Text 4343, 671 rader
Skriven 2007-04-10 23:30:58 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0704102) for Tue, 2007 Apr 10
====================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 10, 2007

Press Briefing by Dana Perino White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ Video (Windows) ˙˙Press Briefings


12:45 P.M. EDT

MS. PERINO: Welcome back, everybody. I don't have any opening
announcements, so we can go straight to questions.

Q Senator Reid said today, in response to the President's invitation to
come down and talk, he said the President has to deal with Congress and he
has got to listen to us, and that what the President is offering is not a
negotiation.

MS. PERINO: I'm not quite sure where to begin with all that, because, first
of all, they have known for 64 days that the President needed this money
for the troops. Secondly, they've known for well over a month -- before
they even passed the two bills, one out of the House and one out of the
Senate -- that the President would veto it, based on the arbitrary time
line in terms of a date for a forced retreat, the micromanaging that they
put into the bill that would handcuff our generals on the ground, and then
the extra pork barrel spending that they had to include in order to get the
ball across the finish line.

On March 28th, Senator Reid points to a letter he sent to the President,
saying that they wanted to sit down and talk. So now that the President,
after their two-week recess, says, why don't we have this discussion, I'm
not quite sure I can understand why he so, out of hand, rejects the
President's offer to meet. It was a knee-jerk reaction and it was quite
unfortunate. The invitation stands; we would like for them to come down and
talk with us.

Q But you said that it's not a negotiation. And what I think Senator Reid
is saying is the President has got to listen to the Congress and has to
deal with the Congress. Is there room for negotiation and compromise from
the White House?

MS. PERINO: Well, the President has said we should not have a bill that
ties the hands of our generals and that adds all this extraneous spending
and puts strings on all the money that they say that they want to give to
the troops. He's asked for a clean bill.

Senator Reid has me very confused. On the one hand, he says that they want
to fund the troops. But on the other hand

-- at what price are they going to give this money to the troops? They
believe that the war either cannot be won, or that it has already been
lost. And so if they have the courage of their convictions and they really
want to cut off funding for the troops, then they should go ahead and do
that. But instead, what the President is saying is, if you need for me to
veto this bill, I will -- reluctantly, but I will, if that's the political
statement that you need to make. But if the goal is, as you've stated -- at
least in some parts of your communication on this

-- that they want to get the money to the troops, then let's go ahead and
have a clean bill. If you want to have other discussions, that's fine, but
the President has said, let's meet, let's discuss. You can talk about how
-- you don't have the votes to override my veto, but yet you say you want
to fund the troops. So why don't we have a discussion about how we're going
to get there.

Q Dana, the Senator, I think, was addressing sort of the bigger picture of
the tone of these discussions. And he said -- I'd like to get you to
respond to this -- that the President must realize he has to deal with
Congress, that there's no more rubber stamp. He's got to listen to us
because we are speaking for the American people and he isn't.

MS. PERINO: I don't -- look, the President has been dealing with Congress
since we got here in 2001. I understand that they have said many times that
there's a Congress to deal with, that there's constitutional roles for them
to play. We agree. We have a constitutional role to play, as well. What
they can do in their constitutional role is decide whether or not they're
going to fund the troops. They don't have the constitutional role to
micromanage the war effort, and the management of the commanders on the
ground.

I think that the tone that everyone needs to take a step back and look at
is that the President is saying, let's go ahead and have a discussion about
how we're going to get a bill to me that funds our troops, because you have
to admit you don't have the votes to override my veto.

Q But he's saying -- he is saying, I think Senator Reid is saying, look,
the President doesn't -- he's not the sole determinant of the discussion
about the way forward in Iraq. The President has the way he wants to
proceed, but Harry Reid is saying that Congress is speaking for the
American people when it comes to how to proceed in Iraq, not the President.

MS. PERINO: I don't think the American people are saying that the generals
should be handcuffed and that there should be micromanagement by Senator
Harry Reid as a military advisor. He should be the Senator from Nevada and
the leader of the Senate. The American people have wanted change in Iraq,
and they got it. The President announced a new policy on January 10th that
was quite different and divergent from where we were before. And about
three weeks later, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus and
sent him to war with a battle plan. And yet now they say that that battle
plan won't work.

And so my point is, we have an opportunity for them to come down and
discuss how we're going to get money for the troops. I understand that they
might not agree with the President's policy, but there is a new one, and
it's been implemented according to General Petraeus and many others on the
ground. Despite the real challenges that we have and the violence that
continues, seeds of hope have been planted, that we can get the violence
under control. So the tone of the discussion rests on both sides.

Q Were you listening to Senator Reid today? Your reaction was what? Would
you say confusion?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think it -- I was only able to read his comments, I
wasn't able to see them. But I am confused by the Democrats' position, and
by their own position. On the one hand, he says he would vote to cut off
funds for the troops completely. On the other hand, today he says that they
would never do that. So our point is, the Democrats ought to negotiate
amongst themselves first, figure out what their position is, and then come
forward and talk to the President about either how they're going to send
him a bill that can fund the troops that meets the requirements of being
able to give the troops what they need without strings attached, or, if
they're not going to do that, then they have to figure out another path
forward.

Q So, Dana, just to follow, I mean, if the Democrats don't come up with a
negotiation or something that's different to present to the President, then
what do they have to get out of this meeting? I mean, the President and the
administration always accuses them of political theater, but how is it not
more than a photo op if they're not really -- if the White House isn't
willing to give anything?

MS. PERINO: I think, Suzanne, you have to remember, the ball is in the
Congress's court. When they know that they can't override the President's
veto, and yet they still say that they want to send money to the troops, it
is incumbent upon them to figure out how they're going to do that. And this
discussion with the President can provide for a forum for both leaders.
Remember, it's a bipartisan meeting -- Republicans and Democrats can sit
down, talk with the President about his position, and about how they can
move forward.

Q The bottom line is, is that it's a take-it-or-leave-it deal from this
administration; there's no room for negotiation?

MS. PERINO: The President will not accept a timetable for withdrawal that
forces retreat and forces failure. And he will not accept micromanagement
from Capitol Hill on his generals. And it is unconscionable that they would
have pork barrel spending added to it that is -- for tours of the Capitol
and other such "emergencies" in an emergency spending bill when there is a
budget process that's going forward in Congress on a parallel track. I
think that those are principled stands that the President has had. If we
can get beyond that, and talk about funding for the troops, we should. We
are interested in how they think that we can improve in Iraq. If they have
other ideas beyond what General David Petraeus is going, by all means,
let's hear them.

Go ahead, Matt.

Q You seem to be saying that the President wants to talk to the Democrats
about this.

MS. PERINO: We have an open invitation for them to come talk to us.

Q But he's actually ruling out any kind of compromise, is that correct?

MS. PERINO: This is not a meeting in order to compromise. This is a meeting
to discuss the way forward, because the Democrats have to admit that they
don't have the votes to override the President's veto. And at the same
time, they say that they want to fund the troops. So at some point, the
Democrats are going to have to come to a consensus on how to move forward.
And a meeting with the President is a chance for the leaders to get
together -- leadership from both parties -- to sit down and figure out how
they're going to do that.

Q You said that this was a change of policy for the President, the surge.

MS. PERINO: Certainly.

Q And so escalation of the war is a change of policy?

MS. PERINO: Helen, we can go back over all the things that the President
said in January, but there was a couple of key points.

Q No, no, I mean, is that what you call a change of policy, when we
escalate the war?

MS. PERINO: A couple of key points. What the President said is that we
needed to -- agreed with the Iraqis that we needed to try to transition
power to them more quickly for their Iraqi security forces. But the key
issue was that violence in Baghdad was so great that the President realized
after talking to his military advisors that to leave would be very harmful
to the region and to our country, but to stay and try to quell the violence
in Baghdad --

Q But why? Do you mean Iraqis are going to come and attack us?

MS. PERINO: The terrorists that are seeking a safe haven in Iraq, if we
were to leave, would find one, just like they had one in Afghanistan, and
they could --

Q How do you know that?

MS. PERINO: -- hurt us and -- well, based on experience from September
11th. That's how we know it.

Q September 11th had nothing to do with Iraq.

Q When the President today said if Congress wants to make a political
statement they should do so quickly -- and then you also used that phrase
-- does referring to Congress's role in this as a political statement in
any way diminish their part in this process?

MS. PERINO: No, I think that the point we're trying to make is that they do
not have votes to override the President's veto. In order to get this bill
passed, they had to add fixed time lines for withdrawal, they had to add
micromanagement on the generals, and they had to have a lot of extra pork
barrel spending in order to get the bare minimum in order to get the ball
across the finish line.

That is the political statement that I think that the President felt that
they had to make. If they have decided that they don't need to have all of
those positions out there, if they've taken their votes and that they don't
need to send that conference -- get together for a conference report and
send a bill to the President that he has to veto, fine. But what we have to
do is get a process going where they can get a clean bill to us.

Q Does the President risk using the troops when this morning he talked
about if this does not go the way he wants, those troops and their families
may have to wait longer for them to come home?

MS. PERINO: The President takes great pains not to politicize the troops.
But what he was repeating was what the military -- Department of Defense
has told him they are going to have to do, since they don't have this
money.

John.

Q What would you consider a clean bill? And could a clean bill include
goals for withdrawals in the future, versus the hard time lines that the
Democrats seem to --

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that hopefully the Democrats will come down and
have a meeting with the President on Tuesday and they can have discussions.
I'm not going not going to negotiate from here.

Go ahead, Keith.

Q I'm just having a little trouble understanding the meeting, I guess. On
the one hand, it's not a negotiation, but it does sound like while the
President is going to reject these bills that are out there, that he is
willing to entertain some other ideas from the Democrats, as long as there
aren't timetables and there isn't micromanaging. Of course, that's a word
you can define --

MS. PERINO: There are some very clear lines that the President has drawn
and they are outlined in our statements of administration policy and we've
talked about them for well over a month now. What the President has said is
that he's very serious about getting this money for our troops. He laid out
the reasons why, the drastic reasons why from the Department of Defense --
on why we need to get that money to them sooner than later. It's a very
real problem now.

Q But in this meeting he is willing to listen to other Democratic ideas --

MS. PERINO: The President has always been willing to listen to other ideas.

Q Okay, so could it end up becoming a negotiation of putting their ideas
out and he has ideas -- I mean, it sounds like it might be a negotiation.

MS. PERINO: I think that the point that Suzanne was making was, if they
have ideas about how we can improve in Iraq, the President was --
absolutely wants to hear them. Many members went to the Middle East and to
Iraq over the recess, and if they saw something there that they think
General Petraeus and his men could be doing better, by all means, I'm sure
that we'd all like to hear it.

Go ahead, Sheryl.

Q I guess I'm also having trouble understanding this meeting and what the
Democrats could get out of it, and what role does the President see himself
playing. You said this is not a meeting in order to compromise, it's a
meeting to discuss a way forward. Does the President envision himself as
some kind of mediator in this effort to --

MS. PERINO: No, I think the President understands that it's incumbent upon
him to explain to the members his positions and reasons why. And it's not
just the President that thinks that arbitrary timetables are a bad idea.
The military advisors do; Prime Minister Maliki today said he thinks it's a
bad idea. And -- because really what it does is it just signals to the
enemy that we're going to be leaving on this date; sit around and wait a
while, and then you can attack us at will. So what the President wants to
do is to tell the Congress that once you're back in town, after this
two-week break, let's get together and let's get about the business of
getting the money for our troops.

Q Is it his -- does he envision himself simply giving kind of a private
lecture to Congress of the sort that he has been giving publicly?

MS. PERINO: The President is not asking to lecture anybody, nor does he
want to. We understand that the Congress has a role to play; we understand
what that role is. I would hope that they understand what the
Commander-in-Chief's role is. And if a meeting can help alleviate some of
the tension, then that's what we are for.

Q And then, finally, if a bill were to include sort of softer milestones,
as opposed to fixed timetables for withdrawal, is that something that could
be acceptable to the President?

MS. PERINO: This is the same question that John asked, and I'll give you
the same answer. I'll decline to negotiate from here.

Q Realistically, both sides are entrenched on their opinions of this, and
you're saying it's not a compromise. What, realistically, are you expecting
as an outcome from this meeting?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that's up to the Democrats right now. I think
that they don't have the votes to override the President's veto, they've
known that for many weeks. They also have said that they want to fund the
troops. So at some point the Democrats are going to have to come together
amongst themselves and coalesce around a position that the President can
talk to -- that the President then can talk to them about.

Q Does it benefit this White House to keep its feet in the sand, saying,
I'm not going to move, and allow them to just stay the same way?

MS. PERINO: I think it benefits the troops and the American people for the
Commander-in-Chief to be a strong, principled leader, which is what the
President is.

Q And another subject, quickly. Yesterday you gave me a statement from the
President that he said Don Imus's apology was the appropriate thing to do.
Does the President, who has supported women in his administration, African
American women, Secretary of State, you standing there at the podium, does
he feel that punishment of the suspension of Don Imus was enough, and
should the FCC have stronger rulings or regulations on sexist and racist
statements?

MS. PERINO: I haven't talked to him beyond what I was able to get
yesterday, which is that the President believes that the apology was the
absolute right thing to do. And beyond that, I think that his employer is
going to have to make a decision about any action that they take based on
it.

Q Were you offended personally as a woman?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm here to speak for the President. So you and I can
talk later.

Paula.

Q You got out of that one. (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Go ahead, Paula.

Q Dana, you frequently mention the pork barrel spending as -- needed to be
taken out, but you don't mention the minimum wage -- (inaudible) -- does
that have to be --

MS. PERINO: I don't believe so. I think that -- well, obviously, the
President wants a clean bill, and he wants it as quickly as possible, and
things that are going to hold it up would not be -- he would not look
favorably upon. On that issue, I believe that there's a little bit more
consensus. But I think we'll have to see how it goes from there.

Mark.

Q Can you tell us, Dana, where the administration stands on the stem cell
bills that are coming up on the Hill now, and the rationale, too?

MS. PERINO: Well, earlier today -- as you know, the Senate is going to be
debating this on the floor the next two days. A couple of things on that.
We put out two statements of administration policy earlier today. There are
two -- there are several bills moving through Congress, but there are two
that are going to be debated on the floor this week. One the President said
that he strongly supports and could sign, and the other one is similar to
one that he vetoed before and he would veto again if it were to pass.

Just taking a step back -- in 2001, the President was confronted with this
ethical challenge and ethical dilemma. And as President, he had given the
issue a considerable amount of thought. He consulted with religious leaders
and bio-ethicists and scientists. He has -- it is incumbent upon the
President to balance both the moral and the ethical boundaries for new
scientific research.

His policy reaches balance in a way that he believes does not cross what he
considers to be a clear moral line. And that was that tens of millions of
Americans believe that embryos are human beings and human life, and that
the taxpayer dollars that were requested to go towards this research were
going to be used to destroy those embryos. And the President believes that
that was the moral line that he could not cross. However, what he did do --
and he was the first President to do -- was he funded federal taxpayer
dollars to 21 stem cell lines that were already in existence. So that money
was the first to go towards that.

In addition to that, the President has strongly encouraged other types of
stem cell research, like adult stem cell and cord blood research. There is
also no ban on private sector funding. I think that I see -- I see that
reported in places where the President is accused of trying to stop or ban
stem cell research, but that could not be farther from the truth. He's been
supportive of it. And I realize that there are many people out there who
believe that stem cell research could hopefully lead to cures for many
different diseases, and the President hopes that that's true. And he's very
encouraged that there are so many scientists who are out there working to
create a body of research that can move forward on stem cell research
without the destruction of human embryos.

Q Is the President's mind at all -- has he had any second thoughts in light
of what his own NIH Director said about how the limiting effect of his
order about federal funding --

MS. PERINO: The President weighed this issue very carefully back in 2001,
and has thought about it since. And he believes that that clear moral line
that he established back in August of 2001 is a good place for the country
to be. And he understands that there are people who might have different
viewpoints, but he believes that federal taxpayer dollars, tens of millions
of which comes from Americans who believe that that is a human embryo -- or
a human life -- that their taxpayer dollars should not be used to destroy
them.

Q Follow on that?

MS. PERINO: Following on? Go ahead.

Q Why does he think the Isakson version is any better, since it uses
embryonic stem cells?

MS. PERINO: As I understand it, the Isakson bill would not destroy the
embryo.

Q I'm not sure that's exactly correct. Why does the President think it's
all right to use some of these embryos that are considered non-viable? I
mean, who decides?

MS. PERINO: I don't believe that that's accurate, but if I could -- let me
just get you somebody that can talk to you a little bit more in an expert
way, because there's a distinction there. But the President would not fund
-- use federal taxpayer dollars to fund anything that would destroy an
embryo.

Q Can I just follow, Dana --

MS. PERINO: On stem cells?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Okay.

Q Dana, like you said, we spend billions of dollars on health care in this
country and medicines and all that. As you know that yoga has become a
household name in America today, and President also spoke one time about
this yoga. Can you --

MS. PERINO: The President does yoga?

Q No, no, he spoke one time, somebody brought it to his attention. But my
question is, that you think President can go beyond talking and he can
endorse that -- yoga is free of any medicines and free of --

MS. PERINO: How about I say that the President endorses all sorts of
exercises, depending on whatever anybody can and is willing to do.

Bret.

Q I'll try to follow that one. (Laughter.) Senator Reid said he wasn't
going to a meeting where there are preconditions. How did you read that
statement?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think it's a knee-jerk reaction that's unfortunate. I
think that the President has extended a hand and that the immediate
reaction is one of disappointment -- we're disappointed. I don't know how
their conditions have changed at all, in terms of the President saying
early on, about over a month ago, that he would veto the bill if it came to
his desk in its present form. I don't know what they're thinking about, in
terms of how they could change. I don't even know if they've coalesced
around a single idea over on the Senate side. And so it's one of
disappointment, but we have an open invitation and we hope that they show
up.

Q The discussion that you talk about that the President wants to have would
be a discussion to reiterate his stance?

MS. PERINO: I think it's a chance for the President to reiterate his stance
and to explain to the members why an arbitrary date for a withdrawal is
basically mandating failure. And because he knows -- and the Democrats know
-- that they don't have the votes to override the President's veto, that
it's incumbent upon the Democrats, if they say that they want to fund the
troops, to figure out a path forward to do that.

Q Have any members actually accepted the invitation yet?

MS. PERINO: I don't think so.

Q Dana, on another subject, the House Judiciary --

MS. PERINO: Oh, I hate it when you're looking at your Blackberry.
(Laughter.)

Q The House Judiciary Committee served its subpoena to Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales, seeking documents relating to the firing of the U.S.
attorneys. Are you aware of that? And would the White House support that?

MS. PERINO: I'm not aware of a subpoena. I do know that the Justice
Department -- I know from personal experience, based on the press calls
that I've gotten -- has been working very hard to turn over documents to be
responsive to the Congress's requests, and so we'll have to take a look. I
don't know what's different there.

Q So you're not aware that the House Judiciary has issued a subpoena to the
Attorney General seeking those documents that they haven't yet provided?

MS. PERINO: I think the Justice Department has been working very hard to be
fully responsive to the request, as the President asked them to do. So I
don't know what's new here and we'll have to check it out.

John.

Q Dana, in your statement this morning, this is not a negotiation -- was
that one of your prepared talking points, was that just -- (laughter) --
and do you regret saying it?

MS. PERINO: What? You don't think that I can be spontaneous? No, I meant to
say what I said.

Go ahead, Greg.

Q Dana, on Iran, we heard from that country's President this week touting
success or progress anyway in its nuclear capacity. We know that the White
House has expressed concern about this kind of action before, but is there
any alarm at the White House over the latest statement?

MS. PERINO: No, I think that our intelligence community makes those
assessments, and Director McConnell from the DNI's office has spoken to
them. I don't know -- I don't believe that they're beliefs or assessments
have changed. I'd have to refer you over there.

What I can say is that the Iranians had several opportunities to take up
the offer that is before them, if they suspend their uranium enrichment and
reprocessing, that we can go back to negotiations. And we certainly hope
that they would make the right choice. The Permanent 5-plus-1, those
countries, we have shown that we can speak with one voice and speak
strongly, and that we can continue to further isolate Iran if they decide
to take the wrong path.

Q The President has talked about weapons of mass destruction, of course,
for a number of years. Has the Iranian threat reached the level of the
Iraqi threat of a few years ago?

MS. PERINO: I don't know what you're trying to drive at there. I can
reiterate for you that we are working diplomatically with our partners and
our allies, and making sure that Iran does not achieve what its stated aim
is, is to have a -- well, they haven't said that they -- they want a
peaceful nuclear program, but we do believe that they are working towards a
nuclear weapon and we are not going to allow that to happen.

Q Supporters of Muqtada al Sadr held a large rally yesterday. And it's
clear they want an Islamic state, not a democratic coalition. How does this
administration hope to coopt them and bring them into the fold so that
their views of how they want that country run can work in conjunction with
the way that the President of Iraq wants it run?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that's part of what Prime Minister Maliki has
been working to do, which is to have political reconciliation within the
country. There's no doubt there are several thousand people that rallied
and said that they would like to have Americans leave. Look, we would like
to leave, as well, but we want to do it when the conditions on the ground
are right to do that, and when the Iraqis have the capability in order to
protect their own citizens.

If we were to leave now, that vacuum would be filled by al Qaeda and the
Shia insurgents, and the killing and bloodshed would no doubt increase, and
then a safe haven would be created for al Qaeda in which to launch other
attacks. So the concerns that we have and the reasons that we think it is
so important that we get the troops the money that they need is so that we
can help General Petraeus finish the mission that he was sent to do.

Go ahead, Joanie.

Q Thank you. What is the White House's reaction to the Macau announcement
this morning to unblock the North Korea funds? And, also, how can the White
House be sure these funds will be used for humanitarian needs and how does
the administration think this all plays into the six-party talks?

MS. PERINO: Well, we do think that it's important that within the context
of the six-party talks that we believe that everyone is operating in good
faith. And that money was released today, the $25 million. We have been
assured that it is going to be used for humanitarian and education reasons.

I would remind you that it is the six-party talks which have provided the
leverage now to make sure that we do not have a nuclear weapon in North
Korea. And the allies that have spoken today are all holding very strong on
that. So I think that as North Korea nears its deadline, that this step was
a big one. And Chris Hill spoke to that earlier today. I'd refer you for
more detail to his comments and to the Treasury Department.

Connie.

Q Thank you. I have two British questions I might ask if you'd take them --
does the U.S. know anything about the missing British reporter in Gaza? And
can the U.S. help out through back channels to try to locate him?

MS. PERINO: I'd refer you to State Department on that one.

Q Okay. And does the U.S. or the President have any opinion on the British
servicemen selling their stories? Are Americans allowed to sell stories --

MS. PERINO: No, I haven't talked to him about it.

Q Can -- perhaps you can look into it?

MS. PERINO: Jim, go ahead.

Q Can we go back one more time to this notion of what a clean bill is? Now,
not to negotiate, but to define it. If a bill shows up, stripped of the
pork, but still has some kind of timetable in it, is that unacceptable to
the President?

MS. PERINO: I'm not -- I know that would be great to get me to negotiate
from here. I would refer you back to the position of the President --

Q I don't want to negotiate. I want a definition.

MS. PERINO: He has said that an arbitrary timetable in which we send a
save-the-date card to the Iraqis is unacceptable to him.

Q So you say save-the-date? So you --

MS. PERINO: I stole that from Don Stewart. (Laughter.)

Q I bet you just guaranteed yourself an appearance there. (Laughter.)

Q I don't think that was Jon Stewart, I think it was Don Stewart.
(Laughter.)

Q And if you take the timetables out but keep the pork, then that's not
acceptable either?

MS. PERINO: The President has said he would veto it based on the pork and
the arbitrary timetables.

Q So how are those not preconditions, then?

MS. PERINO: How is it not preconditions for them to say that they're going
to keep them in?

Q No, but the terms they're coming down to discuss and to say that the
President set up preconditions.

MS. PERINO: We get -- all the time we get these questions of, why won't we
just meet? And the President is saying, let's have a meeting, let's have a
discussion. And I think that it would be -- it would be the right thing for
both sides to do, to sit down and have a talk.

Q Thank you.

Q Dana --

MS. PERINO: I'll get you afterwards, Les.

Q Oh.

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry.

END 1:16 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070410-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)