State Department Podcast and Text 01/23/06

Daily Press Briefing, Sean McCormack Spokesman, file is MP3 for PODCAST, running time is 40:44 , Washington, DC, January 23, 2006

Department Spokesman Sean McCormack (shown during the Daily Press Briefing) was sworn in as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Department Spokesman on June 2, 2005. Immediately prior to returning to the State Department,

Mr. McCormack served as Special Assistant to the President, Spokesman for the National Security Council, and Deputy White House Press Secretary for Foreign Policy. State Department Photo by Michael Gross.

TRANSCRIPT: 2:27 p.m. EST

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon. How is everybody? How was everybody's weekend? It's all right. Good. Excellent. Sorry, Teri, I don't want to disturb your conversation. (Laughter.) Okay. All right. We'll give you a review later.

I don't have any opening statements, so we can jump right in to Barry Schweid's first question.

QUESTION: Sean, when the Secretary said that Iran, on the one hand, should be referred to the Security Council; on the other hand, she spoke of not acting necessarily right away. What -- could you fill in the space?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think she did when she talked about -- the space that you're talking about, she talked about the fact that we all believe in the international community that there is a possibility for a diplomatic solution to the current situation in which Iran has put itself in the international community. And our hope is that once Iran is referred to the Security Council, that that provides a context in which a diplomatic solution can be found.

Currently, they have rebuffed the attempts of the EU-3 has well as others to find a diplomatic solution to the issue. And the issue very simply is they are trying to build a nuclear weapon under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. So the question before the international community is how to deal with that? And the EU-3 has made an attempt; their negotiations reached a dead end. The IAEA has repeatedly asked Iran for information about its nuclear program. Those requests for information have, time after time after time, been met with silence or obfuscation.

So we now find ourselves in the position of having an emergency IAEA Board of Governors meeting on February 2nd, at which time the Board of Governors will vote to refer Iran to the Security Council. We hope that that next phase of the diplomacy -- Iran finding itself before the Security Council, an action which it has sought to avoid vigorously over the past several years, will provide the needed diplomatic context so that we can arrive at a diplomatic solution. So that's the blank that you were talking about, Barry. But I think if you look back at the transcript, the Secretary did say just that.

On Iran?

QUESTION: Are you -- yeah, it is on Iran. Are you disappointed that the IAEA will not provide a fuller accounting of Iran's nuclear activities at the February 2nd meeting, which is what you were hoping for? And also, secondly, did the Secretary speak to the Chinese and the Russians over the weekend and where do they stand at the moment in terms of referral?

MR. MCCORMACK: Over the weekend, no, on both of those.

QUESTION: Today?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. Nope, did not speak with either of those foreign ministers.

On your first question about the report from Director General ElBaradei or from the IAEA, we asked for a written report. We had hoped that there would be a written report, but I understand that there will be some conveyance of the information to the Board of Governors. I don't know if that's going to be an informal oral briefing or what form it will take, but the important part is that there will be some series of findings as to where we stand right now with Iran for the Board of Governors. I think that's very useful. It will be very helpful in helping the various states on the Board of Governors make their decision about how they'll vote. But as we've said before, we believe we have the votes for a referral.

So while we would have preferred and would have thought appropriate a written report from the IAEA, I think that the Board of Governors will have the benefit of hearing from the IAEA, whether that's from the Director General or one of his assistants about where the IAEA stands now in its investigation.

QUESTION: Do you think that this really amounts to the (inaudible) of holding back on providing full information on Iran? They want to sort of stall any action? Would you perceive that --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, that's not how I'd characterize it.

Yes.

QUESTION: If I could come back to -- go back to Barry's question. If -- do we have to understand that there could be a referral and then a delay of, say, several weeks during which there could be space for negotiation? And then the Security Council would be -- would actually meet, gather on the Iranian issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, at this point, we're not going to lay out any particular timeline as to what might happen once the issue goes to the Security Council. Those are some of the discussions that we're having right now with other members of the IAEA Board of Governors, as well as other members of the Security Council. So as the Secretary talked about, we believe that we have the votes for a referral and we're now talking with other members of the Security Council about what might be the appropriate next steps, so I'm not going to prejudge at this point in time what those next steps might be.

Now, as for some potential diplomatic solution once Iran has arrived at the Security Council, of course that's what we hope for. But quite frankly, the ball is in the Iranians' court on that score. They are the ones that have been found in noncompliance with their IAEA obligations. They are the ones that have broken their promises to the EU-3 in terms of resuming conversion activities, in terms of resuming enrichment-related activities.

So the Iranians, at this point -- the Iranian regime, at this point, has eroded the trust of the international community to the point at which it's barely visible. That is why the Iranian regime finds itself on the verge of being referred to the Security Council, because time after time they have not lived up to their obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty. They talk about their rights. They talk about their rights to civilian peaceful nuclear purposes. That's not what is the debate here. The debate is whether or not they have lived up to their obligations. And at this point, the judgment of the international community is that they have not.

So as to whether at some future point the regime decides that it is going to in good faith live up to its obligations and provide objective guarantees that it will live up to its obligations, then certainly I think the world will take a look at what is the possible diplomatic solution. But at this point, they have not demonstrated that willingness.

QUESTION: Sean, on Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Under Secretary Burns was in Delhi. He had discussions with a number of officials, including, I understand, the Prime Minister of India. Where does India stand because India's vote at the IAEA in Vienna is very important as far as Iran's case to the UN Security Council is concerned? So do we know where India stands now at this final vote?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you're asking the wrong guy, Goyal. You should be asking the spokesman for the Indian Government as to where they stand on their vote.

QUESTION: They are not commenting.

MR. MCCORMACK: And you're asking me to comment on their behalf when they're not going to comment? That's not fair, Goyal.

QUESTION: I mean, does Secretary have any -- has any kind of assurance from India, let's say, -- during her -- any conversations with (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: What we understand from the Indian Government is that they take this issue very seriously. You know, we understand that they take it seriously. Under Secretary Burns has heard from the Indian Government. In that regard, Secretary Rice and her conversations over the past months on this topic with the Indian Government has taken away that impression as well.

They did at the last Board of Governors meeting vote to find Iran in noncompliance with its treaty obligations. I think all the members of the Board of Governors who voted in a like manner appreciated India stepping up and voting with them on this issue. It is a serious matter. And but -- as for how India might vote at this Board of Governors meeting or in other fora down the line, I'm not going to speak on behalf of the Indian Government. But we certainly appreciate their willingness to discuss this issue in a serious and forthright manner with us, as well as others.

Teri.

QUESTION: Iran has said this morning that a referral will make it put even more effort into moving forward to a full enrichment program. Does that cause you any concern and do you think that this kind of threat would lead other countries possibly to fall back from completely supporting a referral --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, this has been the Iranian regime's tactic for quite some time. What they have been -- if you look back at the arc of their diplomatic efforts, say they have attempted to obfuscate the issue and where they can't obfuscate the issue, they attempt to face down the international community with a variety of threats. I think you have heard from every corner of the international community that the time has come for the international community to unite and to speak to Iran in a unified voice, that their actions, the actions of this regime are not acceptable. It is not acceptable to go back on your obligations, international treaty obligations. It is not acceptable to go back on the obligations you have given to your negotiating partners.

If those actions are taken, there will be consequences for those actions in the diplomatic arena. That is what the world is telling Iran. You just heard it from Foreign Minister Fini not two hours ago that Italy, despite the fact that they enjoy very strong trade relations with Iran, they have a lot at stake, but they understand that this issue is serious enough that they support referral to the Security Council because they want to find a diplomatic way out. And that's what the United States, working with the international community, is working on.

But let me just add one more point and that is the Iranian people need to understand that the actions of the international community and the way that we are talking about this issue is not meant to cast the Iranian people in a negative light. The reason why Iran finds itself in the position that it does right now is because this regime has chosen to confront the international community in a way that says we don’t' have to abide by our international obligations. And the international community in good faith has offered a variety of possible solutions. I don't know if the Iranian people are fully aware of what has been offered them. I don't know if the Iranian people know that the EU-3 and the Russian Government have gone to them with ways in which they could realize their desire for peaceful nuclear energy while giving objective guarantees to the international community that those technologies and that know-how won't be used to develop a nuclear weapon. That's what has been offered the Iranian regime, and the Iranian regime has rejected those offers. So we'll see what happens at the next step, and we believe that is going to be referral to the Security Council in early February.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I think we have more, more on Iran. Yeah.

QUESTION: The fact that Mohamed ElBaradei is not going to produce his report, isn't that -- I mean, doesn't this give other countries the excuse to say this matter has not been resolved yet, we must wait to see what he says? In other words, give more time. I mean, are you prepared to accept that there will be countries who will ask for more time on this issue, who want to see his final report before making a judgment?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think that the international community has seen plenty enough proof that Iran is attempting to face down the international community. They're betting on the fact that through use of threat that they are going to be able to avoid answering the long list of questions that are before them. And it's not as if these questions have just popped up. These questions have been before the Iranian regime for quite some time, and time after time the Iranian regime has made the conscious decision not to answer those questions. And in fact, in the course of further investigations, more questions have come up as the IAEA digs further and further into what the Iranian Government is really up to in its nuclear programs.

So it's not as though the list of questions here is getting smaller. It's actually getting bigger. So I think that at this point the international community has proof aplenty about the fact that Iran -- it is time to refer Iran to the Security Council based on its actions and based on the fact it hasn't complied with its international obligations, based on the fact that it has not engaged the international community in good faith on this issue.

QUESTION: Secretary Rice earlier today met with the Secretary General of the Turkish National Security Council. How does the United States view Turkey's position on Iran, and what else was discussed?

MR. MCCORMACK: They did touch on the issue of Iran. They talked about a variety of other issues as well. They touched on the Cyprus issue. They touched on Iraq. They touched on Turkey-EU relations. They did talk a little bit about Iran.

I'll let the Turkish Government speak about their views of Iran, but I think that certainly Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon is a source of concern to the Turkish Government, as it is as source of concern to all of Iran's neighbors as well as the rest of the world. Introduction of an Iranian nuclear weapon into the region would be a very destabilizing act.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on --

QUESTION: Well --

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll get to you. We'll get to you.

QUESTION: You said the international community has enough proof that it doesn't need this full report to make a decision on February 2nd, but from your conversations with allies on the Board of Governors, for example, do they feel that they have enough proof or is it your assessment that they have --

MR. MCCORMACK: As I said -- look, we will get -- we will, I'm certain, get a more complete report from the Director General at some point down the line, maybe at the scheduled March meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors. But we have said repeatedly, for quite some time, that we have the votes to refer Iran to the Security Council, and that would indicate that those countries, those members of the Board of Governors, are satisfied that they have reason enough at this point, without any further report, to refer Iran to the Security Council.

Anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you have the votes at the Security Council to act on Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, right --

QUESTION: You keep -- you know, the confidence that you have the votes. Will you have the votes --

MR. MCCORMACK: For referral.

QUESTION: -- to discuss it --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: That doesn't strike me as -- and delay, that doesn't strike me as a very hard --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not using the word "delay," Barry. I've seen that pop up in a lot of news stories. But --

QUESTION: I'm saying delay only because she is saying action may not be taken right away. That to me --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what the Secretary of State has said is that -- and I'm paraphrasing here. You can go back and look at the transcript -- previous transcripts -- is that she did not believe that sanctions would be the first action taken. That doesn't mean there would be an absence of action. What that means is that we are currently discussing what action to take, once we get to the Security Council, so that's a matter of diplomacy. I expect that it will be a topic of discussion this week as well as next.

QUESTION: So if we don't -- if there's no decision on what action, I guess, it's not a fair question to ask if you have the votes, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, then, you know --

QUESTION: I'd have to have a specific course of action to know if you have the votes.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's starting to become a tautological conversation here.

QUESTION: Yeah. Exactly.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Okay.

All right. Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, on Friday, you commented about Sudan's rotation to the AU chair and last week both Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch roundly condemn the Sudanese and he also -- yesterday Parade magazine just featured a cover story with the ten worst dictators throughout the world. And Umar al-Bashir led that list out of some twenty. And by contrast, the Iranians are only ninth on that list as the worst. Why are you so lukewarm in your condemnation and not even more stringent?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think in terms of our attempts to get to a solution in Sudan concerning the various issues there, the humanitarian crisis, the security issues, as well as a political solution are well known. Secretary Rice has been there. Deputy Secretary Zoellick has been there numerous times. In terms of who is going to assume the presidency of the AU, that is currently a matter that is under discussion right now among the leaders of the AU who are now meeting in Khartoum. We have talked about the fact that it does seem to be a bit of a contradiction that you have -- you would have a country as president of an organization that is currently in that country in order to prevent violence perpetrated in part, we would believe, by the government. So that's the situation that we think that is worthy of discussion among the leaders of the AU and I understand from reports that we have from Khartoum that it is a matter of discussion among the AU that they take addressing that issue seriously. We'll see what they decide. It's going to be up to them whether they decide Sudan should take the presidency of the AU.

QUESTION: Same subject? Sean, but if they did -- if the AU did decide that Sudan deserved to be head of the organization for now, would it impact the United States cooperation with the AU? You've provided a lot of underwriting for their missions in Sudan. Do you think that would impact your cooperation?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see what the AU decides.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Same subject.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary spoken to the Sudanese at all about this and asked them to drop their bid because there have been several meetings in Khartoum? I just wondered whether she made any sort of personal --

MR. MCCORMACK: She has -- she did talk to the South African Foreign Minister earlier about this issue. Assistant Secretary Frazer is engaged on this issue. She is in the region right now. So we are working with -- well, not working with -- talking to other members of the AU about this issue. But ultimately, we don't have a vote around the table. They're going to have to be the ones who decide how they address the issue.

Okay. All done on Sudan? Okay, yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Slovenian President Janez Drnovsek visited UN headquarters last week and the initiative about Sudan, so I would like to ask how's the position of your government on that.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll have to check for you on that. Certainly we appreciate the efforts of the members of the international community to try to contribute to a solution to what is a very, very difficult and tragic situation in Sudan. So, but as to that particular proposal, I'll have to take a look at for you.

Anything else on Sudan? Okay, we'll come back. We'll go in the back here.

QUESTION: Some on Cyprus.

MR. MCCORMACK: How did I know? (Laughter.) How did I know that that was going to be the question?

QUESTION: Anything to say about the new initiative by the U.S., England and the UN on the Cyprus issue for a comprehensive solution? Actually, the British Foreign Minister Jack Straw is undertaking a mission to Cyprus, Greece and Turkey this week and it was announced today by the spokesman of the UN Secretary General.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'll have to check with -- check on the specifics of that for you. I hadn't heard that announcement. But we have been -- it's a topic that we speak with our EU counterparts with. The Secretary spoke with the Turkish National Security Advisor about Cyprus just today.

We support a solution based on the Annan plan. There are a number of different ways to come at that. The previous attempts -- there was a previous attempt to vote on Secretary General Annan's plan. That vote failed. We continue to remain hopeful that a solution can be found and we believe the proper course is a solution that is based on the Annan plan. So we'll continue to be engaged on the topic.

QUESTION: A follow-up to my Turkish --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: You'll have to ask the Brits about that, Barry.

QUESTION: A follow-up to my Turkish colleague's question. Did Secretary Rice and the Secretary General of the National Security Council of Turkey Yigit Alpogan discuss also the Greek-Turkish relations? And since you told us a few moments ago that they touched Cyprus issue, do you know to which extent?

MR. MCCORMACK: They didn't talk about Greek-Turkish relations.

QUESTION: And to which extent the Cyprus issue? Any particular --

MR. MCCORMACK: It was one among several that came up.

QUESTION: What does the strategic relations with Turkey mean for the United States?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Turkey is a good friend. Turkey is a NATO ally. We have worked together with this Turkish Government well on a variety of issues. We have a long and deep history of good relations between the U.S. and Turkey, and there are a lot of important issues that are before both countries and we look forward to working with them on those issues.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: The Government of Slovenia recently decided to send four soldiers in Iraq as instructors against the public opinion, who doesn't favor this decision and in times when some governments are considering pulling out the troops, as Italy. So I wonder what does State Department think about this decision.

And the other question, if I may. I know there are some activities between Slovenia and U.S. Department of State regarding the visit of our Prime Minister to the White House. I was wondering if you had more information on that.

MR. MCCORMACK: On the White House visit, you'll have to talk to my colleagues down the road. They'll have more information for you on that, possibly.

Now, there were four soldiers that were sent as instructors; is that right?

QUESTION: Sent in Iraq, yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: As instructors?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Well, certainly -- and again, I hadn't seen the -- I hadn't seen this particular report. But I think as a -- in general, we welcome the contributions of countries around the world to support the Iraqi Government, to support the Iraqi people, as they try to build up their infrastructure. You mentioned some countries are drawing down their combat forces. Well, they have in some cases, but they are also ramping up their contributions in other areas.

So what you see here is as the Iraqis become more capable in certain areas and needs for, for instance, troops in some areas lessen, you're going to see some reductions. But you also see some of those same countries increasing their levels of assistance in other areas, for example, in providing instructors, in providing professional advice about building institutions, governing ministries. Some will provide financial assistance. So there are a lot of different ways to contribute, but we appreciate the contributions of all the governments around the world who desire to help the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government build a better future for themselves.

QUESTION: You haven't heard about the decision?

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen that particular report.

Peter.

QUESTION: Change of subject? On the Palestinian elections on Wednesday, I have two questions. One is that we've heard at length just the U.S. analysis of why they think it's not appropriate for Hamas to be in the government as long as they don't recognize Israel. But my question is much simpler, is if that does happen as a result of the elections there, will the United States boycott the government or take any other action against the Palestinian Authority if -- with the Hamas government?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Since you've already put aside the part of the answer that I would give you, I'd give you a simple answer. We'll see what the elections produce. You had a simple question. It's a simple answer.

QUESTION: Are you -- okay, then let me rephrase my simple question, so try it again.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Round two.

QUESTION: Is the United States making any contingency plans for that possibility that -- I mean, because we've all seen the analysis there and I'm sure you're thinking about it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll see how the elections turn out.

QUESTION: Well, let me try to go back and try a simpler.

MR. MCCORMACK: Fewer words?

QUESTION: I think I have another question --

MR. MCCORMACK: Does it involve "yes" or "no," Barry?

QUESTION: Does the U.S. support a Palestinian state even if it is led by or Hamas has a dominant position?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, Barry. You just heard from the Secretary on this issue.

QUESTION: Well, it's not clear to me.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything to add to what she said.

QUESTION: Well, is she being intentional ambiguous? We know she doesn't like Hamas.

MR. MCCORMACK: I think she was pretty clear. I think she was very clear. Go back and look at the transcript.

QUESTION: On whether the -- no, no, she was clear about negotiating, which I take to mean Israel. It's hard to negotiate with people who want to destroy you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But I'm asking about U.S. policy, which she wasn't clear about. All I'm clear about is that every occasion you have in --

MR. MCCORMACK: Hamas is a terrorist organization.

QUESTION: You say "good morning" and the answer is, "We support a Palestinian state." You say, I think it's Tuesday and the answer is yes and we support a Palestinian state. But do you support a Palestinian State? (Laughter.) I mean, I get your message.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I should just put a tape recorder up here or something, right?

QUESTION: It's clear now. Do you support a Palestinian state irrespective of who might run the Palestinian state?

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry, you know, that's a hypothetical question. It is not the set of facts with which we are confronted at the moment. If we are confronted with such a set of facts, I'll provide you an answer about those facts.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a less simple question about that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: Okay -- about this. Following the reports, I think, in The Washington Post and The New York Times that the United States in the form of USAID has been actually funding projects that seem to be somewhat electioneering on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, do you think that's an appropriate role for U.S. funds to be taking because we also know that State Department personnel have been involved in helping, for instance, the Palestinian Authority mount a news center, a press center in Ramallah and we have sort of witnessed ourselves. Is this appropriate for the United States to be contributing towards one side in an election?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think what -- I think it is entirely appropriate is the United States assist those people around the globe who are trying to build democratic institutions, which is what we're doing. It's what we're doing in Gaza. I think if you look at the news reports that somehow put the timeframe of this assistance to the past four weeks, that's incorrect. This is actually going back to the post-Gaza withdrawal period. And we certainly did heighten our engagement in the post-Gaza withdrawal period. I think entirely appropriately is the Palestinian Authority, which was the -- which is the governing institution for the Palestinian people was working on building an infrastructure that those democratic institutions in Gaza that would help them govern more effectively, therefore, help and assist the Palestinian people realize a better way of life. And that's exactly what it is that we were doing in Gaza.

QUESTION: Is it appropriate -- from what I understand -- is that it was USAID-funded projections, but it was not labeled as USAID money going to these. Is that an appropriate process to follow?

MR. MCCORMACK: You'll have to check with USAID whether or not they label every single thing they do. You know, I can't tell you what went into the decision-making process to label some things and not label other things.

QUESTION: So it's not –

QUESTION: Public diplomacy -- I'm sorry (inaudible.)

QUESTION: No, I'm just saying, but it is quite obvious that the United States would favor the Palestinian Authority and Fatah over Hamas which is the main challenger. Do you think that these projects and this money and this whole effort that has been mounted is part of this effort to bolster the Palestinian Authority against the challenge from Hamas or do you deny that that's what's happening?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, I guess I would cast it in a slightly different light. You're casting it in political terms as to who is elected by the Palestinian people. That is up to the Palestinian people. We're not trying to put our finger on the scale on that question. What we are trying to do is we are trying to -- we are trying to help the Palestinian people build democratic institutions that will serve them. They had two decades worth of rule where they were led -- that they were subjected to corrupt institutions that did not respond to their needs.

What we are attempting to do with the Palestinian Authority is to help them build up the capacity to have those democratic institutions that will respond to the needs of the Palestinian people. That's what they want. The Palestinian -- we believe that the Palestinian people want the same thing that everybody else around the world wants. They want to be able to live in peace and security. They want to send their kids to school. They want to be able to go to work without threat of violence. They want to realize a better way of life for their people. That's what these projects are intended to do.

QUESTION: From a public diplomacy angle, though, Sean, wouldn't you want the Palestinian people to see that the United States is providing broad-based support for their election process? Wouldn't that be a good public diplomacy effort?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, where the -- the success or failure of the Palestinian election process is going to be determined in large part by the Palestinian people and what sort of elections they run for themselves. Now, they're going to have some help from outside groups doing that. But what we want to do in our assistance projects, is we want to do what's effective. We want to do what works. And that's what our people in the field are charged with doing.

QUESTION: Whether or not you get credit for it visibly by the Palestinian people?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, what our people are interested in doing is what's effective on the ground, what helps out the Palestinian people.

QUESTION: Can we come back to Iran just for a moment?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: Are Mr. Joseph and Mr. Burns done with their traveling or are there more places to visit?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think they are --

QUESTION: I think Burns was in Sri Lanka and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, he was. I think he is going to be on his way back here. I'm not sure how long it's going to take. I think, Wednesday. And Bob is going to be traveling back in the same timeframe. I didn't check, Barry, exactly where they stand. I think Nick is returning tomorrow, was in Sri Lanka most recently.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. And they're on the Board of Governors, so he did raise the Iran issue.

Yeah. We're going to give some other people a try.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: What's the U.S. position on the recent allegation of spying against British Embassy officials and two prominent Russian NGOs , the Eurasia Foundation and the Moscow Helsinki Group.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sounds like an issue for the British Embassy and Russian officials to answer. Don't have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: On Kosovo?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Any comment on the death of the moderate Kosovar leader Ibrahim Rugova?

MR. MCCORMACK: You missed the Secretary's statement. You have to check your e-mail.

QUESTION: No, I didn't see anything --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, it came out this weekend. Ask Barry. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But anyway --

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry is very involved with technology. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Who is going to represent the U.S. Government in his funeral this coming Thursday in Pristina?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll get back to you on that. We're taking a look at that.

QUESTION: South Asia?

MR. MCCORMACK: Here. Dave.

QUESTION: Sean, anything on this gas supply crisis involving Russia and Georgia?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we did talk to the parties that were involved in the issue over the weekend. I understand now that gas is flowing from Azerbaijan to Georgia and I believe that there's electricity going from Turkey into Georgia as well, and there were some disruption to gas flows in Armenia. So Azerbaijani gas is headed into Armenia.*

At this point, we don't know the cause of these explosions. We encourage the Russian authorities to look into it. They have referred to them as terrorist acts. But regardless right now of what the cause of the explosions were, what was important is that Georgia and Armenia's neighbors came together to come to their neighbor's aid in a time of crisis. And you know, we played a role in that, proudly so. And the Russian authorities have said that the gas pipeline should be repaired in two or three days time, and the Georgian people and the Armenian people can look forward to a resumption of gas flows to their countries.

QUESTION: The American role -- can you be a little more specific?

MR. MCCORMACK: There was a lot of phone calls. The Ambassador on the ground in Georgia was working with Georgian officials. Assistant Secretary Fried was involved. Mr. Bryza was involved as well as a lot of other officials. I don't want to leave anybody out, but there were a number of different -- a number of people involved.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I'd like to ask about the transformation of alliance with Japan. On Sunday there was a mayoral election in Nago City, Okinawa, Japan, to where U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma is planned to relocation deal to. And new mayor said Monday the current relocation plan to Nago City is unacceptable, he said. And I'm wondering whether -- where the discussion is going. It is unclear. And Japan central government released the comment -- welcome to the new mayor's victory. So that -- in this situation do you have any comment to us on how did you watch this situation?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, in terms of the mayor's comments, I haven't seen them so I couldn't speak to them. We have been working very well with Japanese authority regarding basing arrangements. As a matter of fact, Deputy Secretary Zoellick, who was most recently in Japan, he met with Prime Minister Koizumi, and while he was in Japan he also signed an agreement with Foreign Minister Aso on the new bilateral special measures agreement extending Japanese support for U.S. forces stationed in Japan. So that's evidence of the fact that we are working very well with the Japanese Government on issues related to our forces stationed in Japan. As for the -- I hadn't seen the mayor's comments so I couldn't offer you anything particular on that.

Yes.

QUESTION: On South Asia, two questions. Thanks.

One, as we mark the 25th anniversary of the release of the 52 U.S. diplomats brutally held by the Iranians and as far as this image, U.S. image abroad is concerned, especially in Pakistan because so many demonstrations were going on, tomorrow the Secretary's meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan here at the State Department. So you think she is concerned about this anti-American slogans and demonstrations and if the people of Pakistan are with the U.S. or not, or how she's going to discuss this matter with the Prime Minister of Pakistan tomorrow?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll wait to see if it comes up in their meetings. Pakistan is a good ally in the war on terror. I hope that the Pakistani people understand that we have a common enemy in fighting the al-Qaida and Taliban. These forces and these individuals are as much a threat to Pakistan as they are to the United States as well as other countries around the world. I hope the Pakistani people also understand that in their hour of need it was the United States leading the way in providing assistance to Pakistan, rescuing people who were victims of that terrible earthquake, helping to provide medical assistance, helping to provide airlift support so those people could be taken out of the danger zone and brought to places where they could get medical attention. So I hope that that's what the Pakistani people understand about America and the American people.

QUESTION: And on Nepal, in a conversation with the Nepali Ambassador here in Washington, he told me that the sanctions against his country as far as military U.S. sanctions are concerned, they are not needed because that is helping the Maoists and Nepal cannot fight against Maoists and insurgents in his country. And violence are taking place. Hundreds of political arrests took place and also thousands of demonstrations in the streets of Nepal's. So where do we stand as far as situation in Nepal is concerned?

MR. MCCORMACK: You have to check your e-mail too, Goyal. I put out a statement -- put out a statement on this, I think it was on Friday.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: No, I saw that. I saw that. But what Ambassador is saying, really that's what I'm asking.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything further for you, Goyal.

Yes, Teri.

QUESTION: On North Korea, apparently the U.S. Treasury Department has now given North Korea one of these briefings on --

MR. MCCORMACK: South Korea.

QUESTION: Sorry, South Korea. You're right. I was thinking that the North Koreans were there.

MR. MCCORMACK: Not that I know of.

QUESTION: Okay. So they're going -- this is a meeting that would predate a briefing to the North Koreans that we have offered them, is that correct, the same kind of information? And is there -- has there been any progress on getting North Korea to come to one of the counterfeiting briefings?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nope. And this is just -- these -- what you're referring to are some Treasury officials that traveled to, I believe, South Korea and also Tokyo as well, and what they did, they provided a briefing on U.S. law and the basis upon which we took the actions that we did.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: A Turkish court today dropped charges against acclaimed novelist Orhan Pamuk. Any remarks on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're pleased that the charges against Mr. Orhan Pamuk have been dropped. We hope that similar cases against other writers and journalists will be dropped as well.

Thank you.

QUESTION: I'm Greek but I have a question. It's very important. The other day, in the Russian parliament, it was said by Mr. Lavrov that Russia and Turkey agreed to create a joint fleet corps Black Sea force to fight international terror in the entire Black Sea area. I'm wondering what is the U.S. position on that since Turkey is a NATO member and a strong ally to the United States.

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll have to check for you on that one.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:08 p.m.) _____________________________ * So Azerbaijani gas is headed into Georgia. DPB#12

more at Department of State and State Department or Iran and SUDAN, or Russia and PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY or KOSOVO, or TURKEY and NEPAL, or PAKISTAN,

Related: Keywords State Department, Friday, January 20, 2006 State Department Podcast and Text 01/19/06, Thursday, January 19, 2006 Secretary Rice, South Korean Foreign Minister PODCAST 01/19/06, Wednesday, January 18, 2006 State Department Podcast, Text 01/17/05,

President-Elect Morales in Bolivia

Assistant Secretary Shannon to Meet With President-Elect Morales in Bolivia (Question Taken)

Question: Will Assistant Secretary Shannon meet with President-Elect Morales in Bolivia?

Answer: Assistant Secretary Shannon and President-Elect Morales are scheduled to meet on Saturday, January 21, 2006.

2006/74, Released on January 20, 2006 Press Statement Office of the Spokesman Washington, DC January 20, 2006 Question Taken at Jan. 20, 2006 Daily Press Briefing

more at Department of State and State Department or Bolivia and Assistant Secretary Shannon, or President-Elect Morales

Related: Keywords, Question Taken, Wednesday, November 24, 2004 Ukraine elections Elizabeth Jones Yuriy Ushakov, Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Secretary Newman Minister Askalu Menkerios, Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Deputy Secretary Armitage, Oleg Rybachuk, Victor Yushchenko, Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Richard L. Armitage and Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin, Thursday, February 10, 2005 Human Rights Watch Allegations on Nepal, Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, Thursday, February 24, 2005 Assistance to Somali Transitional Government, Saturday, February 26, 2005 Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Wednesday, March 02, 2005 Sale of U.S. Military Equipment from Germany to Greece, Thursday, March 03, 2005 Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela, Saturday, March 05, 2005 Charles Robert Jenkins, Saturday, March 05, 2005 President Karzai and Abdurrashid Dostam, Saturday, March 05, 2005 Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), Tuesday, March 08, 2005 Nepal – Arrests of Opposition Figures, Tuesday, March 08, 2005 China/Korea - Visit of Ning Fukui, Saturday, March 12, 2005 Macedonian Municipal Elections, Tuesday, March 15, 2005 EU Delegates in Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 15, 2005 Venezuela: Reports of Ambassador Shapiro’s Warning of a Coup Plot, Saturday, March 19, 2005 Gujarati Chief Minister Narendra Modi, Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Illicit Arms Transfers, Kosovo Liberation Army,

Twenty-seven previously unknown species discovered

The unique cave animals of Sequoia and Kings Canyon are better protected than most because they are lucky enough to make their home in a National Park. This is important because the Sierra Nevada has recently been identified as one of the five "hotspots" for cave animal diversity in the United States. Some of the unique animals of these mountains live in the central Sierra, but many are also found in Sequoia and Kings Canyon.

The park cave with the greatest animal diversity is Clough. This cave is probably home to seven species of invertebrates that live no where else in the world. This includes a scorpion, a harvestmen and several species of spiders. The cave is at low elevation and is warm and seasonally wet. Tree roots provide food for many animals in Clough. Guano from an active bat colony provides additional food for invertebrates. There are several species of bats in Clough, including the rare, Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii).

Other park caves with unique species include Kaweah, Crystal, Hurricane, Lilburn, and possibly White Chief and Panorama.

Sequoia and Kings Canyon maintain an ongoing research and monitoring program to check on the populations of these animals. This involves more than 60 "plots", small areas of park caves that are checked for the presence or absence of the invertebrates. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks natural resources website

"Not only are these animals new to science, but they're adapted to very specific environments — some of them, to a single room in one cave," said Joel Despain, a cave specialist who helped explore 30 of the 238 known caves in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. New Animal Species Found in Calif. Caves - Yahoo! News

more at subterranean environments or biological and biology or caves and Troglophiles or Homopterans or Science and National Parks or animal diversity

Related: Keyword biology, Tuesday, January 04, 2005 The Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn, Sunday, March 20, 2005 Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), Thursday, March 24, 2005 Fish Oil Holds Promise in Alzheimer's Fight, Sunday, April 10, 2005 National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Friday, April 15, 2005 Study uncovers bacteria's worst enemy, Sunday, May 01, 2005 Yes, it is an exoplanet 2M1207 system, Friday, May 20, 2005 a polysaccharide called hyaluronan, Tuesday, May 24, 2005 pseudoneglect phenomenon, Friday, June 03, 2005 DOE JGI sequences DNA from extinct cave bear, Monday, June 06, 2005 From a Few Wild Ancestors, a Citrus Cornucopia, Tuesday, June 07, 2005 NHGRI Selects 13 More Organisms for Genome Sequencing, Sunday, July 24, 2005 Prehistoric Native Americans maize cultivation, Sunday, July 31, 2005 Protein 97 Synapse-associated (SAP97), Sunday, August 07, 2005 universal flu vaccine, Sunday, August 07, 2005 Smoking gun for Alzheimer's disease, Sunday, August 07, 2005 placental tissue, embryonic stem cells, Sunday, August 21, 2005 female senior faculty are still rare, Sunday, September 18, 2005 more rain would benefit New Orleans, Sunday, October 02, 2005 Rapid evolution of the quagga, Sunday, October 30, 2005 , Sunday, November 27, 2005 Give thanks for the cranberry, say dental researchers, Sunday, December 04, 2005 Poison + water = hydrogen, Sunday, December 11, 2005 40,000-year-old human footprints, Sunday, December 18, 2005 warfare in the Mesopotamian world, Sunday, December 18, 2005 Conditions for slavery, Sunday, December 25, 2005 Why Christmas trees are not extinct, Sunday, January 01, 2006 prostaglandins choreograph perturbations, Sunday, January 01, 2006 Cultural differences may explain variations in home remedy use, Sunday, January 08, 2006 Risky Sexual Behaviors in Miami, and Racial Influences on Children’s Care,

Vice President, Neil Cavuto, FOX News (VIDEO)

Interview of the Vice President by Neil Cavuto, FOX News FULL STREAMING VIDEO, FOX Studios, New York, New York, 2:18 P.M. EST

Vice President Dick Cheney looks out the window of Marine Two, the Vice President's helicopter, as he returns to the White House from an undisclosed location. White House Photo by David Bohrer

Q Mr. Vice President, first off, there's a tape -- it seems to be official -- from Osama bin Laden. The CIA is saying as such. What do you make of it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it's -- I'm sure it will be an interesting development, partly because we haven't heard anything from him in over a year. And if this is authentic, it will be the first indication that we've had from him.

The other key question in addition to authenticity is when was it made. And that will be important, too. Is it a recent production in the last few days, a month ago, or something pieced together from the past. All of that will be relevant in terms of the -- of trying to assess what its significance is, and what it means.

Q What do you make of the fact that it's an audiotape?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Probably low production values. They didn't have the ability to do anything on video. They have some difficulty given the extent to which they've had to go underground in terms of producing this kind of message, and then getting it to an outlet. Usually he'd go through al Jazeera. And it's not easy for them given the fact that we're all over that part of the world, obviously, and aggressively going after them wherever we find them.

So if you're living deep in a cave someplace, which may be where he is, it's a little hard to get a message like that out.

Q Do you suspect -- the tape notwithstanding -- there's a wide camp out there that believes he's dead.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, this tape may give us an answer to that. If it's authentic, and if it's recent, that obviously would indicate that the rumors that he was dead were invalid.

Q Or that it's a old tape, that it could be such an old tape that he made a batch of them before he did?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a possibility, too. But at this stage, I'd say we just don't know. We'll find out here in the next few days. I think we'll be able to make that assessment.

Q What do you make, sir, of this talk of a truce?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it's interesting. I'm not sure what he's offering by way of a truce. I don't think anybody would believe him. I don't think they're -- it sounds to me like it's some kind of a ploy. But again, not having seen the entire text or validated the tape and the timing of it, I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions.

Q Would you -- would the administration ever entertain a truce with al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We don't negotiate with terrorists.

Q What about this idea that he promises on the same tape he talks about a truce that there will be follow-up attacks on our soil?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Based on what we've seen him do, based on what we've seen the organization do, I don't think -- I don't think it's possible to negotiate any kind of a settlement with terrorists like this. Not only have they struck here in the United States, but we've had attacks all over the world in places like Madrid, and Casablanca, and Istanbul, and Bali, and Jakarta. This is not an organization that's ever going to sit down and sign a truce. I think you have to destroy them. It's the only way to deal with them.

Q If he were dead, if he were captured, would there be any difference in the ferocity of al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Difficult to say. It's not a strong hierarchical organization. And we have done a lot of damage to their senior leadership. We've captured and killed a good portion of them. But it's also the kind of situation where you'll see a cell off in some other country, maybe with a very tenuous connection to the center, maybe people who've been through the training camps and then returned back to their home country, who then on their own can go off and launch an attack of some kind. So it's a decentralized organization, more like a franchise, if you will, than a hierarchical structure, or a traditional military organization with a commander-in-chief kind of thing.

So I think the threat is still there. We see ample evidence of continued plotting against the United States. We continue to work aggressively against the organization -- I think with considerable success. But I think we have to assume that the threat is going to continue for a considerable period of time. Even if bin Laden were no longer to be a factor, I still think we'd have problems with al Qaeda.

Q Mr. Vice President, what do you think of the timing of the release of this, just after news of maybe three, four, maybe five top al Qaeda bigwigs who were taken out in Pakistan a few days ago?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we don't know whether or not there's any relationship between what happened in Pakistan and what happened here. We may be able to tell more once we can check out how did the tape arrive, how was it delivered, who was it delivered to -- to the extent we can learn more about that, you might be able to make a judgment that this was in response to that.

On the other hand, it may be that it was already in the works and there's just coincidence. We don't know.

Q You're just back from the Middle East. How do they feel about Osama bin Laden out there?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think there's a sense in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia that they have come to recognize the serious nature of the threat, certainly the Saudis have.

I would say three years ago that wasn't necessarily the case. But after the attacks in Riyadh in the spring of '03, and subsequent to that, they clearly have gotten the message that they're a target. They've been very effective and very aggressive at going after al Qaeda remnants inside Saudi Arabia itself, and after those who finance and have supported al Qaeda. So they've become very effective in terms of their counterterrorism operations since then.

But I think they also feel that they've gotten on top of it to some extent, and that may be true. But the threat is still very much there, still very much exists, and this is going to be a long-term struggle. It may wax and wane. There will be peaks and valleys, but I think everybody out there understands that this is a, sort of, a long-term struggle if you will. With the efforts perpetrated by this extremist ideology represented by bin Laden as something that's a threat to those governments, as well as to the United States.

Q I'm sure Iraq came up in your discussions with foreign leaders and the feeling that the United States could be there for many years. Is there a way to quantify how long we'll be there?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: You can talk in terms of conditions. And I think it's better to talk about conditions rather than a timetable. And the conditions that we need to see, obviously, are an effective government in Iraq. And we're making major progress there. We've had significant success in three elections now going back a year.

They're negotiating now to put together a new government based on the December elections, and that's crucial to have an effective government of Iraq stood up that represents all the Iraqi people that's capable of governing a country. The other key piece of it, obviously, is their security capabilities, their capacity to defend themselves, to take care of securing their own territory to defeat the terrorists and the remnants of the old regime.

Q Well, that's where the doubts are, right? There are a lot of folks in this country who don't think they are ready.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: They aren't ready today.

Q Not by a long shot.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: They aren't ready today, but they're much better off today than they were a year ago. And by virtually any measure you want to look at -- I spent time when I was out there just a few weeks ago with Iraqi forces, and with our people who were training Iraqi forces, and the track record is very good. We do have, in fact, a significant expansion in their numbers and capabilities. And I met a lot of Iraqis who are now in the military, who've been recruited back into those forces -- there's no shortage of recruits -- who are committed to defending Iraq, and, in fact, completing the mission.

Q So the size of our force as it is now, sir, will it be roughly that size in 2008?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I doubt it.

Q You doubt it what, that it will be smaller?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I doubt that it will be the same size. I think it probably will be smaller. But again, we've' not put any kind of a timetable on it. The decision is to be made based on the recommendations of our commanders on the scene. And that again will tie into how effective the Iraqis are at dealing with their own problems, fielding their own security forces.

But look at how far we've come, Neil. We've been at it less than three years since we went into Iraq and took Baghdad. It was about a year and seven or eight months ago that we transferred sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We've been told repeatedly, it won't work, it won't work, it won't work, and yet, they've made every single political deadline that's been set. Every single time, the level of violence connected with the election goes down. Every single time the number of the Iraqis who come out and vote goes up. This is, in fact, a nation that I think will increasingly be capable of governing itself, providing for its own security. And those are our major objectives. And it will be an enormous improvement over what was there with Saddam Hussein, and the terrible violence and bloodshed that he imposed not only on his own people, but on his neighbors over the years.

So I think when we look back on this ten years hence, we will have fundamentally changed the course of history in that part of the world, and that will be an enormous advantage for the United States and for all of those nations that live in the region.

Q In the meantime in the region, Iran is sticking to its guns. The nuclear program -- whether for peace or other purposes -- continues. Would the United States ever act unilaterally if the rest of the world doesn't help out on this?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, this is an international problem, and we've emphasized the importance -- that it's not just a U.S. problem. In fact, if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons and especially in light of the new government, Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is the duly elected President, and by all accounts deemed even by his fellows in the region to be a pretty strange duck, has -- that would be of concern for everybody.

And I think the important thing here -- one of the important things is that this has been approached on an international basis. Our friends in Europe, the Brits, the French, and the Germans, the EU, have been very actively involved in attempting to deal with this problem. And we've supported them.

Q But the Chinese and the Russians, as you know, sir, have not -- at least in taking it to the Security Council. They've maybe shown cold feet lately. I guess, what I'm asking is would the United States, if there's division in the ranks of the major powers, or those even members of the Security Council, ever do what it did it in Iraq and act --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think it would be a mistake to go back and predict what might or might not happen based on what happened in some other country in the past. The fact of the matter is it is a problem for the world if the Iranians have nuclear weapons, especially with a government headed up by the kind of individual that's there today.

Q But what if they ignore it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: You can ask lots of what ifs, and I try to avoid answering hypothetical questions. We are working aggressively to avoid that -- having that situation arise. We're doing it in conjunction with friends and allies, with those in the region, as well as our friends in Europe. And there's a procedure to go through here. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been involved, and I think doing a pretty good job. There will be a meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA here in a couple of weeks, and then the likelihood is that eventually it gets referred to the U.N. Security Council.

Q Let me ask you about Al Gore's comments the other day, sir, in which he said, "This administration is breaking the law. These abusive wiretaps are the extreme." And some other pretty strong stuff. Do you think that that issue resonates with people that you are -- this administration is going to extremes?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't -- I don't have a lot of confidence in Al Gore's judgments or commentary about these kinds of issues. I didn't see his particular statement. I've heard about it. Set that aside for a moment.

The President of the United States is charged with the responsibility of defending the nation. The President said in his speech to Congress right after 9/11 that we had to do everything in our power to make certain that we used all of the tools available to us, intelligence, military, law enforcement, in order to protect ourselves against the kind of thing that happened here on 9/11.

The controversy that's arisen with respect to the National Security Agency program is, I think, a reaction to -- well, unfortunately, to leaks that have gotten out about the program. The fact of the matter is we have not been attacked in more than four years. That is not an accident. It's not just dumb luck. You cannot, obviously, make any promises that it won't happen again in the future. I want to put that proviso out there. But the fact of the matter is, we've done some very good work at interrupting activities of the enemy, of disrupting proposed plots, of capturing and killing al Qaeda.

The NSA program that's the subject of some controversy is conducted in a manner that's fully consistent with the Constitution and the President's authorities and responsibilities.

Q But do you think --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Let me -- let me emphasize --

Q -- have some been eavesdropped who shouldn't have been eavesdropped?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Let me emphasize precisely what we're talking about here. There have been a lot of commentaries -- this is often called "domestic surveillance." No, it's not domestic surveillance. The implication of that is somehow we're listening in on Americans talking to Americans and so forth. What this specifically is about, as the President has been very clear, is a situation in which we have communications, but one end of which is in the United States, the other end of which is overseas, and one end of which we have reason to believe is al Qaeda-affiliated. Those are the conditions under which we're talking about this activity. And the President has authorized that. It is fully consistent with the Constitution.

The other thing to keep in mind here is this has been reviewed every 45 days or less within the administration. Completely reviewed -- that includes the Attorney General of the United States, and an assessment made of whether or not it's important to continue it. And the President then personally has to re-authorize its extension every time. And that's happened over 30 times since September 11th.

The other thing that's important to remember here is this has been briefed to the Congress, to the chairmen and ranking member of the intelligence committees and the elected leadership of the House and Senate.

Q What do you think of those who brought it up?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Those briefings have occurred at least a dozen times. I presided over most of them. And of course, the fact of the matter is that this is a good, sound program. Al Gore can say whatever he wants to say about it. The fact is, knowing what I know and having been involved from the very beginning, I would want to be absolutely certain that the man who was making the key decisions to safeguard the nation would do exactly what George Bush did. And frankly, I hear Al Gore make those kinds of comments I'm just reminded of how fortunate we are that he didn't get elected in 2000.

Q You know, Hillary Clinton made some comments, as I'm sure you're aware, too, on Iran, first of all, faulting your administration for downgrading the threat, then a couple of days earlier, saying that the Republican Congress is "run like a plantation." What do you make of her?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know her all that well --met her a few times.

Q What do you think of the comments about the plantation?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I thought they were out of line. I thought Laura Bush captured them rather effectively when she said they were ridiculous.

Q And what do you think of the administration dragging its feet on Iran?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think that's true at all. I think we're there dealing with these issues and have been now for five years. And I just -- obviously, I disagree with Senator Clinton.

Q Let me ask you, wrapping up, sir, we're coming into a month, we're going to get a new Federal Reserve chairman. I know you're very close friends with Alan Greenspan. I guess, he retires to the speaking circuit. But every time we get a new Fed chairman in, at least the last time we did this in '87, there were some problems later in the year. Do you think we have some problems?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, Greenspan -- Alan Greenspan is a great friend of mine, has been for probably 35 years. And I'm sorry to see him go. He's been a fixture in the world economy all that time. Ben Bernanke is a first-rate individual, too. He has been a member of the Fed. He served with Greenspan at the Fed. He's been the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. I was part of the committee the President appointed to do the search to find a Fed chairman, and I've got great confidence in Ben. There are bound to be challenging times ahead. That's why you need a Federal Reserve and why you need a strong Fed chairman. But I think that Chairman Bernanke will be up to the task. I think he obviously has got big shoes to fill, but he knows that. And as I say, just as Alan Greenspan rose to the occasion in 1987 and did what needed to be done to safeguard U.S. currency and protect our financial markets, I think all the tools are there. And I think Chairman Bernanke will have the kind of judgment and wisdom that's needed. Besides, Chairman Greenspan is only a phone call away.

Q Yes, a lot of people say this is the year we're going to get a market crash. Do you buy that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't, but I'm not in the business of predicting markets. I think the thing that I'm struck by, as I look back, for example, at '05 is I think the economy is doing very well. I think we oftentimes end up focused on, what about this problem, what about that problem, and hypothetical scenarios. But the bottom line is our economy is doing extraordinarily well. It's the envy of the world. We got high growth, low inflation, low unemployment, very high productivity.

If you were to lay out a scenario for a good, strong healthy economy, in all the years I've been in government, this is sort of the set of circumstances you'd specify, and we've got it.

Q Any horses in the presidential race look good for you in 2008?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I got enough trouble without getting involved in 2008.

Q Your health, doing all right?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Health is good. I've loved the last five years working for this President. We got three more years to go, and I look to be there with him right up to the end.

Q Would you ever return to corporate life? Or when you leave, you retire, you're done, that's it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, I haven't given -- I don't know that I'd ever completely retire. I'll always want to be doing something, but what it will be when I leave here I don't know. I haven't given it any thought.

Q And finally, on energy prices, sir, we had a huge spike this summer, then things came down. There was a lot of talk that energy companies were gouging us. We have a prominent host on this network who said that. What do you think?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, markets work. And they work in the energy business just as they do in other parts of the economy. And one of our great strengths as a nation is that we do let markets work most to the time. Occasionally we tamper at the edges, but the fact of the matter is, we're twice as efficient today as we were 25 years ago in terms of the use of energy. We use only half as much energy per unit of output as we did in 1980. That's the dynamism and strength of our economy, and we need to recognize that.

And oftentimes there are flaps, or people try to -- especially politicians, try to take advantage of short-term circumstances for their own ends and their own purposes, but --

Q But you don't think oil companies are gouging us, or taking advantage --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Every time oil prices go up, people start yelling gouging. And then there are investigations, and it's very rare that anybody ever finds a major -- have that happening.

What I do wish is right now I wish we had, for example, ANWR in production. That would be another million barrels a day that the United States would have domestically produced. We've tried repeatedly for years now to get that. We have been unsuccessful. It has been blocked primarily by Democrats in the United States Senate. Most recently it has passed the House. We need to continue to work at that.

But people worry, for example, about the Iranian situation and the possibility of oil price spikes if there's a confrontation and sanctions, for example, were to be imposed on Iran. We'd be a lot better off if we had that extra million barrels a day in production now. The country would be safer. Our energy supplies would be more secure, our prices probably more stable. It's important that we do such things as bring that production on line.

Q Mr. Vice President, thank you very much.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Neil. Enjoy the show.

END 2:41 P.M. EST For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Vice President, January 19, 2006

more at Osama bin Laden and Middle East or Vice President and Dick Cheney or Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda and Iraqi or Iran and Al Gore or National Security Agency and Hillary Clinton

Relared: Keywords Vice President Cheney, Friday, January 13, 2006 Vice President to Travel to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Friday, January 06, 2006 Vice President's Remarks on Iraq and the War on Terror (VIDEO), Thursday, November 17, 2005 Vice President's Remarks 11/16/05, Monday, October 31, 2005 Vice President appointed David S. Addington chief of staff, Saturday, October 29, 2005 Vice President's Statement on Libby Resignation, Friday, October 28, 2005 Resignation of Scooter Libby (VIDEO, Tuesday, October 04, 2005 Remarks by the Vice President to Second Marine Expeditionary Force, Monday, September 26, 2005 Statement on Vice President Cheney's Medical Procedure, Tuesday, September 06, 2005 President Meets with Cabinet (VIDEO), Thursday, August 11, 2005 President Meets with Defense and Foreign Policy Teams (VIDEO), Tuesday, July 26, 2005 Vice President at Dinner for Vito Fossella, Saturday, July 09, 2005 President, VP Signs Book of Condolence at British Embassy, Thursday, May 12, 2005 Vice President, A Nation Honors Nancy Reagan, Saturday, April 16, 2005 Vice President Dick Cheney and Mrs. Cheney Release 2004 Income Tax Return

Presidential Podcast 01/21/06

Presidential Podcast 01/21/06

Subscribe to Our Odeo Podcast Channel and receive the Presidential Radio Address each week. Featuring real audio and full text transcript

more at President Bush and White House or economy and tax policy, or Small businesses and unemployment rate, or Health Savings Accounts, and junk lawsuits,

Related: Keywords radio address, podcast, Saturday, January 14, 2006 Presidential Podcast 01/14/06, Saturday, January 07, 2006 Presidential Podcast 01/07/06, Saturday, December 31, 2005 Presidential Podcast 12/31/05, Saturday, December 17, 2005 bush radio address 12/17/05 full VIDEO, text transcript, Sunday, December 04, 2005 Presidential Podcast 12/03/05, Saturday, December 03, 2005 bush radio address 12/03/05 full audio, text transcript, November 26, 2005 Presidential Podcast 11/26/05, Saturday, November 26, 2005 bush radio address 11/26/05 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, November 19, 2005 Presidential Podcast 11/19/05, Saturday, November 19, 2005 Freedom Calendar 11/19/05 - 11/26/05, Saturday, November 12, 2005 Presidential Podcast 11/12/05, Saturday, November 12, 2005 bush radio address 11/12/05 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, November 05, 2005 Presidential Podcast 11/05/05, Saturday, November 05, 2005 bush radio address 11/05/05 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, October 29, 2005 bush radio address 10/29/05 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, October 22, 2005 Presidential Podcast 10/22/05, Saturday, October 15, 2005 Presidential Podcast 10/15/05, Saturday, October 08, 2005 bush radio address 10/08/05 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, October 01, 2005 bush radio address 10/01/05 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, September 24, 2005 bush radio address 09/24/05 full audio, text transcript, Saturday, September 17, 2005 bush radio address 09/17/05 full audio, text transcript

Freedom Calendar 01/21/06 - 01/28/06

January 21, 1813, Birth in Georgia of John C. Fremont – abolitionist, western explorer, U.S. Senator from California, U.S. Army general, Arizona Governor, and first Republican presidential candidate.

January 22, 2001, Republican Condoleezza Rice becomes first woman and second African-American to serve as U.S. National Security Advisor.

January 23. 1993, Death of Judge John Robert Brown, leader in fight for Southern desegregation; appointed by President Eisenhower to U.S. Court of Appeals.

January 24, 2001, Republican Mel Martínez, appointed by President George W. Bush as U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, becomes first Cuban-American in Cabinet.

January 25, 2001, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”.

January 26, 1922, House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster.

January 27, 1964, U.S. Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), first woman to be considered for nomination by a major party, announces candidacy for President; she finishes 2nd at Republican National Convention.

January 28, 1818, Birth of anti-slavery activist George Boutwell, a founder of Massachusetts Republican Party; later served in Congress and as U.S. Treasury Secretary.

“The first Republican I knew was my father and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats inJim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State

SOURCE: Republican Freedom Calendar more at President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Republican and Republicans or African-Americans and Hispanic or right to vote and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and John C. Fremont or Margaret Chase Smith

Related: Keywords Freedom Calendar, Saturday, January 14, 2006 Freedom Calendar 01/14/06 - 01/21/06, Saturday, January 07, 2006 Freedom Calendar 01/07/06 - 01/14/06, Saturday, December 31, 2005 Freedom Calendar 12/31/05 - 01/07/06, Saturday, December 24, 2005 Freedom Calendar 12/24/05 - 12/31/05, Saturday, December 17, 2005 Freedom Calendar 12/17/05 - 12/24/05, Saturday, December 10, 2005 Freedom Calendar 12/10/05 - 12/17/05, December 03, 2005 Freedom Calendar 12/03/05 - 12/10/05, Saturday, November 26, 2005 Freedom Calendar 11/26/05 - 12/03/05, Saturday, November 19, 2005 Freedom Calendar 11/19/05 - 11/26/05, Saturday, November 12, 2005 Freedom Calendar 11/12/05 - 11/19/05, Saturday, November 05, 2005 Freedom Calendar 11/05/05 - 11/12/05, Saturday, October 29, 2005 Freedom Calendar 10/29/05 - 11/05/05, Saturday, October 22, 2005 Freedom Calendar 10/22/05 - 10/028/05, Saturday, October 15, 2005 Freedom Calendar 10/15/05 - 10/022/05, Thursday, September 29, 2005 The Opelousas Massacre, Saturday, October 08, 2005 Freedom Calendar 10/08/05 - 10/015/05 , Saturday, October 01, 2005 Freedom Calendar 10/01/05 - 10/08/05, Saturday, September 24, 2005 Freedom Calendar 09/24/05 - 10/01/05, Saturday, September 17, 2005 Freedom Calendar 09/17/05 - 09/24/05, Saturday, September 10, 2005 Freedom Calendar 09/10/05 - 09/17/05