July 15, 2008 at 1:56 P.M. EST
Press Conference By the
President
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:56
PM
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
10:22 A.M. EDT
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 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 online 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 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.
Q Mr. President, are America's banks
in trouble? And does the rescue of Freddie Mae and Fannie
Mac (sic) 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 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 witness 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 is growing,
productivity is high, trade is 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.
Q Mr. President, you mentioned the
latest retail sales, but they actually show a smaller
boost than economists had expected from the government
rebate -- 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, 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.
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 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.
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, and 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.
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: Aware 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 the
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 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.
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 is 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 seven years. Well, if we'd have done
it seven years ago we'd be having a different
conversation today. I'm not suggesting it would 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.
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 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 -- I'm glad all the --
a lot of these elected officials are going over there,
because they'll get an interesting -- 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.
THE PRESIDENT: You call them TV shows?
Newscasts, yes.
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, 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 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.
Again, I don't want to be a "I 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.
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.
Q Mr. President, last week China
joined Russia in blocking the sanctions -- Mugabe and
Zimbabwe. I can't imagine it's 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 G8, and there was great concern by most of
the nations there -- well, with the G8 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 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 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 -- potential U.S. action.
Bret.
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
loathe 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 (sic) 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 if that's the case, it wouldn't
matter whether we succeed or not.
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.
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
counter-insurgency 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, 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 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.
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. 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 a 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 if they put their mind to it we
can get good legislation.
Let's see here -- yes, Mark.
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 current 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 what you just
said is right. One way to correct the imbalance is to
save, is to conserve. And as you notice 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 see the value of 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.
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.
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.
Q American oil producers?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, what was the
question again on that?
Q 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 -- I think -- 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 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.
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 G8 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?
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
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 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
hydrocarbon, 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 '70s. 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.
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.
Q Yes, sir. Can I follow up on --
MS. PERINO: He doesn't like --
(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.) 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 in his country, and recent reporting
suggests that al Qaeda has regrouped to pre-September
11th levels along the border between Pakistan and
Afghanistan. Is President Karzai correct, and do you
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 Qaeda is -- they're there. We have
hurt al Qaeda hard -- hit them hard, and hurt them in --
around the world, including in Pakistan. And we will
continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda -- 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 kind of 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.
END 11:04 A.M. EDT
Source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080124-3.html
