to do. 
We have advocated reform for a long period of time. But these need to 
remain private enterprises, and that's what our message is.

Price of Gasoline/Oil Supply

    Q. Mr. President, in February, you were asked about Americans facing 
the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, and you said you hadn't heard of 
that at the time. Gas prices----
    The President. Heard of it now.
    Q. Gas prices are now approaching $5 a gallon in some parts of the 
country. Offshore oil exploration is obviously a long-term approach. 
What is the short-term advice for Americans? What can you do now to help 
them?
    The President. First of all, there is a psychology in the oil market 
that basically says, supplies are going to stay stagnant while demand 
rises. And that's reflected, somewhat, in the price of crude oil. 
Gasoline prices are reflected--the amount of a gasoline price at the 
pump is reflected in the price of crude oil. And therefore, it seems 
like it makes sense to me to say to the world that we're going to use 
new technologies to explore for oil and gas in the United States--
offshore oil, ANWR, oil shale projects--to help change this psychology, 
to send a clear message that the supplies of oil will increase.
    Secondly, obviously good conservation measures matter. I've been 
reading a lot about how the automobile companies are beginning to 
adjust--people--consumers are beginning to say, ``Wait a minute, I don't 
want a gas guzzler anymore; I want a smaller car.'' So the two need to 
go hand in hand. There is no immediate fix. This took us a while to get 
in this problem; there is no short-term solution. I think it was in the 
Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic 
wand. But the President

[[Page 990]]

doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, low gas. It took us a 
while to get here, and we need to have a good strategy to get out of it.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    Q. But you do have the strategic oil petroleum reserve. What about 
opening that?
    The President. The strategic oil petroleum reserve is for, you know, 
emergencies. But that doesn't address the fundamental issue. And we need 
to address the fundamental issue--which I, frankly, have been talking 
about since I first became President--which was a combination of using 
technology to have alternative sources of energy, but at the same time, 
finding oil and gas here at home. And now is the time to get it done. I 
heard somebody say, ``Well, it's going to take 7 years.'' Well, if we'd 
have done it 7 years ago, we'd have--be having a different conversation 
today. I'm not suggesting we'd have completely created--you know, 
changed the dynamics in the world, but it certainly would have been--
we'd have been using more of our own oil and sending less money 
overseas.
    Yes, Ed [Ed Henry, Cable News Network].

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan/War on Terror in Iraq

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning.
    The President. Thank you. It is a good morning.
    Q. It is.
    The President. Every day is a good morning when you get to serve the 
country.
    Q. Absolutely. And we know you prize loyalty, so I wonder whether 
you felt betrayed by Scott McClellan's assessment of the war in Iraq? 
And moving forward, since there have been positive signs on the ground 
in Iraq, Senator Obama is about to take a trip there. What would be your 
advice to him as he tries to assess the situation on the ground?
    The President. I have had no comment on--no comment now on Scott's 
book.
    Secondly, I would ask him to listen carefully to Ryan Crocker and 
General Petraeus. It's--there's a temptation to kind of get--let the 
politics at home get in the way with the considered judgment of the 
commanders. That's why I strongly rejected an artificial timetable of 
withdrawal. It's kind of like an arbitrary thing, you know--``We will 
decide in the Halls of Congress how to conduct our affairs in Iraq based 
upon polls and politics, and we're going to impose this on people''--as 
opposed to listening to our commanders and our diplomats, and listening 
to the Iraqis, for that matter. The Iraqis have invited us to be there. 
But they share a goal with us, which is to get our combat troops out, as 
conditions permit. Matter of fact, that's what we're doing. Return on 
success has been the strategy of this administration, and our troops are 
coming home, but based upon success.
    And so I would ask whoever goes there--whatever elected official 
goes there, to listen carefully to what is taking place and understand 
that the best way to go forward is to listen to the parties who are 
actually on the ground. And that's hard to do. I understand for some in 
Washington there's a lot of pressure. You got these groups out there--
MoveOn.org, you know--banging away on these candidates, and it's hard to 
kind of divorce yourself from the politics.
    And so I'm glad all the--a lot of these elected officials are going 
over there, because they'll get an interesting insight, something that 
you don't get from just reading your wonderful newspapers or listening 
to your TV shows.
    John [John McKinnon, Wall Street Journal].
    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Don't you call them TV shows? Newscasts, yes.

Price of Gasoline/Oil Supply/Alternative Fuel Sources

    Q. ----following up on the question about oil, in the past, when oil 
prices have gone up a lot, they've wound up going down a lot afterward. 
But I wonder if you're able to say that oil prices in the future are 
going to come down a lot.
    The President. I can't predict it, John. I mean, look, my attitude 
is, is that unless there is a focused effort--in the short term--unless 
there's a focused effort to bring more supplies to market, there's going 
to be a lot

[[Page 991]]

of upward pressure on price. We got 85 million barrels a day and--of 
demand and 86 million barrels of production. And it's just--it's too 
narrow a spread, it seems like to me.
    Now, I'm encouraged by, you know, the Caspian Basin exploration. I'm 
encouraged that the Saudis are reinvesting a lot into their older 
fields. And remember, some of these oil fields get on the decline rate, 
which requires a lot of investment to keep their production up to 
previous levels. So one thing we look at is how much money is being 
reinvested in some of those fields. I'm encouraged by that.
    I am discouraged by the fact that some nations subsidize the 
purchases of product, like gasoline, which, therefore, means that demand 
may not be causing the market to adjust as rapidly as we'd like. I was 
heartened by the fact that the Chinese the other day announced that 
they're going to start reducing some of their subsidies--which all of a 
sudden you may have some, you know, demand-driven changes in the overall 
balance.
    But, look, if we conserve and find more energy, we will done--have 
done our part to address, you know, the global market right now. And the 
other thing is that this is just a transition period. I mean, all of us 
want to get away from reliance upon hydrocarbons, but it's not going to 
happen overnight. One of these days, people are going to be using 
battery technologies in their cars. You've heard me say this a lot. I'm 
confident it's going to happen. And the throw-away line, of course, is 
that your car won't have to look like a golf cart.
    But the question then becomes, where are we going to get 
electricity? And that's why I'm a big believer in nuclear power, to be 
able to make us less dependent on oil and better stewards of the 
environment. But there is a transition period during the hydrocarbon 
era, and it hasn't ended yet, as our people now know. Gasoline prices 
are high.
    I don't--again, I don't want to be a ``told you so,'' but if you go 
back and look at the strategy we put out early on in this 
administration, we understood what was coming. We knew the markets were 
going to be tight. And therefore, we called for additional exploration 
at home, plus what has been happening, which is an acceleration of new 
technologies--including ethanol technologies--to get us less dependent 
on crude oil from overseas.
    Let's see here, Steven Lee. Steven Lee [Steven Lee Myers, New York 
Times].

Guantanamo Bay Detainees

    Q. Mr. President, thank you. I wonder in light of the Supreme 
Court's decision if you could tell us what you plan to do with 
Guantanamo?
    The President. Steven Lee, we're still analyzing--``we'' being the 
Justice Department--are still analyzing the effects of the decision, 
which, as you know, I disagreed with. And secondly, we're working with 
Members of Congress on a way forward. This is a very complicated case; 
it complicated the situation in Guantanamo.
    My view all along has been, either send them back home or give them 
a chance to have a day in court. I still believe that makes sense. We're 
just trying to figure out how to do so in light of the Supreme Court 
ruling.
    Eggen [Dan Eggen, Washington Post].

Zimbabwe

    Q. Mr. President, last week, China joined Russia in blocking the 
sanctions--Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. I can't imagine this pleased you 
very much. Do you have any reaction to--particularly the Chinese move? 
And also, where do you go from here to try to make sure that the regime 
doesn't----
    The President. You read my reaction right; I was displeased. We 
spent a lot of time on this subject at the G-8, and there was great 
concern by most of the nations there--well, the G-8 nations that were 
there--about what was taking place in Zimbabwe. And it's, frankly, 
unacceptable, and it should be unacceptable to a lot of folks.
    And so we discussed the need for, you know, U.N. Security Council 
resolutions. And I was disappointed that the Russians vetoed. I didn't--
I hadn't spent any time with the Chinese leader talking about--
specifically talking about any Security Council resolutions; I'd had 
with President Medvedev.
    And so I think the thing we need to do now is for us to analyze 
whether or not we can have some more bilateral sanctions on regime 
leaders. After all, these sanctions

[[Page 992]]

were not against the Zimbabwe people; these were against the people 
that--in the Mugabe regime that made the decisions it made. We got the 
Treasury Department and State Department--are now working on a potential 
U.S. action.
    Bret [Bret Baier, FOX News].

War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a two-part question on the war, 
in light of increasing violence in Afghanistan. Do you believe current 
U.S. troop levels in Iraq are hindering efforts to put more U.S. troops 
into Afghanistan?
    And secondly, this morning in his prepared remarks, Senator Obama 
will say this: ``By any measure, our single-minded, open-ended focus on 
Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe. In fact, as 
should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain, the 
central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was.''
    The President. Well, as you know, I'm loath to respond to a 
particular Presidential candidate, and so I will try not to. My view is, 
is that the war on terror is being fought out on two simultaneous fronts 
that are noted--noticeable to the American people and on other fronts 
that aren't. And so the first question that anybody running for 
President gets: Is this a war? Or is this like law enforcement? Is it 
a--does this require full use of U.S. assets in order to protect the 
American people? As you know, I made the decision that it does require 
those assets.
    Secondly, that these are two very important fronts, both of which 
are important to the future of the country. And therefore, we got to 
succeed in both. Thirdly, one front right now is going better than the 
other, and that's Iraq, where we're succeeding, and our troops are 
coming home based upon success. And Afghanistan is a tough fight. It's a 
tough fight because, one, this is a state that had been just ravaged by 
previous wars, and there wasn't a lot of central Government outreach to 
the people.
    Secondly, there is a tough enemy, and they're brutal. And they kill 
at the drop of a hat in order to affect behavior. It's a little bit 
reminiscent of what was taking place in Iraq a couple of years ago, 
where the enemy knows that they can affect the mentality of the American 
people if they just continue to kill innocent folks. And they have no 
disregard [regard] * for human life. And it's really important we 
succeed there as well as in Iraq. We do not want the enemy to have safe 
haven. Of course--unless, of course, your attitude is, this isn't a war. 
So then if that's the case, it wouldn't matter whether we succeed or 
not.
    * White House correction.
    But it is a two-front war. And I say there's other fronts, but 
there's other fronts where we're taking covert actions, for example.
    Go ahead.

Troop Levels in Afghanistan/War on Terror

    Q. Should Americans expect a troop surge in Afghanistan?
    The President. We are surging troops in Afghanistan this way and 
committed----
    Q. Even more?
    The President. Well, we'll analyze the situation, of course, make a 
determination based upon the conditions on the ground. But we did surge 
troops. We surged troops; France surged troops. I said in Bucharest, 
we'll add more troops. And then, of course, we got to make sure the 
strategy works--you know, have a counterinsurgency strategy that not 
only provides security but also provides economic follow-up after the 
security has been enhanced.
    The question really facing the country is, will we have the patience 
and the determination to succeed in these very difficult theaters? And I 
understand exhaustion, and I understand people getting tired. And--but I 
would hope that whoever follows me understands that we're at war, and 
now is not the time to give up in the struggle against this enemy. And 
that while there hasn't been an attack on the homeland, that's not to 
say people don't want to attack us. And safe havens become very 
dangerous for the American people. And we've got to deny safe haven and, 
at the same time, win the struggle by advancing democracy.
    This is an ideological struggle we're involved in. These people kill 
for a reason. They want us to leave. They want us to, you

[[Page 993]]

know, not push back. They don't want

democracy to succeed. And yet, if given a chance, democracy will 
succeed. And so these two theaters are the big challenge of the time, 
and the war itself is the challenge.
    Yes, Roger [Roger Runningen, Bloomberg News].

National Economy/Legislative Agenda

    Q. Thank you, sir. I want to follow up on Matt's question about a 
second economic stimulus----
    The President. On whose question?
    Q. Matt's question about a second economic stimulus package.
    The President. Brilliant question, Matt. Now they're going to start 
quoting you, you know. Congratulations. [Laughter]
    Q. Maybe I missed it, but did you rule out one or----
    The President. I said we ought to see how this one--first one works. 
Let it run its course.
    Q. Is it too late to consider a second one in your administration?
    The President. You know, we--we're always open-minded to things, but 
I--let's see how this stimulus package works, and let us deal with the 
housing market with good piece of housing legislation and the energy 
issue with good energy legislation and the trade issue with good trade 
legislation.
    People say, ``Aww, man, you're running out of time; nothing is going 
to happen.'' I'll remind people what did happen: We got a good troop 
funding bill with no strings; got a GI bill; we got FISA. What can we 
get done? We can get good housing legislation done. We can get good 
energy legislation done. We can get trade bills done. I mean, there's 
plenty of time to get action with the United States Congress, and they 
need to move quickly. We can get judges approved.
    And so I'm--we'll see what happens up there. I'm confident that if 
they put their mind to it, we can get good legislation.
    Let's see here--yes, Mark [Mark Smith, Associated Press].

Price of Gasoline/Energy Consumption

    Q. Mr. President, understanding what you say about energy supplies 
being tight and the debate over energy, which has gone on for years and 
will continue long through the campaign and into the next 
administration, one thing nobody debates is that if Americans use less 
energy----

    The President. Correct.

    Q. ----the supply/demand equation would improve. Why have you not 
sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the 
thermostat?

    The President. They're smart enough to figure out whether they're 
going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it's interesting what the 
price of gasoline has done--is it caused people to drive less. That's 
why they want smaller cars, they want to conserve. But the consumer is 
plenty bright, Mark. The marketplace works.

    Secondly, we have worked with Congress to change CAFE standards and 
had a mandatory alternative fuel requirement.

    So, no question about it, what you just said is right. One way to 
correct the imbalance is to save, is to conserve. And as you noticed in 
my statement yesterday, I talked about good conservation. And people can 
figure out whether they need to drive more or less; they can balance 
their own checkbooks.

    Q. But you don't see the need to ask--you don't think--see the value 
in your calling for a campaign----

    The President. I think people ought to conserve and be wise about 
how they use gasoline and energy. Absolutely. And there's some easy 
steps people can take. You know, if they're not in their home, they 
don't keep their air-conditioning running. There's a lot of things 
people can do.

    But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it's a little 
presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their 
lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people, 
and they'll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That's why I was 
so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money. It's a 
philosophical difference: Should the Government spend their money, or 
should they spend their own money? And I've got faith in the American 
people.

[[Page 994]]

    And as much as I regret that the gasoline prices are high--and they 
are--I also understand that people are going to make adjustments to meet 
their own needs. And I suspect you'll see, in the whole, Americans using 
less gasoline. I bet that's going to happen. And in the meantime, 
technologies will be coming on the market that will enable them to drive 
and save money, compared to the automobiles they're using before. And as 
you notice, the automobile industry is beginning to adjust here at home 
as consumer demand changes. And the great thing about our system, it is 
the consumer that drives our system; it's the individual American and 
their collection that end up driving the economy.
    Yes, Ann [Ann Compton, ABC News].

Iraq

    Q. Could I follow up on a couple of points, please?
    The President. Okay.
    Q. You never mention oil companies. Are you confident that American 
oil producers are tapping all of the sources they have out there, 
including offshore? And on Iraq, will you sign an interim agreement with 
Prime Minister Maliki on American operations in Iraq, leaving it to your 
successor to do a more permanent agreement?
    The President. There are--let me start with Iraq. We're in the 
process of working on a strategic framework agreement with the Iraqi 
Government that will talk about cooperation on a variety of fronts--
diplomacy, economics, justice. Part of that agreement is a security 
agreement, and I believe that, you know, they want to have an 
aspirational goal as to how quickly the transition to what we have 
called overwatch takes place. Overwatch will mean that the U.S. will be 
in a training mission, logistical support as well as special ops.
    In order for our troops to be in a foreign country, there must be an 
understanding with the Government. There must be authorities to operate 
as well as protections for our troops. We're in the process of 
negotiating that as well. And it needs to be done prior to the year 
because--unless, of course, the U.N. mandate is extended. And so there 
are two aspects to the agreement--people seem to conflate the two--and 
we're working both of them simultaneously.
    Let's see here.

Oil Supply

    Q. American oil producers?
    The President. Oh, what was the question again on that?
    Q. Well, you talked about offshore----
    The President. What about them? Do I think they're investing capital 
to find more reserves with the price at $140 a barrel? Absolutely. Take 
an offshore exploration company--first of all, it costs a lot of money 
to buy the lease, so they tie up capital. Secondly, it takes a lot of 
money to do the geophysics, to determine what the structure may or may 
not look like. That ties up capital. Then they put the rig out there. 
Now, first of all, in a Federal offshore lease, if you're not exploring 
within a set period of time, you lose your bonus; you lose the amount of 
money that you paid to get the lease in the first place.
    And once you explore--your first exploratory, if you happen to find 
oil or gas, it is--you'll find yourself in a position where a lot of 
capital is tied up. And it becomes in your interest, your economic 
interest, to continue to explore so as to reduce the capital costs of 
the project on a per-barrel basis. And so I think they're exploring. And 
hopefully a lot of people continue to explore so that the supply of oil 
worldwide increases relative to demand.
    Now, people say, ``What about the speculators?'' I think you can't 
help but notice there is some volatility in price in the marketplace, 
which obviously there are some people in the--buying and selling on a 
daily basis. On the other hand, the fundamentals are what's really 
driving the long-term price of oil, and that is: Demand for oil has 
increased, and supply has not kept up with it. And so part of our 
strategy in our country has got to be to say, okay, here are some 
suspected reserves, and that we ought to go after them in an 
environmentally friendly way.
    A buddy of mine said, ``Well, what about the reefs?'' So I'm 
concerned about the reefs. I'm a fisherman; I like to fish. Reefs are 
important for fisheries. But the technology is such that you can protect 
the reefs. You don't

[[Page 995]]

have to drill on top of a reef. You can drill away from a reef and then 
have a horizontal hole to help you explore a reservoir.
    It's like in Alaska, you know. In the old days, you would have had 
to have--if you ever go out to west Texas, you'll see--there's like a 
rig every 20 acres, depending upon the formation. In Alaska, you can 
have one pad with a lot of horizontal drilling, which enables you to 
exploit the resources in a way that doesn't damage the environment. 
These are new technologies that have come to be, and yet we've got an 
old energy policy that hasn't recognized how the industry has changed. 
And now is the time to get people to recognize how the industry has 
changed.
    April [April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks].

Sudan

    Q. Mr. President----
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Two questions; one on energy and another on Sudan.
    The President. On what?
    Q. Not energy, I'm sorry, the economy. When, in your guesstimation, 
will this country see a turnaround as relates to the softening economy? 
When will it become strong again?
    And also, on the Sudan, the Sudanese Government is looking to the 
United Nations for help in this situation with the ICC. And this is a 
body that they have ignored before. What are your thoughts about what's 
happening with the Sudan?
    The President. Well, we're not a member of the ICC, so we'll see how 
that plays out.
    My thought on Sudan is, is that the United Nations needs to work 
with this current Government to get those troops in to help save lives--
AU hybrid force. I talked to Williamson, who's the Special Envoy to 
Sudan, yesterday. There's two aspects to the Sudanese issue. One is the 
north-south agreement, and he was talking about the need to make sure 
that there is a clear understanding about how oil revenues will be 
shared between north and south in a certain part of the border region 
there, so as to make sure that there is--that this agreement that 
Ambassador Danforth negotiated stays intact and stays full.
    And the other aspect, obviously, is Darfur. And that's a very, very 
complex issue. We're trying to make--we're trying to work with the rebel 
groups so that they speak more with one voice. We're trying to work with 
Bashir to make sure he understands that there will be continued 
sanctions if he doesn't move forward. We're trying to help get this--AU 
troops in Africa--throughout Africa into Sudan. And we're working with 
the French on the issue of Chad.
    And it's a complex situation, and sadly enough, innocent people are 
being displaced and are losing their life. And it's very difficult and 
unacceptable. And as you know, I made the decision not to unilaterally 
send troops. Once that decision was made, then we had to reply upon the 
United Nations. And I brought this issue up at the G-8 with our partners 
there. There's the same sense of consternation and the same sense of 
frustration that things haven't moved quicker. I talked to Ban Ki-moon 
about the issue, and he told me--I think he told me that by the end of 
this year, a full complement of AU troops will be there. Then the 
question is, will the Government help expedite the delivery of 
humanitarian aid?
    Anyway, the other question?

National Economy/Legislative Agenda

    Q. Yes, the other question----
    The President. When will the economy turn around?
    Q. Yes.
    The President. I'm not an economist, but I do believe that we're 
growing. And I can remember this press conference here where people 
yelling ``recession this, recession that''--as if you're economists. And 
I'm an optimist. I believe there's a lot of positive things for our 
economy. But I will tell you, it's not growing the way it should, and 
I'm sorry people are paying as high gasoline prices as they are. And all 
I know is, good policy will help expedite a--will strengthen our 
economy.
    Q. Do you think it will change before you leave office?
    The President. I certainly hope it changes tomorrow. But it's--I'm 
also realistic to know

[[Page 996]]

things don't change on a dime. But nevertheless, the economy is growing. 
There's obviously financial uncertainty. We've talked about the 
decisions on the GSEs here. People need to know that if they've got a 
deposit in a commercial bank, the Government will make good up to 
$100,000 worth of their deposit. There's no question, it's a time of 
uncertainty. There's a lot of events taking place at the same time. But 
we can pass some good law to help expedite the recovery.
    One such law is a good housing--piece of housing legislation. The 
Congress needs to get moving on it. Another such law is to send a signal 
that we're willing to explore for oil here at home. I fully understand 
that this is a transition period away from hydrocarbons, but we ought to 
be wise about how we use our own resources. I think it would be a 
powerful signal if we announce that we're going to really get after it 
when it comes to oil shale. There's enormous reserves in the western 
States. And I think if the world saw that we're willing to put a 
focused, concerted effort on using new technologies to bring those 
reserves to bear, which would then relieve some pressure on gasoline 
prices, it would have an impact.
    The other thing is, is that--I'm sure you know this, April, but we 
haven't built a refinery--a new refinery in the United States since the 
early seventies. It makes no sense. And yet you try to get one 
permitted, it is unbelievably difficult to do. People aren't willing to 
risk capital if they're deeply concerned about how their capital is 
going to be tied up in lawsuits or regulations. And we import a lot of 
gasoline, refined product from overseas.
    So there's some things we can do to send signals that it's important 
that we can get the economy--take advantage of the positive aspects and 
get it moving stronger again.
    The other thing is trade. It is--I don't understand the decision on 
the Colombia free trade market--free trade agreement. The Congress has 
given preferential treatment to goods coming out of Colombia through the 
Andean Trade Preference Act. In other words, Colombia businesses can 
sell into our country relatively duty free. And yet we don't have the 
same--we don't get the same treatment. Now, why does that make sense? It 
doesn't.
    You know, trade--our trade or exports have helped keep the economy 
growing, April, as paltry as it may be. Doesn't it make sense for us to 
continue to open up further opportunities to sell goods? I think it 
does. I do not understand why it's okay for Colombia to be able to sell 
into our country close to duty free, and we don't have the same 
advantage. And secondly, turning our back on somebody like Uribe makes 
no sense at all. He is a courageous fighter against terrorists. And yet 
our Congress won't even bring up a free trade agreement with Colombia.
    Anyway, it's--politics is just choking good sense. And the other 
thing is, is that once we get moving on Colombia, we need to get moving 
on Panama and South Korea. It's in our country's interest we do that.
    Olivier. Olivier [Olivier Knox, Agence France-Presse].

Afghanistan/Pakistan

    Q. Yes, sir. A follow up on----
    Press Secretary Dana Perino. They look alike--[laughter].
    Q. Following up on Bret Baier's question----
    Ms. Perino. ----Olivier. [Laughter]
    The President. I know who Olivier is. I was just winking at Myers, 
you know. [Laughter]
    Ms. Perino. Oh, I see.
    The President. Yes, Olivier.
    Q. Thank you, sir. Following up on Bret Baier's question----
    The President. What was the question, Olivier? I'm 62, I'm having 
trouble remembering a lot of things.
    Q. It was about Afghanistan, sir.
    The President. Good, yes.
    Q. Okay. Afghan President----
    The President. I remember it now.
    Q. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has blamed Pakistan's intelligence 
services for a recent terrorist attack on his country, and recent 
reporting suggests that Al Qaida has regrouped to pre-September 11th 
levels along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Is President 
Karzai correct? And do you

[[Page 997]]

think the new President--the new Government in Pakistan is willing and 
is able to fight the terrorists?
    The President. First of all, we'll investigate his charge and we'll 
work with his service to get to the bottom of his allegation. No 
question, however, that some extremists are coming out of parts of 
Pakistan into Afghanistan. And that's troubling to us, it's troubling to 
Afghanistan, and it should be troubling to Pakistan. We share a common 
enemy. That would be extremists who use violence to either disrupt 
democracy or prevent democracy from taking hold.
    Al Qaida is--they're there. We have hurt Al Qaida hard--hit them 
hard, and hurt them in--around the world, including in Pakistan. And we 
will continue to keep the pressure on Al Qaida with our Pakistan 
friends.
    I certainly hope that the Government understands the dangers of 
extremists moving in their country. I think they do. As a matter of 
fact, we'll have an opportunity to explore that further on Monday with 
the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Pakistan is an ally; Pakistan is a 
friend. And I repeat: All three countries--United States, Pakistan, and 
Afghanistan--share a common enemy.
    I remember very well the meeting I had at the White House with 
President Musharraf and President Karzai. And we talked about the need 
for cross-border cooperation to prevent dangerous elements from training 
and coming into Afghanistan, and then, by the way, returning home with a 
skill level that could be used against the Government.
    And there was some hopeful progress made. Obviously, it's still a 
tough fight there. And we were heartened by the Provincial elections in 
that part of the world. We will continue to work to help the Government, 
on the one hand, deal with extremists; and on the other hand, have a 
counter--effective counterinsurgency strategy that uses aid to foster 
economic development. And it's a challenge. And the three of us working 
together can deal with the challenge a lot better than if we don't work 
together.
    Okay, I've enjoyed it. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate 
it. Yes.
    Q. Come back soon.
    The President. I will.

Note: The President's news conference began at 10:22 a.m. in the James 
S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House. In his remarks, he 
referred to Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama; Gen. David 
H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force--Iraq; 
President Hu Jintao of China; President President Dmitry A. Medvedev of 
Russia; President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; Ambassador Richard S. 
Williamson, Special Envoy for Sudan; Ambassador John C. Danforth, former 
Special Envoy for Sudan; President Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir of Sudan; 
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations; President Alvaro 
Uribe Velez of Colombia; President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan; and 
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and President Pervez Musharraf of 
Pakistan. Reporters referred to Republican Presidential candidate John 
McCain; and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq.