Briefing on U.S. Preparations for Relief Efforts for Burma VIDEO

Director of Foreign Assistance Henrietta H. Fore

Briefing on U.S. Preparations for Relief Efforts for Burma FULL STREAMING VIDEO Briefing by USAID Administrator and Director of Foreign Assistance Henrietta H. Fore and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); Director of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance Ky Luu

ADMINISTRATOR FORE: Good morning, everyone. Let me start with a few comments on Burma and the Tropical Cyclone Nargis. It is a tragedy of enormous proportions. We continue to offer our deepest condolences to the people of Burma and to those who’ve lost loved ones in Tropical Cyclone Nargis. The President made a point that I think needs underscoring. It is that the Burmese regime needs to let international assistance come in to help the Burmese people.

The United States Agency for International Development has allocated $3.5 – pardon me – $3.25 million in initial assistance to date. This is initial assistance, let me underline that, for this relief effort. The assistance will be allocated by the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team, what we call DART. It is currently prepositioned in Bangkok and awaiting permission to enter Burma. We are urgently requesting visas.

The Burmese state media is reporting that the cyclone has killed approximately 23,000 persons with an additional 42,000 that are missing. These figures remain unconfirmed at this time and our experience is that these numbers will rise. Reports of a higher number of deaths, injuries and missing persons only increases our concerns and our desire to provide assistance to those who are in greatest need.

We are all very concerned because there is also torrential rains forecast for this area. According to the UN Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance, OCHA, the most urgent needs are: plastic sheeting, water purification tablets, cooking sets, mosquito nets, emergency health kits, food, and fuel supplies. Some assistance is starting to get in, but it is a trickle. It is not enough. It needs to have a greater size and a greater speed. So we are urging the Burmese regime to grant full access to the affected areas to international humanitarian relief teams and to nongovernmental organizations so that they can help and provide assistance to those who are most in need.

We are poised and ready to make a significant contribution, but we need a very large coordinated international assistance effort. It is a time when we need that directed by international relief coordinators who have experience in the field. There are many international tragedies and this one needs to be contained at this time. There’s a link to the global food crisis; this Irrawaddy River delta region is a major region for the growing of rice, so it has a link in terms of this region, may not be able to provide rice into the world markets.

We encourage Americans who wish to assist the people of Burma to make cash donations to reputable organizations who are currently working on the ground in the disaster region. For information, I suggest going to interaction.org website. Nothing will get there faster than by giving to these nongovernmental organizations and others. The latest information and updates from USAID can be found by visiting the USAID.gov website, but the American people stand ready to help. Thank you.

MR. GALLEGOS: I appreciate that. Thank you. Now, for the rest of the briefing, we have the Director of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance Ky Luu. He will be – he’ll be making a brief statement and then he’ll be taking questions and answers.

MR. LUU: Thank you. I will just follow up by saying that, as Administrator Fore said, we are committed, we are prepared, we have a DART that is now currently prepositioned in Bangkok. Our DART team leader has been engaged in all of the interagency standing committee briefings that are taking place there. There’s been outreach to our NGO partners and to our UN partners.

Again, with the initial contribution of $3.25 million, it is going to be allocated initially in the following manner: a million dollars has been committed to the American Red Cross. This will go towards the purchase and procurement and distribution of non-food items. We had initially provided $250,000, which was made available to the embassy. That money was made available to our UN partners, to World Food Program -- to UNHCR, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and to the World Food Program.

We are in discussions with operational partners who are currently on the ground in order to make sure that the funding that could be made available will have an immediate impact. The problem that the entire international community is facing right now is access. What is available in terms of capacity in-country is not adequate to be able to respond to a disaster of this magnitude. So again, we urge the government of – the regime of Burma to open up access to all humanitarian actors. Thank you.

QUESTION: Have you all made a policy decision yet on whether or not you will give more aid if the DART team is not allowed in, or whether it will be okay with you if a UN assessment, some kind of an independent team can go in and check? Is your – are additional contributions dependent on the DART team going in or not?

MR. LUU: The manner with which the U.S. Government provides humanitarian assistance is that it’s needs-based. What the DART does for us is it allows us an operational platform, an operational presence in the affected region in order to coordinate, in order to communicate with partners to best effectively target our assistance. What the DART team does in a chaotic environment is help us to be able to identify what the needs are. So, it expedites and it facilitates our funding stream. It’s not a policy issue. So therefore, if we were getting information from reliable operational partners that we could verify, again, that’s how we are able to make and base our funding decisions. It’s based upon needs, it’s based upon evidence at the field level.

QUESTION: Well – so, yes or no?

MR. LUU: Well, if the UNDAC teams and other teams were able to come in, and we know these partners and we work with them and they’re able to identify what the gaps are, and these gaps are not being met, we are prepared to be able to provide additional assistance. So, the DART team really is made up of these disaster experts and they coordinate and they work with our other colleagues.

QUESTION: Right, but I guess – I think you just answered it, but I want to make sure. The bottom line is, though, you’d like to have the DART go in, but if it doesn’t go in, you’re not going to cut off – are you --

MR. LUU: That's correct. The bottom line is the DART's presence helps us make informed decisions and it helps us be able to get the resource out quicker. Without the DART on the ground or without other operational partners, it's very difficult at this point in time to tell you exactly what the conditions are on the ground: how many people are impacted, what are the needs. I mean, we know generically in a typical response what needs to take place; however, on a disaster of this magnitude, in terms of being able to gauge what the infrastructure is, how best to be able to bring in relief supplies, that information has not been made available yet.

QUESTION: Right. And is it still the case that you haven't heard back? They haven't rejected the visas, but they just haven't responded? Is that --

MR. LUU: It's my understanding that as of morning calls with post and others, that we have not heard back one way or another at this stage.

QUESTION: What about the -- there was a U.S. cargo plane, a C-130, that they thought was going to be allowed in. I think in Thailand they were saying, oh, that's going to be allowed in. And then I guess it wasn't. Do you have any update on that, where that plane is or what's happening?

MR. LUU: I don't have an update on it. I know that our colleagues within DOD and post and State and others are discussing this option, as we're discussing any options in terms of being able to bring in relief supplies from any donor nation. I think that's the difficulty that we're faced right now. And the reality is that one flight will make some sort of a difference, in terms of testing the logistics and the ability to be able to move commodities out, but we need a decision made soon. I mean, you know, we're approaching almost a week here when the cyclone hit the impacted areas. And we need to get commodities in as quickly as possible and established in-country logistics in order to move commodities out.

QUESTION: But have they started letting -- there was a report they had started letting UN planes land. Is that right, and can you, perhaps, then just funnel your assistance through UN planes? Would that be --

MR. LUU: It's my understanding that there have been four World Food Program flights that have been approved and cleared. I don't know what the status in terms of when their arrival is. We have heard that, for example, back on Monday, a flight from Thailand had landed with relief supplies. Again, they were not allowed to be able to provide for actual relief teams. And the point here is that you can bring in commodities, but if they're not reaching the impacted areas, if they're not available in terms of warehouse space and logistics, forklifts capacity and trucks and helicopters to be able to bring it out, we may be inundated and create a logjam. So it's -- that's why the DART team and the UNDAC team and other disaster experts, it's very important to have them on the ground right now, not just to carry out assessments, but to establish the infrastructure and order the mechanics of moving supplies out.

QUESTION: Is there a need to position teams around -- on the border not far from the countries to -- if people get -- to come to you if you cannot get there? Is it possible?

MR. LUU: I think that we're all looking at options right now. I can't say that in terms of a cross-border operation at this point in time is something that is high on our priority because the reality is, if you look at where they're positioned, that's really not something that's realistic. So the point being is that we've got to be able to get our team in to be able to get access to the largest impacted population.

QUESTION: Can you give us -- you had mentioned that it's been almost a week since the storm hit. Is there kind of a deadline or a real kind of red line area that you see coming up where the aid really needs to get there before we start seeing more casualties from disease, hunger -- after the storm?

MR. LUU: It's difficult to put a clear timeline on this. But clearly, when you're talking about, let's say disasters that are water-related -- the cyclones, the floods -- what you will find right off the bat is, let's say perhaps, high levels of immediate mortality rates. But you don't see a lot of those who are injured by this walking around. So in that context, with an immediate emergency health intervention, we have some time. However, there are secondary health illnesses -- cholera epidemics and others, water-related borne diseases that we have some time. But the reality is on the health portfolio, I would say maybe it could be two to three weeks. Again, I'd have to check in with our health experts on this.

But what is immediately needed right now is access to clean water, and that is immediate. What is absolutely immediate right now is access to temporary shelter. So these sorts of non-food items, the water sanitization, we don't have time to wait on this. This has to go in. And though some of our operational partners had some in-country stocks, it was more on the level of perhaps for 10,000 beneficiaries. And what we're hearing from others is that, you know, you're talking about an overall population in the five states of about 24 million people. There could be anywhere from 1.5 million who will need immediate assistance. So what is available in-country right now is inadequate to be able to deal with the catastrophe.

QUESTION: There's been some talk about -- I mean, I know this is more of a political decision, but in terms of, like, what you can do in terms of getting aid in, there's been some talk about just kind of forcing the aid through, doing airlifts, you know, if the government won’t give the visas and let you get on the ground. Would that help you in any way, like, even if you could do, like, targeted kind of pin-drop food drops, things like that? Is that something that’s being considered? Would that help you, or it’s really not the kind of infrastructure that you would need to get the aid where it needs to be?

MR. LUU: Anything that might have a positive impact is being looked at and is being discussed. Air drops -- again, here you have to have the in-country infrastructure in order to be able to distribute the supplies. You have to be able to communicate to beneficiaries that air drops are occurring. And therefore, it’s not the most efficient manner in terms of providing relief assistance and, in the end, it may create more harm than anything else. So our point is that, yes, we’re looking at it, but the immediate needs are for open access for the current existing operational partners and for the regime in order to open up to provide for additional relief workers to get on the ground.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. What is -- what do they -- is the regime telling you in terms of why they’re not letting you in?

MR. LUU: I’d have to defer that to my State Department colleagues. What I do know is that, you know, on the humanitarian side, this is what we’re planning on in our discussions with our NGO partners and our UN colleagues.

QUESTION: Are you in touch with any kind of similar counterparts in Burma on the government side? I mean, does the government even have any kind of agency like USAID, kind of -- obviously, it wouldn't be as big a scope, but are you talking kind of to your aid counterparts on the ground there?

MR. LUU: The closest and probably the most viable option right now is the local Red Cross, and we are in discussions with the International Federation of the Red Crescent Movement in Geneva as well as our American Red Cross colleagues in terms of assessing their capacity and how to get resources to them. That’s the -- at least from our humanitarian perspective, that’s the open line of communications that we’re currently having.

QUESTION: Well, if they don’t allow U.S. flights, are you in touch with the UN, working with the UN, or India or China, with the neighboring countries there, or do you have any other options at the last if they don’t allow because more and more people will die of hunger and, as you said, many other diseases? You have any other forceful option other than this?

MR. LUU: Well, I think if you look at who has access, I think we’re all very similarly situated here in terms of our ability to be able to not just bring in relief supplies but bring in staff. And there are coordination meetings that are taking place at the -- in Bangkok, and that does include both UN and other donor colleagues, and this is being discussed.

As far as other discussions, that is taking place. Again, you’d have to -- I’d have to defer to our State Department colleagues to be able to tell you in terms of at what level and what’s being discussed.

QUESTION: Have you, by any chance, heard anything about your colleague Jon Brause’s visit to North Korea for discussions on the U.S.’s plan for food aid to North Korea?

MR. LUU: I have not been in discussions with Jon since this occurred, so I’d have to -- again, we can get back to you with regard to that.

MR. GALLEGOS: There’ll be a briefing at 1 o'clock this afternoon.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: A group of senators today called for USAID to evaluate which organizations on the ground might be best able to overcome the political obstacles to deliver aid in what -- one way, either USAID or -- obviously, USAID -- and try to break the logjam that way. Is there anything going on in that regard?

MR. LUU: We know who the current existing operational partners are and we are in discussions with them right now in terms of being able to provide them with assistance. So that, as I said, is the quickest avenue that we have to have an impact without having the DART team or without having a large UNDAC team on the ground.

That said, we’re hoping that other operational partners are able to get access, because the reality is that those existing infrastructure and staff that they have in country are limited. They’ve been limited in terms of their ability for movement. They’ve been limited in terms of their ability to get out to the impacted area. They’ve been limited in their ability to be able to bring in additional resources. So on the one hand, we are reaching out to the existing operational partners in country. We’re also reaching out to other partners who may not have an existing operations, but if the conditions are such that they opened up, they are able to come in and ramp up programs relatively quickly.

QUESTION: What are the NGOs you are working with who have access to Burma?

MR. LUU: For example, World Vision is on the ground. Save the Children is an operational partner that’s currently there. Pact is on the ground. Our UN colleagues, for example, World Food Program, UNHCR, UNICEF. That’s just a short list. But again, it is a short list, and even then they don’t have enough staff in country to be able to do what they need to do.

QUESTION: Have you guys -- what have you sort of learned or what are you studying from the tsunami response as far as how you’re operating? I remember during the tsunami it was the U.S., Australia, Japan. I think India created this tsunami core group that was pretty unified in how they were responding and they didn’t go through the UN. They just kind of went. Is that something you’re studying as far as a response for this, as kind of setting up some real body between the countries surrounding Burma as far as how to respond?

MR. LUU: We’re looking at close coordination with other donor countries, but I think that the biggest difference here is not only in terms of the size and the scope -- I mean, if you go back to the tsunami here, it impacted, I think, 13 countries. But within hours, within days of the tsunami, the governments had very much opened up access. If you look at the situation in Indonesia, where – within Banda Aceh up at that point, there weren’t many operational partners, whether it was UN or NGOs. And within two days, they did allow access and that access is the key.

We have to be able to come in and we have to verify what the conditions are in order to coordinate. Right now, the coordination that’s taking place is, yes, we have some countries that are pledging resources, we have other countries that are noting that they have standby capacity. But unless and until we have some real, credible field-driven assessments, we’re in a coordination phase outside of the country and that really does not have an immediate impact on the victims of the cyclone.

QUESTION: What’s the status of the U.S. military ships that were on maneuvers and are they being diverted? I know it’d take three or four days, I guess, to get there, but --

MR. LUU: I’d have to defer the specifics – details on that, to our DOD colleagues.

QUESTION: Can I go back to your answer to a question earlier about the – on the air drop idea? Are you – are you saying that it is being – it is being considered, that -- drops of food and other supplies without the government’s permission?

MR. LUU: Everything within the law is being considered at this point in time.

QUESTION: Is that legal?

MR. LUU: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Is that legal?

MR. LUU: To be able to drop without --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. LUU: I’d have to – again, you know, whether you look at the UN mandate, I think they’re – the French are looking at and others. I can’t tell you what the legal ramifications are. I can say that if we were given permission to go in, that we would do so. If, let’s say, we were only given permission to be able to drop off food, again, that is something that we would do.

QUESTION: Are you talking about the responsibility to protect (inaudible)?

MR. LUU: That’s correct.

QUESTION: So it is being -- has that been done before?

MR. LUU: The responsibility to protect – I think it’s a kind of a recent idea here. What I was talking about in terms of air drops would be on the mechanics, all we could talk about in terms of planning. In terms of access and what that means, in terms of the legal and international ramifications, again, I’d have to defer to our State Department colleagues. But in terms of planning for it and what it might look like and what the resources would be required and how we might be able to plan for it in-country, as I said, any and all options are being planned. What, actually, we’ll be able to implement will be driven by many things, first of all, in terms of access.

QUESTION: Yeah, but are you aware of this being – of that kind of thing being done previously without permission of the host government?

MR. LUU: You know, again, I’d have to look at it, but it’s my understanding that that was what was utilized with regard to Kosovo. But again, I’d have to go back and defer to others who are much more well-versed on this. I can only really discuss in terms of the mechanics and the operations in terms of what it might look like.

QUESTION: But on Kosovo, you’re talking about without the permission of the Serb Government, which – I mean, there was a dispute, you know, there was a --

MR. LUU: I believe that that’s where it was first, I mean, discussed in the international platform. Again, I can only discuss in terms of what’s being looked at for this current implementation plan and strategy and we are planning the operations.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you think this is all politics from the military dictatorship, sir?

MR. LUU: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Is this politics, do you think, military dictatorship is playing?

MR. LUU: I don’t understand the question.

QUESTION: Do you think the military dictators here are playing any kind of politics?

MR. LUU: Again, you know, I can only talk and address the humanitarian aspects.

QUESTION: Because of the U.S. (inaudible)?

MR. LUU: We would hope that politics do not come into play. We would hope that with the size and scale of this crisis, that the focus is on the victims and the focus is on being able to allow access and allow our operational partners to be able to deliver life-saving assistance.

MR. GALLEGOS: Okay. We have time for one more.

QUESTION: Yeah. You said a few minutes ago that some of your operational partners had some stocks and you said only enough on the order of 10,000, were you talking about stocks of water, stocks of food, or stocks of what?

MR. LUU: For example, UNHCR had stocks of blankets, stocks of water, stocks of plastic sheeting. Again, for all of them, it was on the magnitude of enough for 10,000 beneficiaries. So it is absolutely urgent for us to be able to not only provide funding for them to restock, but the ability for them to actually bring in the relief commodities. But bringing in commodities is just one component of this. You have to have the basic infrastructure to move it out.

QUESTION: Is that the universe of the stuff there that you know about? I mean, is that the most? I mean, enough there for --

MR. LUU: That’s what we know of at this point in time, yes.

QUESTION: But what about like, the Red Cross? They had something there, didn’t they?

MR. LUU: They did have some supplies which have already been distributed. And I believe that the IFRC has released an appeal for about 6 million Swiss francs for the restocking of those supplies. And, you know, the point, as we’re saying, is that there’s not enough stocks, staff or capacity in country at this point in time to deal with this catastrophe.

MR. GALLEGOS: All right. Thank you, guys.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, one more question. Well, why not just give everything through the UN and allow the UN to distribute everything? Why does it have to go through U.S. transport planes or U.S. assets? Why not give everything to the UN and have them -- you know -- through the World Food Program, through all their agencies, seeing as how their planes are being allowed in now?

MR. LUU: Well, not all their planes are being allowed in.

QUESTION: Well, there are several at this point.

MR. LUU: They have received, what we’ve been told, permission for four flights and for food. They are similarly situated, as are our other colleagues, in terms of being able to bring in staff. As I said here, the UNDAC team, they were only allowed to grant visas for four staff, so – the point being is if there’s a large infrastructure that we can support, we will look at that option. But the point is that it shouldn’t be narrowed in scope. Everybody has to become involved and we hope and urge that the regime will allow the access to take place as soon as possible.

MR. GALLEGOS: Thank you.

MR. LUU: Thank you.

2008/363 Released on May 8, 2008 Press Conference Office of the Spokesman Washington, DC. May 8, 2008

Tags: Relief Efforts for Burma and Henrietta H. Fore or Ky Luu and Tropical Cyclone Nargis

President Bush Attends Council of the Americas PODCAST VIDEO

President George W. Bush delivers remarks to the Council of the Americas Wednesday, May 7, 2008, at the Department of State in Washington, D.C. President Bush highlighted his policies in the Western Hemisphere, emphasizing the importance of congressional approval of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. President Bush said, "Once implemented, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement would immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 80 percent of American exports of industrial and consumer goods." White House photo by Chris Greenberg

President Bush Attends Council of the Americas FULL STREAMING VIDEO Department of State Washington, D.C. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Bill, thank you for the kind introduction. Thanks for giving me a chance to come by and see that the Secretary of State's dining room is a lot better than the President's dining room. (Laughter.) I'm honored to be here. I'm pleased to be with the Council of Americas again. I appreciate what you do to promote personal and economic freedom throughout the region, throughout the Americas.

I appreciate your strong concern about the need for liberty to be spread -- liberty in forms of government and liberty in forms of economies.

I am honored to be here with the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, better known in the neighborhood as Señorita Arroz. (Laughter.) I'm pleased to be with Carlos Gutierrez, the Secretary of Commerce; Susan Schwab, the U.S. Trade Representative. Thrilled to be here with Susan Segal, the President and CEO of the Council of Americas; a dear family friend, former member of the Cabinet in 41, Robert Mosbacher; Mack McLarty, as well -- people who care a lot about the region. Thank you for joining us here. I'm also pleased to be here with ministers, representatives, ambassadors from the governments of Canada, Colombia, Mexico and Peru -- honored you all are here.

The foundation of good foreign policy is good relations with your neighbors. A peaceful and secure neighborhood is in the interest of the United States of America. And so I want to talk to you about the hemisphere we share, the challenges we face, and the aggressive work that the United States is doing to help make the Americas a place of hope and liberty.

In recent decades, there have been positive developments in Latin America. Countries have moved away from an era of dictatorships, era of civil strife. Unfortunately, today some countries in the region are seeing a resurgence of radicalism and instability. And one nation in the region remains mired in the tyranny of a bygone era -- and that is Cuba.

Yesterday I had a fascinating opportunity to speak with a leading Cuban dissident, a former political prisoner, and a wife of a man who is held in a Cuban prison simply because he expressed his belief that all people should live in a free society. Video-conferencing is one of the great wonders of the 21st century, and to be able to sit in the White House and talk to these three brave souls in Havana was a inspiring moment for me. It reminded me about how much work the United States has to do to help the people in Cuba realize the blessings of liberty. It also reminded me of a couple of things: One, that there's an eternal truth when it comes to freedom, that there is an Almighty, and a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child, whether they be American, Cubano, or anywhere else, is freedom; and that it's going to take the courage and determination of individuals such as the three I met with to help inspire the island to embrace freedom.

The Cuban government recently announced a change at the top. Some in the world marveled that perhaps change is on its way. That's not how I view it. Until there's a change of heart and a change of compassion, and a change of how the Cuban government treats its people, there's no change at all. The regime has made empty gestures at reform, but Cuba is still ruled by the same group that has oppressed the Cuban people for almost half a century. Cuba will not be a land of liberty so long as free expression is punished and free speech can take place only in hushed whispers and silent prayers. And Cuba will not become a place of prosperity just by easing restrictions on the sale of products that the average Cuban cannot afford.

If Cuba wants to join the community of civilized nations, then Cuba's rulers must begin a process of peaceful democratic change. And the first step must be to release all political prisoners. They must respect the human rights in word and in deed. And they must allow what the Cuban people have desired for generations -- to pick their own leaders in free and fair elections. This is the policy of the United States, and it must not change until the people of Cuba are free. (Applause.)

We face other challenges in the hemisphere, as well. I'm deeply concerned about the challenge of illicit drug trade. First, I fully understand that when there is demand, there will be supply. And the United States of America is implementing a strategy to reduce -- a comprehensive strategy to convince our people to stop using illegal drugs. I talk to my counterparts all the time in the region and I talk about how we can work together -- and I'll explain some strategies here in a minute -- but I also remind them that so long as the United States uses illegal drugs, the drug dealers will find a way to get their products here.

We made some progress on reducing demand. Since 2001, the rate of drug use among the young has dropped by 24 percent. Young people's use of marijuana is down by 25 percent. The use of ecstasy has dropped by more than 50 percent. Methamphetamine use is down by 64 percent. Overall it's estimated that 860,000 fewer young people in America are using drugs today than when we began. But obviously we still have a lot of work to do. And so my commitment to our friends in the neighborhood is, the United States will continue to implement its comprehensive strategy to do our part to reduce demand for illegal drugs.

Secondly, we're working to intercept illegal drugs before they reach our citizens. Every day the men and women of the DEA, the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol and other law enforcement organizations are working tirelessly to intercept drugs, to stop money laundering, and to bust the gangs that are spreading this poison throughout our society. We've had some success. We've seized record amounts of cocaine coming into the United States. Last year these efforts resulted in a significant disruption of the availability of cocaine in 38 major cities. We still have more work to do.

And a final leg of our strategy is this: We will work with our partners, Mexico and the countries of Central America, to take on the international drug trade. I am deeply concerned about how lethal and how brutal these drug lords are. I have watched with admiration how President Calderón has taken a firm hand in making sure his society is free of these drug lords. And the tougher Mexico gets, the more likely it is that these drug families and these kingpins will try to find safe haven in Central America.

And that is why I committed my administration to the Merida Initiative. It's a partnership, a cooperative partnership with Mexico and Central America that will help them deal with the scourge of these unbelievably wealthy and unbelievably violent drug kingpins. And I want to work with Congress to make sure that, one, they fully pass our request in the upcoming supplemental debate, and also remind members of Congress that the strategy that we have put forth is a strategy designed with the leadership of the Central American countries, as well as with Mexico. It's a strategy designed to be effective. And so when Congress passes our supplemental request, they also got to make sure that they implement the strategy we proposed in full.

Another challenge is promoting social justice in the region. Nearly one out of four people in Latin America lives on $2 a day. Children never finish grade school. Mothers have trouble finding a doctor. In the age of growing prosperity and abundance, this is a problem that the United States must take seriously. As the most prosperous country in the world, the United States is reaching out to help our partners improve the lives of their citizens.

Social justice requires access to decent health care. And so we're helping meet health care needs in some of the most remote parts of Latin America, primarily by using the United States military's medical personnel to treat local citizens.

I'll never forget going to Guatemala and seeing the clinics run by our troops. America is a compassionate country. We're plenty strong when we need to be. But our military has provided unbelievably good care for a lot of people who have never seen health care before. The missions last year provided treatment for 340,000 individuals in 15 countries. And this year, a new series of humanitarian assistant missions will treat an additional 320,000. And it's so important when people think of America and think of the neighborhood that they understand social justice is at the forefront of our agenda.

Social justice requires access to decent education, as well. And since 2004, the taxpayers of the United States have provided more than $300 million for education programs throughout the region, with a special emphasis, a special focus on rural and marginalized populations.

Last year as well, the Secretary and I announced a new partnership for Latin America youth, to help train thousands of young people in the Americas with their English, and to provide opportunity to study here in the United States. And the reason why is simple: We want people in our neighborhood to have the skills necessary to take advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century. It's in the interest of the United States that we promote good health policies and good education policies.

Social justice also requires institutions that are fair, effective and free of corruption. It's hard to have a hopeful society when leadership steals the taxpayers' money. It's hard to have a hopeful place when the people aren't comfortable with the nature of government. And so we'll continue our bilateral aid, and I'm proud of the amounts of money we're spending in the region. But we've also changed the way that we're providing aid by insisting upon rules of governance, rule of law, the education -- the investment in education and health of its people, and governments to embrace marketplace economies.

And we do this what's called -- through what's called the Millennium Challenge Account. It is a new way to say that, yes, we're going to provide taxpayers' money, but we expect something in return from the governments that we help. I don't think it's too much to ask a government that receives U.S. aid to fight corruption. Matter of fact, I think it's a request that's long overdue. I don't think it's too much to ask a government that we help to invest in the health and education of their children. Nor do I think it's too much to ask for a government to accept marketplace economics.

The Millennium Challenge Account has invested $930 million in our region thus far to assist the countries of El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru. Let me talk about just some of the initiatives to give you a sense for the types of programs we're talking about.

In Honduras, the United States is providing assistance to nearly 1,300 farmers so they can develop their farmland and provide for their families. In Nicaragua, we've helped small farmers and entrepreneurs increase their productivity in rural communities. In Paraguay, we're working to -- with local leaders to reduce the cost of starting new businesses.

See, the whole purpose is to encourage enterprise, infrastructure that will help people get goods to markets; to provide the capacity -- increase the capacity of these countries to be able to provide hope for their people. This is a really good program, and the Congress needs to fully fund it as they debate the appropriations bills this year.

The Millennium Challenge Account is one way to promote prosperity, but perhaps the most -- not "perhaps" -- the most effective way is through trade. Trade brings increased economic opportunities to both the people of Latin America and the people of the United States.

Congress recognized this opportunities, and Congress took a look at whether or not we ought to have free trade agreements in our neighborhood, and they started doing so with Peru. And the bill, thankfully -- the trade bill with Peru passed by a large bipartisan majority. It's a good agreement. It's good for Peru. It also happens to be good for the United States. And now my call on Congress is to take that same spirit by which they passed the Peruvian free trade agreement and do the same thing for Colombia and Panama.

About 17 months ago, the United States signed a free trade agreement with Colombia. Ever since, my administration has worked closely with Congress to seek a bipartisan path for considering this agreement. I understand trade votes are hard. And that's why we continually reached out with -- to Congress. We've had more than 400 consultations, meetings and calls. We've led trips to Colombia for more than 50 members of Congress. We worked closely with congressional leaders from both parties. We responded to concerns over labor and environmental standards by including some of the most rigorous protections of any trade agreement in the history of the United States. We have bent over backwards to work with members from both parties on the Hill.

And despite this, Congress has refused to act. One month ago I sent the bill -- I sent the bill to implement the agreement to the Congress. Yet the Speaker chose to block it instead of giving it an up or down vote that the Congress had committed to. Her action is unprecedented. It is extremely unfortunate. I hope the Speaker is going to change her mind. I hope you help her to change her mind. If she doesn't, the agreement is dead, and this will be bad for our workers, our businesses, and it will be bad for America's national security.

Approving the agreement would strengthen our economy. Today almost all of Colombia's exports enter the United States duty-free. Yet American products exported to Colombia face tariffs of up to 35 percent for non-agricultural goods, and much higher for many agricultural products. Think about that. They export into the United States duty-free, and we don't have the same advantage. I would call that a one-sided economic agreement.

Failure to pass the free trade agreement, therefore, is making it much harder to sell our products into Colombia. To try to put this in perspective for you, this weekend we reached an unfortunate milestone when the tariffs imposed on U.S exports to Colombia reached an estimated $1 billion since the free trade agreement was signed. There's a -- that's one billion good reasons why the United States Congress ought to pass this bill. Passing the agreement we could create the -- (applause).

Members of Congress need to think about this. Once implemented, the Colombia free trade agreement would immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 80 percent of American exports of industrial and consumer goods. Many American exports of agriculture and construction equipment, aircraft and auto parts, and medical and scientific equipment would immediately enter Colombia duty-free. So would farm exports like high-quality beef, and cotton, and wheat, and soybeans, and fruit. And eventually, the agreement would eliminate all tariffs on U.S. goods and services.

Opening markets is especially important during this time of economic uncertainty. Last year, exports accounted for more than 40 percent of America's total economic growth. Forty percent of the growth was as a result of goods and services being sold from the United States into foreign markets. With our economy slowing, it seems like to me that we should be doing everything possible to open up new markets for U.S. goods and services. More than 9,000 American companies, including 8,000 small and mid-sized firms, export to Colombia. And approving this agreement, opening up markets for their goods and services, would help them increase sales, would help them grow their businesses, and would help them pay good-paying jobs.

If you're interested in work in America, if you're interested in economic vitality, you ought to be doing everything you can to make it easier for U.S. companies to be selling overseas.

And finally, approving this agreement is a urgent national security priority. Colombia is one of our strongest allies in the Western Hemisphere. I admire President Uribe a lot. He is courageous. He shares our values. He is a strong, capable partner in fighting drugs and crime and terror. The Colombia government reports, since 2002 kidnappings in Colombia have dropped 83 percent, terrorist attacks are down 76 percent, murders have dropped by 40 percent. He's got a strong record of doing what he said he was going to do.

And despite the progress, Colombia remains under intense pressure in the region. It faces a continuing assault from the terrorist group known as FARC, which seizes hostages and murder innocent civilians. Colombia faces a hostile and anti-American neighbor in Venezuela, where the regime has forged an alliance with Cuba, collaborated with FARC terrorists, and provided sanctuary to FARC units.

President Uribe has stood strong. He has done so with the assurance of American support. Congress's failure to pass the Colombia free trade agreement has called this support into question. President Uribe told members of Congress that approving this agreement is one of the most important ways that America can show our unwavering commitment to Colombia. Congressional leaders need to send a message that we support this brave and courageous leader, and that we will not turn our back on one of our most steadfast allies. (Applause.)

Yesterday I met with the President of Panama. I assured him our efforts to get the Panamanian trade bill passed will be just as vociferous and vigorous as our efforts to get the Colombia trade bill passed. Congress must understand they have a chance to spread prosperity in our neighborhood; they have a chance to support friends in our neighborhood. And there's no better way to express that friendship than to support the Colombia free trade agreement, the Panamanian free trade agreement, and while they're at it, to send a clear message around the world that the South Korean free trade agreement is good for the U.S. economy as well.

The ties between the people of the United States and the people of Latin America are important to our country. They're important to our prosperity, and they're important to the national security interest of the country. We share a deep bond, a bond between friends and a bond between neighbors. And because of this bond, the United States will, and must, remain committed to making sure that Latin America is a place of opportunity, a place of hope, a place of social justice, a place where basic necessities, like health care and education, are not too much for any child to dream about. Or a place where poverty gives way to prosperity, and a place, above all, where freedom is the birthright of every citizen.

I want to thank you for taking on the cause. I thank you for your vision; I thank you for your steadfast support of doing what's right in our neighborhood. And it's been my honor to come and share some thoughts with you. God bless. (Applause.)

END 1:37 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary May 7, 2008

Tags: President Bush and Council of the Americas or Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice