White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 03/06/07 VIDEO

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, White House Conference Center Briefing Room, FULL STREAMONG VIDEO, 12:37 P.M. EDT. Dana M. Perino Biography

MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. Obviously, we have a verdict from the jury in the Scooter Libby trial. Let me start off by saying that the President was informed by -- he was in the Oval Office.

He saw the verdict read on television. Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Counselor Dan Bartlett were with him.

He said that he respected the jury's verdict, that he was saddened for Scooter Libby and his family, and that the White House direction from here on out -- and I know that there's going to be a lot of disappointment with this, but there is an ongoing criminal proceeding.

Scooter Libby's attorneys just announced that they are going to ask for a new trial and that they are going to -- failing that, they will appeal the verdict. And so our principled stand of not commenting on an ongoing legal investigation is going to continue. I know that's going to be very disappointing for many, but that is the decision that we're going to -- that we've made, and the decision -- and the practice that we're going to continue on the way forward.

Q Let me ask you about some of the congressional reaction. You have Senator Reid saying that President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct. What's the reaction to that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm aware of no such request for a pardon. And as is afforded to all Americans, there is a process that is followed in which to apply for a pardon. And I don't think that speculating on a wildly hypothetical situation at this time is appropriate.

Q You're not closing the door to it, you're leaving the door open to a pardon?

MS. PERINO: I'm not commenting on a hypothetical situation. I think that that is the best way to respond to that.

I think that there is a process in place for all Americans, if they want to receive a pardon from a President, be that any President that is in office, and I'm aware of no such request.

Q Would the President be receptive to that?

MS. PERINO: It is a hypothetical situation. I'm never even brought it up with him.

Q Has the President talked to the Vice President yet?

MS. PERINO: No. The Vice President was on his way to the Senate policy lunch. I believe that's what -- no, it was this afternoon. And so the President was in the Oval Office, ready for his lunch. The Vice President was on his way to the Hill, so he didn't get a chance to see him.

Q Does the President feel like there's any responsibility to figure out a way to talk about this in a way that doesn't prejudice or jeopardize any ensuing legal process, and still say something to the American people about this case?

MS. PERINO: We've given it a lot of thought, to try to find out a way to sort of answer the mail on the requests that are coming in from not just the media, but also from the American people. However, the legal advice that we get from our Counsel's Office, and the request that we had from the parties in the case was that we not comment on it while there was an ongoing criminal matter. And since that is still the case, I think that what the President -- the best thing I can offer you right now is what the President's reaction is, that he respected the verdict, he respects the jury, and we're just not going to be able to comment on it beyond it.

Q One more follow on this. And again, what I'm asking you in no way deals with any ongoing legal proceedings. I'm asking you now that the administration has, on one hand, with the Libby trial, questions raised about how the administration decided to go to war, and on the other side right now, with the Walter Reed situation, there's questions about what happened once the administration did go to war. Are you feeling political pressure building in sort of a new and intensified way?

MS. PERINO: I'm not sure how you're putting those two things together. In regards to intelligence and prewar intelligence, we have answered those questions repeatedly, and we have taken action to fix what was wrong in the intelligence community in order to make sure that that never happens again. When you're talking about the Walter Reed and the effects from that, I'm not exactly sure how you bring those two together.

Q I'm saying there are two news stories right now that are making -- putting the war, not only how we got there, but what happened once we did get there, in terms of various ways the policy that the White House pursued -- the consequences. And I'm wondering if you feel now a new pressure to sort of -- or the President feels a new pressure to look the American people in the eye and explain the fallout, the consequences of what's obviously and naturally going to be raised by these two stories?

MS. PERINO: I don't see where -- I understand where you're coming from. I don't see it that way. I think that the President answers to the American people quite regularly, all the time. We're here every day on his behalf, and then you get to ask him questions quite regularly, as well. So the President talks about how we are going to make sure that this never happens again in the intelligence community, as well as taking immediate action to make sure that the problems that were uncovered at Walter Reed are fixed, and not only at Walter Reed, with the DoD commission, but just today he announced a bipartisan non-governmental commission to take a longer view, to make sure that our global war on terror servicemen and women get the care that they need. We can talk about both stories, I just don't know if they fit into the same paragraph.

Q They fit into the fallout of the decision to go to war.

MS. PERINO: The President has said that the hardest decision that any President ever makes is a decision to send young men and women into war. And again, he's taking action to make sure that the servicemen and women get what they need upon return, if they are wounded, or -- beyond being wounded, but also if they need additional education, if they want to start a business, to make sure that they get back on their feet when they come back to the States.

Bret.

Q Dana, I'll try it another way. Dissecting Senator Reid's statement that was put out just a minute after the verdict was read. He says, "It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."

MS. PERINO: I just totally reject his characterization. I just went through all the things that we said about prewar intelligence, how the President took responsibility for the gaps that we had, and then immediately worked -- and now over the years has built a very different intelligence community that is working much better, headed by the DNI. And we have a new CIA Director, we have a national counterterrorism center, we have the Homeland Security Council. And by all accounts, they are all coordinating much better. And so in regards to improving intelligence and making sure that we all have the best information possible, we've taken action on that. So I just disagree with the characterization of his comment.

Q Is this damaging to this White House, embarrassing for this White House?

MS. PERINO: You know, I think that any administration that has to go through a prolonged news story that is unpleasant and one that is difficult for -- when you're under the constraints and the policy of not commenting on an ongoing criminal matter, that can be very frustrating. But I think that we have been able to continue on, moving forward on all sorts of different fronts while also being aware that this situation is out there. But, no, I wouldn't characterize it the way you did.

Q Dana, in the closing argument, the special prosecutor said that there was a cloud over the vice presidency. Now that all is said and done, do you share that concern?

MS. PERINO: Certainly not. And I don't know how the Vice President is going to respond today. I don't know if they'll be issuing a statement, or not, but we'll try to connect with Lea Anne McBride -- but as I said, the Vice President was at this lunch when the verdict was read. And so I don't have more from his office at this time.

Q So there are no concerns about his credibility, his role in this?

MS. PERINO: No.

David.

Q What about the overall White House credibility? Has it been damaged now that a senior administration official has been convicted of perjury?

MS. PERINO: You know, I think that when Scooter Libby was first indicted, one of the things that the President said was that we were saddened by the situation. But, no, I would disagree with -- I would not agree with the characterization of the question.

Q As you know, people are trying to tie this to Iraq. Does that affect the way you all proceed on other issues, such as Iran and North Korea -- do you feel like there is credibility on those situations that have been undercut --

MS. PERINO: Let me just remind everybody of how the President took responsibility and has completely revamped the intelligence community, and by all accounts, everyone is much better coordinated not only amongst ourselves, with the 16 or 17 intelligence agencies that we have here, but with our allies overseas. And so when we're working on matters of sensitive intelligence, which is a difficult -- difficult to unearth it, to try to gather all of this information, all of the sources that we need in order to gain the information that we have -- the DNI's office is pulling all that together and making sure that gaps don't exist.

Q I keep reading and hearing the phrase, the curtain has been pulled back on the way the Bush administration does business, through this trial. Do you agree with that, in some way that people have a little better understanding of how business is done?

MS. PERINO: I'm not exactly sure that this trial has showed anything regarding that. What I will say is that throughout any administration or any -- if you're on the Hill, anywhere, that attacks and defenses are mounted every day in this city, and we have an obligation to make sure that our points are getting across. But I don't think that the trial did what you said it did.

Q You said the President is saddened by this. Was there anyone in the White House, or him, personally, reaching out to Scooter Libby, expressing --

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of. Again, it just happened 30 minutes ago, so I don't know.

Q Obviously, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid puts out this statement within a minute of the verdict being released. It's clear, apparently, Democrats are going to try to derive some political benefit from that. Is the White House concerned about this, that they'll --

MS. PERINO: I'm shocked, shocked --

Q -- that they will paint this as another ethics problem, one among many that Republicans have had in recent years?

MS. PERINO: If the Democrats choose to use anything for personal or political gain, I wouldn't be surprised. But I'm not going to -- again, I reject the characterization of his comments, and I'm not able to comment further about the merits of the trial.

Q Can I just follow up on something you just said about attacks and defenses being mounted every day in this city? I'm not asking you to comment on the perjury and obstruction charges, but is this an example of kind of everyday attacks and defenses that are mounted -- that are focused on this trial? Is there nothing unusual about what happened here?

MS. PERINO: Well, I know that there's going to be many different ways to try to get me to comment on the trial. The point that I was making, Mark, is that if this wouldn't -- if we wouldn't have come in here today and had Harry Reid give a statement about this, that there probably would have been a statement about something else, about maybe the President's budget on Veterans Affairs, and then I would have worked to make sure that you understood and had the facts as we saw them and had all the information. That's the point that I was getting at.

Q Just the way you said it made it sound like, well, this is just completely --

MS. PERINO: That's not how I meant it.

April.

Q Dana, somewhat on the line of lessons learned, how has this administration, with all of this going on, learned to police itself, or is it policing itself, from retaliation in an era of trying to defend itself in Washington? How do you --

MS. PERINO: I really do appreciate how people are seeking comment about the trial, in one shape, form or another. And I am just not in a position to be able to do that.

Q It's not about the trial. It's about how the White House itself deals with the attacks now. Instead of retaliation, are you finding ways --

MS. PERINO: I think that we deal -- we deal with attacks day in and day out all of the time, and --

Q Are there safeguards, policing measures now that you have within the White House, that you have to scrutinize before you go out and make statements about --

MS. PERINO: The President has said that he expects everyone to act in the most ethical manner, which is how we conduct ourselves.

Q Dana, you said the President is saddened by this. Is he saddened by the fact that a former top advisor in this building is facing this personal problem? Or is he saddened by the fact that a former advisor is convicted of lying in a federal investigation?

MS. PERINO: He was saddened for Scooter himself, personally, and for Scooter's family.

Q He's not saddened that his top advisor lied to -- was found guilty of lying to investigators?

MS. PERINO: He's saddened for Scooter. We're not going to comment on the trial.

Q I have one on this, I have one on another issue.

MS. PERINO: Maybe we can do this, and then I can finish up and come back.

Q You said that nobody has reached out to Scooter from the White House?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of, no.

Q Is he being cut loose after being a loyal soldier?

MS. PERINO: I don't know -- Victoria, I'm not -- I don't know anybody who has been contact with him. It's possible that people have. I have not.

Q Does the White House believe that this will make it harder politically to prosecute the war in Iraq? And I ask that because the debate recently has shifted from the President and the White House to Capitol Hill, now with the spotlight back on the President. Is he concerned about public support further eroding?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't -- I don't believe so. I think that what we have there is General Petraeus on the ground for just about three weeks now, implementing the new strategy. Very tough days. We had -- you see some signs of success, but you also see horrible suicide bombings and you also see our soldiers dying. And so we have got a long way to go. And as I think I've talked to you about, we're in a marathon, not a sprint, when it comes to communicating for the importance of winning in the war in Iraq and the global war on terror, and in explaining to Capitol Hill the President's decisions, and also his decision-making, what went into them.

MS. PERINO: Greg, go ahead.

Q Are there any administration policies or rules in effect that would prevent any White House employees from making contributions to Scooter Libby's legal defense fund if they so chose to on a personal basis?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of, but we can check with the Counsel's Office and let you know.

Q Dana, is this --

MS. PERINO: Go ahead. Let me just finish back here. Go ahead, Paula.

Q You mentioned a moment ago how the President expects everyone to uphold the highest ethical standards. Have the White House or the President in any way commented on the ethics involved in this? I think in the beginning, he said he takes this seriously, and he changed the ground rules for dismissal. Why hasn't he ever commented on --

MS. PERINO: I think the President has had a very principled and responsible stand to not comment on the ongoing criminal matter in any way, shape, or form, and that has been his position. It's been the -- it's a responsible one, it's a principled one, and that's what he's done.

Q He hasn't commented on the ethical conduct --

MS. PERINO: Well, again, I appreciate how people want to try to get us to comment on the trial in any way, shape, or form, and we're just -- we're not going to do it.

John.

Q Can you say when you are going to be able to comment on the verdict? (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Hypothetically, had there been an acquittal today, then our conversation might have been very different.

Q Given that there was a conviction, though, when do you think the process would --

MS. PERINO: I think you have to let the appeals process play itself out.

Q So after the appeals process is over?

MS. PERINO: I think when it is no longer an ongoing criminal matter, that's when I would say that that would be -- the time when the trial was over.

Q One more thing. Do you think that Senator Reid was acting inappropriately by issuing the statement that he issued today?

MS. PERINO: No. If that were the case, then that would be a pretty interesting standard.

Q Dana, back on the fighting the war thing, and it's kind of a tough connection, but Democrats appear to be failing to get their effort to stop the surge to move forward on Capitol Hill. Do you think somehow that this verdict is empowering war critics and somehow rallying the troops on the other side?

MS. PERINO: I don't know.

Q But is there a fear that that is what the verdict is?

MS. PERINO: Not that I've heard expressed, no. I think that one of the things that we -- and the other day, I said that we can all -- we all know that what the Democrats are for, we just don't know what they are -- I'm sorry, what they are against, but we don't know what they're for. But I think anymore, we're not even sure what they're against, nor what they are for when it comes to opposing a surge and the way -- the tools that they're going to use in order to manifest that position.

And so we continue to wait to see what sort of legislation is going to be proposed. And there's been no -- nothing put to paper yet as far as I've seen. And so they continue to have discussions up there amongst the Democrats. The way you describe it, no, I haven't heard anybody express that concern.

Q Two questions. One, is it unfair for the American people to sort of lump this all in with the administration and say, well, the verdict today, it's a culture of corruption -- is that unfair, do you think, in some sense?

MS. PERINO: I do, yes. Believe us, we understand that the American people have a somewhat negative view of Washington, whether it come from the partisan, or charges of corruption, or convictions of corruption. And so our duty is to make sure that we uphold the most ethical standards that we can.

John, go ahead. Sorry, Kevin. Did you have a second?

Q Yes, I did have a follow on the surge. Have you gotten any reports from generals on the ground, commanders in the field, how it's going? Are we seeing progress, are they encouraged by what they've seen so far?

MS. PERINO: I think we have to remember that General Petraeus has only been on the ground for three weeks. And so I think it's too early to tell. The President does get regular updates, but no one has come back with a pass/fail grade yet.

Q Going back to your earlier answer, why is it appropriate for Senator Reid to make these comments, but it would be inappropriate for you to make comments about this?

MS. PERINO: I'm just not going to make a judgment about Senator Reid and his decision to issue statements from his office about any topic.

Is this still on this topic? Anybody else?

Q -- it's terrorism.

MS. PERINO: Okay, quickly.

Q -- who is a close ally of Osama bin Laden, he told the British press in London that Osama bin Laden is alive and he has been talking to him and he's planning attacks along the Pakistani border.

MS. PERINO: And your question?

Q Yes, he's planning some attacks in Afghanistan because what you see today in Afghanistan, all these -- that's because

-- Osama bin Laden. And also --

MS. PERINO: What is your question, Goyal?

Q The question is that, British intelligence are informing yesterday that be aware of attacks from Osama bin Laden. What are we doing here in the U.S.? Are we warning same thing, telling --

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on the intelligence matters, but of course, you can -- rest assured, we are continuing to hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Victoria.

Q One more quick question.

MS. PERINO: No, Goyal, let me keep going, since we are running a little late here.

Go ahead, Victoria.

Q During the week of May the 4th, 2003 --

MS. PERINO: Okay. (Laughter.)

Q Did Karl Rove speak to anybody in the executive or the legislative branch about the Iranian proposal for negotiations with the United States?

MS. PERINO: No, not that I'm aware of. I have looked into this preliminarily, and he has no recollection of that.

Q No recollection from anybody at all?

MS. PERINO: No.

Q Okay.

MS. PERINO: Mark.

Q Can we go back to the President's speech to the American Legion?

MS. PERINO: Sure.

Q A line at the end that struck me --

MS. PERINO: Okay.

Q In closing, he talked about the letters he's gotten from soldiers. He then turns and says, "The struggle in Iraq may be hard, but this should not be a time for despair." Does the President sense despair out there now?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that he senses people's patience running out, and people's frustration with seeing the innocent people of Iraq being killed and our soldiers being killed. And I think what he was trying to do was deliver a message of we can win this war. We've got a strategy in place, we have a general that is backed unanimously by the United States Senate. Hopefully, they will give him the tools he needs in order to prosecute -- I'm sorry, to implement that plan. But I think that the President is trying to remind people that we have -- we have a way to win here, and we just need to stand fast and do it.

Lester.

Q Yes, thank you, Dana. Two questions.

MS. PERINO: Quick.

Q The AP reports that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is suing the Army Corps of Engineers for $77 billion for damages because of levee breaches during Hurricane Katrina. And my question: Without reference to any trial that may ensue, does the Bush administration believe the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana had no responsibility for that levee breaking?

MS. PERINO: Surely you wouldn't want me to comment on any possible litigation.

Q It's not -- it hasn't started --

MS. PERINO: No, I'm not going to comment on that, on a lawsuit.

Q Okay. An HBO TV personality named Bill Maher said on the air, the Vice President, "I'm just saying, if he did die, other people, more people would live. That is a fact." End of quote. Question: Since this is the same person whom ABC fired five years ago for commending the terrorists responsible for 9/11, surely the White House has some concern about Maher's reference to the desirability of the Vice President's death, don't you?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to dignify his comments with a response.

Q Do you think that it's outrageous -- you think it's outrageous, don't you?

MS. PERINO: I'm not commenting, Lester.

Q The former U.S. attorney from Maryland by the name of Tom DiBiagio is quoted in The New York Times this morning as saying that he believes he was forced to resign because of pressure surrounding the political investigations that he was undertaking. What is the White House response to that?

MS. PERINO: The Justice Department has said that Mr. DiBiagio, the decision to ask him to resign was made by a 42-year career employee of DOJ who oversees ethics issues for the department, and was unaware of any investigation into former Maryland Governor Ehrlich's administration, and the White House was not advised of the decision.

Terry.

Q Follow-up, please. Is the White House regularly advised of corruption investigations going on by various U.S. attorneys?

MS. PERINO: No, not that I'm aware of. I don't believe so.

Terry.

Q Did the Justice Department try to hush up the fired prosecutors from talking about their cases?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware. I saw that testimony today, but it was the first I'd heard of it.

Q And six of the eight people who were fired said today that their thoughts would be welcomed by the Justice Department and they could be freely and openly debated, but that that's not the case. Is the administration trying to stifle dissent from these people?

MS. PERINO: I would refer you to Justice Department for the merits of their decision. But what I can tell you is that the Justice Department did, as with any agency that wants to make a change in a political appointee status, let the White House know that they were thinking of making a change of these political appointees and asking them to resign. The White House -- it would have been unusual if they hadn't told the White House about it. We did not disagree with their recommendations, and the Justice Department moved forward to implement their plan.

Q When you say you didn't disagree, who was that? Was that --

MS. PERINO: The Counsel's Office.

Q -- at the President's level or --

MS. PERINO: For sure, Counsel's Office. I did check with Chief of Staff Josh Bolten; he does not recall if he was briefed on it or not.

Q How about Karl Rove's office? Do you know if he was involved?

MS. PERINO: I don't believe so.

END 1:03 P.M. EST

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and VIDEO, or Scooter Libby and General Petraeus, or Osama bin Laden, and Karl Rove, or Vice President Cheney and Bill Maher or Chief of Staff Josh Bolten

Tom Tancredo Speaks at CPAC VIDEO

Congressman for Colorado's 6th Congressional district Tom Tancredo Speaks at CPAC FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Congressman for Colorado's 6th Congressional district Tom Tancredo addresses an audience at the Annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

3/2/2007: WASHINGTON, DC. File is real media format, running time is 23:13.

Tom Tancredo, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Gerard ("Tom") Tancredo (born December 20, 1945) is an American politician from the Republican Party. He has been a member of the United States House of Representatives since 1999, representing the 6th Congressional District of Colorado, which includes most of Denver's southern suburbs. He has gained national attention for his strong stance against illegal immigration, and he has expressed interest in seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for president. Tancredo won re-election in 2006 against Democratic challenger Bill Winter with a 59%-40% margin.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article, Tom Tancredo

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Tom Tancredo and Colorado's 6th Congressional district or republican and 2008 presidential election or Conservative Political Action Conference and VIDEO and CPAC

Ann Coulter Speaks at CPAC VIDEO

Ann Coulter at the Annual Conservative Political Action Conference. FULL STREAMING VIDEO, 3/2/2007: WASHINGTON, DC. File is real media format, running time is 38:56.

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Ann Coulter and John Edwards or republican and 2008+presidential+election or Conservative Political Action Conference and VIDEO and CPAC or faggot

Rudy Giuliani Speaks at CPAC VIDEO

Fmr. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani Speaks at CPAC FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Fmr. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani addresses an audience at the Annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

3/5/2007: WASHINGTON, DC. File is real media format, running time is 38:56.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Rudy Giuliani and New York City Mayor or republican and 2008+presidential+election or Conservative Political Action Conference and VIDEO and CPAC

Computer-designed molecule to clean up fluorocarbons?

Computer-designed molecule to clean up fluorocarbons?

The chemical bond between carbon and fluorine is one of the strongest in nature, and has been both a blessing and a curse in the complex history of fluorocarbons.

Now, in a powerful demonstration of the relatively new field of "computational chemistry," researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Interdisciplinary Network of Emerging Science and Technology group (INEST, sponsored by Philip Morris USA) have designed—in a computer—a wholly theoretical molecule to pull the fluorine out of fluorocarbons.*

At sea level, the strong C-F bond makes fluorocarbons thermally and chemically stable. As a result, fluorocarbons have been used in many commercial applications including refrigerants, pesticides and non-stick coatings. In the upper atmosphere, however, high-energy photons and highly reactive ozone molecules can break apart fluorocarbons, with the well-known consequence of a depleted ozone layer and increased ultraviolet radiation at ground level. A determined chemist can break down fluorocarbons at ground level with certain organometallic compounds, but the reactions take a long time at very high temperatures. Other known reagents are both highly toxic and inefficient, so chemists have been searching for an economical and environmentally friendly method to dispose of fluorocarbons.

Reasoning that the problem already may have been solved by nature, the NIST/Philip Morris team looked to an enzyme called fluoroacetate dehalogenase used by a South African bacterium, Burkholderia sp. The enzyme enables the bacterium to pull the fluoride ion out of sodium fluoroacetate (disrupting a poisonous compound) at room temperature and without problematic metal ions. Enzymes are giant molecules, evolved to survive and work in the complex environment of a living organism; they can be difficult and expensive to adapt to an industrial process. Instead, the research team applied basic quantum mechanical theory of electron structures in molecules, together with the example of a known molecule that binds to and extracts chlorine ions, to calculate the make-up and geometry of the critical "active site" in the enzyme that does the work. They then designed in software a large ring-shaped molecule to hold those components in just the right orientation to break the C-F bond in methyl fluoride, a simple fluorocarbon.

Researchers at the University of Texas now are synthesizing the new molecule to test its effectiveness. If it matches theoretical predictions, it will be the first example of a simple organic molecular system able to break C-F bonds without extreme temperature and pressure conditions, and a demonstration of a novel technique for designing man-made molecules that can mimic the extraordinary selectivity and chemical activity of natural enzymes. Notes lead researcher Carlos Gonzalez, "All of these useful things are in nature, you just have to find them and make them more efficient." ###

* F. Hæffner, M. Marquez and C. Gonzalez. Theoretical evidence for C-F bond activation by a fluoro-calix[4]pyrrole-tert-amine macrocycle. J. Phys. Chem. A 2007, 111, 268-272.

Contact: Michael Baum michael.baum@nist.gov 301-975-2763 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Technorati Tags: Fluorocarbons and carbon-fluorine or methyl fluoride and macrocycle, or National Institute of Standards and Technology and natural enzymes or quantum mechanical theory and organic molecular system

Freedom Calendar 03/03/07 - 03/10/07

March 3, 1865, Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves.

March 4, 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower appoints J. Ernest Wilkins to serve as first African-American U.S. Asst. Secretary of Labor.

March 5, 1875, Blanche Bruce (R-MS) becomes first African-American to serve full term in U.S. Senate; in 1879 he was first African-American to preside over Senate.

March 6, 1857, Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”.

March 7, 1965, Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL.

March 8, 1990, Republican Evan J. Kemp appointed by President George H. W. Bush as Chairman of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; first person with a disability to serve on the Commission.

March 9, 1926, Republican Bertha K. Landes elected Mayor of Seattle; first woman to be mayor of a U.S. city.

March 10, 1975, President Gerald Ford appoints Republican Carla Hills as first woman to be U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; later first woman to be U.S. Trade Representative, appointed by President George H. W. Bush.

“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”

Frederick Douglass, Republican Civil Rights Activist

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Booker T. Washington and Republicans or African-Americans and Brown v. Board of Education or Ronald Reagan and Condoleezza Rice or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Voting Rights Act of 1965 or Dred Scott

Presidential Podcast 03/03/07

Presidential Podcast 03/03/07 . In Focus: Veterans and In Focus: Defense, Subscribe to Our Odeo or podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Walter Reed Army Medical Center and health care coverage or Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and bipartisan Presidential Commission or Affordable Choices grants and VA health care system or Army Specialist Eduardo Leal-Cardenas and PODCAST

Bush radio address 03/03/07 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 03/03/07 full audio, text transcript. PODCAST and, President's Radio Address . In Focus: Veterans and In Focus: Defense

Subscribe to Our Odeo or podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. One of my most solemn experiences as President is visiting men and women recovering from wounds they suffered in defense of our country. Spending time with these wounded warriors is also inspiring, because so many of them bring the same courage they showed on the battlefield to their battle for recovery.

These servicemen and women deserve the thanks of our country, and they deserve the best care our Nation can provide. That is why I was deeply troubled by recent reports of substandard conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Most of the people working at Walter Reed are dedicated professionals. These fine doctors, nurses, and therapists care deeply about our wounded troops, and they work day and night to help them. Yet some of our troops at Walter Reed have experienced bureaucratic delays and living conditions that are less than they deserve. This is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to our country, and it's not going to continue.

On hearing the reports about Walter Reed, I asked Secretary of Defense Bob Gates to assess the situation firsthand and report back to me. He confirmed that there are real problems at Walter Reed, and he's taken action to hold people accountable, including relieving the general in charge of the facility. Secretary Gates has also formed an independent review group that will investigate how this situation was allowed to happen, how it can be fixed, and how we can prevent it from happening again. Walter Reed has a long tradition of outstanding medical service, and my Administration will ensure that the soldiers recovering there are treated with the dignity and respect they have earned.

As we work to improve conditions at Walter Reed, we're also taking steps to find out whether similar problems have occurred at other military and veterans hospitals. So I'm announcing that my Administration is creating a bipartisan Presidential Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the care America is providing our wounded servicemen and women. This review will examine their treatment from the time they leave the battlefield through their return to civilian life as veterans, so we can ensure that we are meeting their physical and mental health needs. In the coming days, I will announce the members of this commission, and set a firm deadline for them to report back to me with their recommendations.

We will use the commission's recommendations as part of our ongoing effort to improve our service to our Nation's veterans. Since 2001, we've helped over one million more veterans take advantage of the VA health care system, and with my 2008 budget proposal, we will have increased the VA's health care budget by 83 percent over the past six years, from about $20 billion to more than $36 billion. Overall, I'm asking Congress for more than $86 billion for veterans' services this year. If Congress approves my request, this would amount to a 77 percent increase since I took office, and the highest level of support for veterans in American history.

The men and women recovering at Walter Reed and our other military hospitals are remarkable individuals. Many have suffered wounds that even time will never fully heal. Yet they're facing the future with optimism, and a determination to move forward with their lives.

One of these brave warriors is Army Specialist Eduardo Leal-Cardenas. He was injured when an improvised explosive device blew up his vehicle in Iraq. The blast shattered bones in both legs, broke his ribs, and broke his back and neck. Some questioned whether he would ever regain the ability to walk. There was no doubt in Eduardo's mind, and he began his rehab while still bedridden. Today, he's left Walter Reed, he's walking again, and he has something else he is proud of -- during his recovery, Eduardo became a U.S. citizen. I was proud to be with him at Walter Reed when he took his citizenship oath. If you ask Eduardo what American citizenship means to him, he answers with just one word: "Freedom."

Our Nation is blessed to have so many fine Americans who are willing to serve. We're blessed to have so many compassionate volunteers who give their time to care for our injured soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We're blessed to have so many fine medical professionals who dedicate their lives to healing our troops. This country has a moral obligation to provide our servicemen and women with the best possible care and treatment. They deserve it, and they will get it.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, March 2, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Walter Reed Army Medical Center and health care coverage or Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and bipartisan Presidential Commission or Affordable Choices grants and VA health care system or Army Specialist Eduardo Leal-Cardenas and PODCAST

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 03/03/07

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 03/03/07 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST Discurso Radial del Presidente.

Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.

Buenos Días. Una de mis experiencias más solemnes como Presidente es la de visitar a hombres y mujeres que se recuperan de heridas que han sufrido en defensa de nuestro país. Pasar tiempo con estos guerreros heridos también inspira – ya que tantos de ellos traen la misma valentía que mostraron en el campo de batalla a su lucha por la recuperación.

Estos hombres y mujeres militares merecen las gracias de nuestro país – y merecen el mejor cuidado que nuestra Nación pueda ofrecer. Es por eso que me sentí profundamente preocupado por recientes informes de condiciones sub-estándar en el Centro Médico Walter Reed del Ejército. La mayoría de las personas que trabajan en Walter Reed son profesionales dedicados. Estos excelentes médicos, enfermeros, y terapéuticos se preocupan profundamente por nuestras tropas heridas y trabajan día y noche para ayudarlas. Sin embargo, algunas de nuestras tropas en Walter Reed han sufrido demoras burócratas y condiciones de vida que son menos de lo que merecen. Esto es inaceptable para mí, es inaceptable para nuestro país – y no continuará.

Al enterarme de los informes sobre Walter Reed, le pregunté al Secretario de Defensa Bob Gates que evaluara la situación de primera mano y me informara. Él confirmó que hay verdaderos problemas en Walter Reed – y ha tomado acción para hacer responsable a las personas involucradas, incluyendo relevar al general encargado de la instalación. El Secretario Gates también ha formado un grupo independiente de estudio que investigará cómo se permitió que esta situación ocurriera, cómo se puede corregir y cómo podemos evitar que vuelva a suceder. Walter Reed tiene una larga tradición de servicio médico sobresaliente – y mi Administración asegurará que los soldados que se recuperan allí sean tratados con la dignidad y el respeto que se han acreditado.

A medida que trabajamos para mejorar las condiciones en Walter Reed, también estamos tomando pasos para averiguar si problemas similares han ocurrido en otros hospitales militares y de veteranos. Por lo tanto estoy anunciando que mi Administración está creando una Comisión Presidencial bipartita para llevar a cabo un estudio integral del cuidado que Estados Unidos está ofreciendo a nuestros hombres y mujeres militares heridos. Este estudio examinará su trato desde el momento que dejen el campo de batalla hasta su regreso a la vida civil como veteranos – a fin de asegurarnos que estemos cumpliendo con sus necesidades físicas y mentales. En los próximos días anunciaré los miembros de esta Comisión – y fijaré un plazo firme para que ellos me presenten sus recomendaciones.

Usaremos las recomendaciones de la Comisión como parte de nuestro esfuerzo continuo para mejorar nuestro servicio a los veteranos de nuestra Nación. Desde 2001 hemos ayudado a más de un millón de veteranos adicionales a beneficiarse del sistema de cuidado de la salud de la Administración de Veteranos – y con mi propuesta presupuestaria para el 2008 habremos aumentado el presupuesto para cuidado de la salud de la Administración de Veteranos en un 83 por ciento sobre los últimos seis años – de unos 20 mil millones de dólares a más de 36 mil millones de dólares. En su conjunto estoy pidiendo al Congreso más de 86 mil millones de dólares para servicios para veteranos este año. Si el Congreso aprueba mi pedido, esto sería un aumento del 77 por ciento desde que asumí la Presidencia – y el nivel más alto de apoyo para veteranos en la historia de Estados Unidos.

Los hombres y mujeres que se recuperan en Walter Reed y otros hospitales militares son individuos excepcionales. Muchos han sufrido heridas que ni el tiempo podrá jamás curar completamente. Sin embargo miran al futuro con optimismo – y una determinación de seguir adelante con sus vidas.

Uno de estos valientes guerreros es Especialista del Ejército Eduardo Leal Cárdenas. Sufrió heridas cuando un artefacto explosivo improvisado explotó su vehículo en Irak. La explosión destrozó los huesos en ambas piernas, quebró sus costillas y quebró su espalda y su cuello. Algunos se preguntaron si alguna vez podría volver a caminar. No había duda en la mente de Eduardo – y comenzó su rehabilitación aún estando en cama. Hoy, ha salido de Walter Reed, está caminando nuevamente y hay otra cosa de la que se enorgullece - durante su recuperación, Eduardo se hizo ciudadano de Estados Unidos. Yo tuve el orgullo de acompañarlo en Walter Reed cuando tomó el juramento de ciudadanía. Si le pregunta a Eduardo lo que significa para él la ciudadanía estadounidense, le contesta con una sola palabra: “Libertad”.

Nuestra Nación es afortunada en tener tantos excelentes estadounidenses que están dispuestos a servir. Tenemos la bendición de tener tantos voluntarios compasivos que dedican su tiempo a cuidar a nuestros soldados, marineros, aviadores e Infantes de Marina heridos. Tenemos la bendición de tener a tantos excelentes profesionales médicos que dedican sus vidas a curar las tropas. Este país tiene una obligación moral de ofrecer a nuestros hombres y mujeres militares el mejor cuidado y tratamiento posible. Ellos se lo merecen – y lo recibirán.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 2 de marzo de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush, o cobertura del cuidado médico y Secretaria de la defensa Bob Gates, o Sistema del cuidado médico del VA, o Centro médico del ejército de Walter Reed y Comisión presidencial de dos partidos políticos o Especialista Eduardo Leal-Cardenas del ejército

Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey Resigns

Army Secretary Resigns in Wake of Walter Reed Outpatient-Care Shortfalls, By Kathleen T. Rhem, American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 2, 2007 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced this afternoon that he has accepted the resignation of Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey in light of allegations of shortfalls in care of outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center here.

Published reports in February shed light on shortcomings in outpatient care for troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army officials announced yesterday that the hospital commander, Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, had been relieved of duty.

In announcing that Harvey had resigned, Gates expressed disappointment that Army leaders were not taking the situation seriously enough.

“I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation pertaining to outpatient care at Walter Reed,” he said in a brief statement at the Pentagon. “Some have shown too much defensiveness and have not shown enough focus on digging into and addressing the problems.” High Resolution Image also see SCIENTIAE INTER ARMA SPIRITUS

He also said he is concerned that some Army leaders hadn’t communicated well enough that caring for wounded troops is their top priority.

“Addressing (troops’ and their families’) concerns about the quality of their outpatient experience is critically important,” Gates said. “Our wounded soldiers and their families have sacrificed much, and they deserve the best we can offer.”

In contrast to his criticism of Army leaders, Gates praised the medical staff at Walter Reed for “their professionalism and dedication to providing caring treatment.”

“From what I have learned, the problems at Walter Reed appear to be problems of leadership,” he said “The Walter Reed doctors, nurses and other staff are among the best and the most caring in the world. They deserve our continued deepest thanks and strongest support.”

Harvey had been secretary of the Army since Nov. 19, 2004. Gates announced that Undersecretary of the Army Pete Geren will serve as acting secretary until a new secretary is in place. Geren served as acting secretary of the Air Force from July to November 2005.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Patient-Care Issues and Walter Reed Army Medical Center or The Defense Department and outpatients or Washington Post and Dr. William Winkenwerder or housing problems and Robert M. Gates or Francis J. Harvey and Richard A. Cody or Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman and Pete Geren

DOE, Cellulosic Ethanol Plants, Federal Funding

DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding, Funding to help bring cellulosic ethanol to market and help revolutionize the industry.

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385 million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. This production will help further President Bush’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012 and, along with increased automobile fuel efficiency, reduce America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years.

“These biorefineries will play a critical role in helping to bring cellulosic ethanol to market, and teaching us how we can produce it in a more cost effective manner,” Secretary Bodman said. “Ultimately, success in producing inexpensive cellulosic ethanol could be a key to eliminating our nation’s addiction to oil. By relying on American ingenuity and on American farmers for fuel, we will enhance our nation’s energy and economic security.”

Today’s announcement is one part of the Bush Administration’s comprehensive plan to support commercialization of scientific breakthroughs on biofuels. Specifically, these projects directly support the goals of President Bush’s Twenty in Ten Initiative, which aims to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector to the equivalent of 35 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2017. Funding for these projects is an integral part of the President’s Biofuels Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels, electricity, and other products. The solicitation, announced a year ago, was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. However, in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative, within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Section 932, Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling.

“We had a number of very good proposals, but these six were considered ‘meritorious’ by a merit review panel made up of bioenergy experts. So I thought it would be best to front-end some more funding now, so that we could all reap the benefits of the President’s vision sooner,” Secretary Bodman said.

Combined with the industry cost share, more than $1.2 billion will be invested in these six biorefineries. Negotiations between the selected companies and DOE will begin immediately to determine final project plans and funding levels. Funding will begin this fiscal year and run through FY 2010. EPAct authorized DOE to solicit and fund proposals for the commercial demonstration of advanced biorefineries that use cellulosic feedstocks to produce ethanol and co-produce bioproducts and electricity.

The following six projects were selected: (Report Links are in PDF format)

• Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas, LLC of Chesterfield, Missouri, up to $76 million. - The proposed plant will be located in the state of Kansas. The plant will produce 11.4 million gallons of ethanol annually and enough energy to power the facility, with any excess energy being used to power the adjacent corn dry grind mill. The plant will use 700 tons per day of corn stover, wheat straw, milo stubble, switchgrass, and other feedstocks. Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass investors/participants include: Abengoa Bioenergy R&D, Inc.; Abengoa Engineering and Construction, LLC; Antares Corp.; and Taylor Engineering.
• ALICO, Inc. of LaBelle, Florida, up to $33 million. - The proposed plant will be in LaBelle (Hendry County), Florida. The plant will produce 13.9 million gallons of ethanol a year and 6,255 kilowatts of electric power, as well as 8.8 tons of hydrogen and 50 tons of ammonia per day. For feedstock, the plant will use 770 tons per day of yard, wood, and vegetative wastes and eventually energycane. ALICO, Inc. investors/participants include: Bioengineering Resources, Inc. of Fayetteville, Arkansas; Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho; GeoSyntec Consultants of Boca Raton, Florida; BG Katz Companies/JAKS, LLC of Parkland, Florida; and Emmaus Foundation, Inc.
• BlueFire Ethanol, Inc. of Irvine, California, up to $40 million. - The proposed plant will be in Southern California. The plant will be sited on an existing landfill and produce about 19 million gallons of ethanol a year. As feedstock, the plant would use 700 tons per day of sorted green waste and wood waste from landfills. BlueFire Ethanol, Inc. investors/participants include: Waste Management, Inc.; JGC Corporation; MECS Inc.; NAES; and PetroDiamond.
• Broin Companies of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, up to $80 million. - The plant is in Emmetsburg (Palo Alto County), Iowa, and after expansion, it will produce 125 million gallons of ethanol per year, of which roughly 25 percent will be cellulosic ethanol. For feedstock in the production of cellulosic ethanol, the plant expects to use 842 tons per day of corn fiber, cobs, and stalks. Broin Companies participants include: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; Novozymes North America, Inc.; and DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
• Iogen Biorefinery Partners, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, up to $80 million. - The proposed plant will be built in Shelley, Idaho, near Idaho Falls, and will produce 18 million gallons of ethanol annually. The plant will use 700 tons per day of agricultural residues including wheat straw, barley straw, corn stover, switchgrass, and rice straw as feedstocks. Iogen Biorefinery Partners, LLC investors/partners include: Iogen Energy Corporation; Iogen Corporation; Goldman Sachs; and The Royal Dutch/Shell Group.
• Range Fuels (formerly Kergy Inc.) of Broomfield, Colorado, up to $76 million. - The proposed plant will be constructed in Soperton (Treutlen County), Georgia. The plant will produce about 40 million gallons of ethanol per year and 9 million gallons per year of methanol. As feedstock, the plant will use 1,200 tons per day of wood residues and wood based energy crops. Range Fuels investors/participants include: Merrick and Company; PRAJ Industries Ltd.; Western Research Institute; Georgia Forestry Commission; Yeomans Wood and Timber; Truetlen County Development Authority; BioConversion Technology; Khosla Ventures; CH2MHill; Gillis Ag and Timber.

Cellulosic ethanol is an alternative fuel made from a wide variety of non-food plant materials (or feedstocks), including agricultural wastes such as corn stover and cereal straws, industrial plant waste like saw dust and paper pulp, and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production like switchgrass. By using a variety of regional feedstocks for refining cellulosic ethanol, the fuel can be produced in nearly every region of the country. Though it requires a more complex refining process, cellulosic ethanol contains more net energy and results in lower greenhouse emissions than traditional corn-based ethanol. E-85, an ethanol-fuel blend that is 85-percent ethanol, is already available in more than 1,000 fueling stations nationwide and can power millions of flexible fuel vehicles already on the roads.

For more information on President’s Bush’s Twenty in Ten Initiative, visit: whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.

News Media Contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940, For Immediate Release February 28, 2007.

Technorati Tags: ethanol production and biofuels or corn-based ethanol and Bioenergy Biomass or Twenty in Ten Initiative and Chemical Engineering or Samuel W. Bodman and cellulosic ethanol or Energy Efficiency and Department of Energy

U.S.-Israel Meeting on Assistance

U.S.-Israel Meeting on Assistance, The United States and Israel began a discussion March 1 led by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, Professor Stanley Fischer, Governor of the Bank of Israel, and Yarom Ariav, Director General of Israel's Ministry of Finance to define the strategic cooperation between our two countries, our next ten-year assistance relationship, and Israel's long-term economic and military security requirements.

The United States and Israel attach the highest importance to this meeting, which is the first in a series of discussions to develop specific assistance by the United States to Israel.

These talks reflect the deep historical and security ties between the United States and Israel, based on our shared values and common interests. The meeting today is another manifestation of the unshakable commitment by the United States to Israel's security and a step towards fortifying and enhancing the strategic relationship between our two countries.

In addition to the heads of delegation, other participants included Israeli Ambassador to the United States Sallai Meridor, the Directors General of Israel's Ministries of Finance and Foreign Affairs, Israel's National Security Council Chairman, senior Ministry of Defense officials, and other senior representatives. The United States and Israel look forward to continuing this ongoing dialogue in the coming months both here and in Israel.

2007/148, Released on March 1, 2007

Media Note, Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC. March 1, 2007

Technorati Tags: State Department and Secretary of State or Israel and Condoleezza Rice, or Nicholas Burns and U.S. State Department or Professor Stanley Fischer and Yarom Ariav or Sallai Meridor

Belarus - Political Prisoners

Question: What concrete steps is the State Department engaging in to advance the release of political prisoners and promote human rights in Belarus?

Answer: We take every opportunity to urge the Belarusian authorities to free all persons jailed on politically motivated charges. President Bush reinforced this commitment to the people of Belarus in his 2007 State of the Union message. Within the last year, the United States has taken numerous measures to pressure Belarusian President Lukashenka to release political prisoners.

This week, the Department of State met with a delegation of Belarusian opposition political leaders and civil society activists to discuss further steps that the United States might take to support the defenders of freedom and democracy in Belarus. This delegation included Irina Kozulina, the wife of Belarusian political prisoner Aleksandr Kozulin, and Serhei Matskevich, a former political prisoner.

In January 2007, President Bush signed into law the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act, which outlines a series of measures available to promote democracy and rule of law in Belarus. These measures would supplement our existing assistance programs that focus on promoting democracy, human rights, and development of civil society in Belarus.

In December 2006, the United States brought the plight of political prisoners, including Aleksandr Kozulin, and the deplorable human rights situation in Belarus, to the attention of the UN Security Council.

In December 2006, the issue of political prisoners in Belarus figured prominently in a UN resolution cosponsored by the U.S. and adopted by the UN General Assembly.

In a speech in Riga, Latvia on November 28, 2006, President Bush described Belarus as "a place where peaceful protesters are beaten and opposition leaders are 'disappeared' by the agents of a cruel regime. The existence of such oppression in our midst offends the conscience of Europe, and it offends the conscience of America. We have a message for the people of Belarus: The vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace includes you -- and we stand with you in your struggle for freedom."

In June 2006, President Bush issued an Executive Order, which blocks the U.S. property of certain persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Belarus. Six additional names were added to the list on February 27, 2007, bringing the total to 16 persons. More names could be added in the future.

In May 2006, President Bush issued a Proclamation suspending the U.S. entry of persons responsible for policies or actions that threaten the transition to democracy in Belarus. We have used the authority under this proclamation to ban the future entry of numerous individuals responsible for suppressing human rights in Belarus.

Taken Question Office of the Spokesman Washington, DC February 28, 2007 Question Taken at the February 28 Daily Press Briefing

Technorati Tags: State Department and Secretary of State or Belarus and Condoleezza Rice, or Political Prisoners and U.S. State Department or Belarusian President Lukashenka and Aleksandr Kozulin or Serhei Matskevich

Army Relieves Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman

Army Relieves Walter Reed Commanding General, Mar 01, 2007, BY Paul Boyce, OCPA - Media Relations

At 10 a.m. March 1 Army Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, commanding general of the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, was relieved of command by Secretary of the Army Dr. Francis J. Harvey.

This action has been under consideration for the last several days, with the final decision being made yesterday.

Maj. Gen. Weightman was informed this morning that the senior Army leadership had lost trust and confidence in the commander's leadership abilities to address needed solutions for Soldier-outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Commanding General of U.S. Army Medical Command, Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, will be acting temporarily as the Walter Reed commander until a general officer is selected for this important leadership position.

The Army is moving quickly to address issues regarding outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Secretary of the Army Dr. Francis J. Harvey directed Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Richard Cody last week to develop and implement an Army Action Plan to address shortcomings at Walter Reed as well as Army-wide. The four focus areas of the Army Action Plan are: 1) Soldier accountability, health and welfare; 2) infrastructure; 3) medical administrative process; and 4) information dissemination. Gen. Cody put a 30-day deadline on many of these actions.

The Army also is participating in a Defense Department Independent Review Group, announced Feb. 20, examining service member's outpatient care and military administrative processes.

Both the Army Action Plan and the DoD Independent Review Group will continue examining military-medical rehabilitative conditions and administrative care in the weeks to come. The Army senior leadership will continue to take prompt corrective action as deficiencies are identified.

"We'll fix as we go; we'll fix as we find things wrong," Secretary Harvey said recently. "Soldiers are the heart of our Army and the quality of their medical care is non-negotiable."

- 30 - For more information, contact Paul Boyce at U.S. Army Public Affairs: (703) 697-2564.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 234-07 March 01, 2007

Secretary Gates On Walter Reed Leadership Change

“I endorse the decision by Secretary of the Army Fran Harvey to relieve the Commander of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

"The care and welfare of our wounded men and women in uniform demand the highest standard of excellence and commitment that we can muster as a government. When this standard is not met, I will insist on swift and direct corrective action and, where appropriate, accountability up the chain of command.”

On the Web: defenselink.mil/Releases/ Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132, Public contact: dod.mil/faq/comment or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Patient-Care Issues and Walter Reed Army Medical Center or The Defense Department and outpatients or Washington Post and Dr. William Winkenwerder or housing problems and Robert M. Gates or Francis J. Harvey and Richard A. Cody or Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman

Ben S. Bernanke Committee on the Budget VIDEO

Ben S. Bernanke discusses the sudden decline in the Stock Market on 02/27/07 QUESTION 1, running time 2 m 03 sec. and QUESTION 2, running time 1m 39sec. The full hearing Testimony of Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Long-term fiscal challenges and the economy, Before the Committee on the Budget, running time 2 hr. 22 m 38 sec.

FULL STREAMING VIDEO, U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 2007

House Budget Committee Hearing on Challenges to the Economy, Federal Reserve System Chair. Ben Bernanke speaks about fiscal challenges to the economy during a hearing of the House Budget Cmte. The hearing was scheduled to look at long-term issues, but Chair. Bernanke is expected to discuss the sudden decline in the Stock Market on 02/27/07. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) chairs the hearing. 2/28/2007: WASHINGTON, DC:
Chairman Spratt, Representative Ryan, and other members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here to offer my views on the federal budget and related issues. At the outset, I should underscore that I speak only for myself and not necessarily for my colleagues at the Federal Reserve.

My testimony will focus on the long-term budget outlook and will draw on the most recent set of long-term budget projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), issued in December 2005. The CBO constructed its projections based on the assumptions that real gross domestic product (GDP) would rise about 3-1/2 percent per year in 2005 and 2006 and at a rate of 2.9 per cent per annum from 2007 through 2015. The growth projections through 2015 were in turn based on the assumptions that trend labor force growth will average 0.8 percent per year and that trend labor productivity growth in the nonfarm business sector will average 2.4 percent per year. The CBO has since updated those assumptions for the purposes of other analyses, but the revisions were not large enough to materially alter the broad contours of the fiscal outlook.1 As for the longer-term outlook, the CBO assumed that the growth rate of real GDP will average about 2 percent per year starting around 2020. While such projections are subject to considerable uncertainty, the CBO's assumptions provide a sensible and useful starting point for assessing the budget situation over the longer run.

Before discussing that longer-run outlook, I will comment on recent budget developments. As you know, the deficit in the unified federal budget declined for a second year in fiscal year 2006, falling to $248 billion from $318 billion in fiscal 2005. So far in fiscal 2007, solid growth in receipts, especially in collections of personal and corporate income taxes, has held the deficit somewhat below year-earlier levels. Of course, a good deal of uncertainty still surrounds the budget outcome for the year as a whole. Federal government outlays in fiscal 2006 were 20.3 percent of nominal gross domestic product (GDP), receipts were 18.4 percent of GDP, and the deficit (equal to the difference of the two) was 1.9 percent of GDP. These percentages are close to their averages since 1960. The on-budget deficit, which differs from the unified budget deficit primarily in excluding receipts and payments of the Social Security system, was $434 billion, or 3.3 percent of GDP, in fiscal 2006.2 As of the end of fiscal 2006, federal government debt held by the public, which includes holdings by the Federal Reserve but excludes those by the Social Security and other trust funds, amounted to 37 percent of one year's GDP.

Official projections suggest that the unified budget deficit may stabilize or moderate further over the next few years. Unfortunately, we are experiencing what seems likely to be the calm before the storm. In particular, spending on entitlement programs will begin to climb quickly during the next decade. In fiscal 2006, federal spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid together totaled about 40 percent of federal expenditures, or 8-1/2 percent of GDP.3 In the medium-term projections released by the CBO in January, these outlays increase to 10-3/4 percent of GDP by 2017, an increase of about 2 percentage points of GDP in little more than a decade, and they will likely continue to rise sharply relative to GDP in the years after that. As I will discuss, these rising entitlement obligations will put enormous pressure on the federal budget in coming years.

The large projected increases in future entitlement spending have two principal sources. First, like many other industrial countries, the United States has entered what is likely to be a long period of demographic transition, the result both of the reduction in fertility that followed the post-World War II baby boom and of ongoing increases in life expectancy. Longer life expectancies are certainly to be welcomed. But they are likely to lead to longer periods of retirement in the future, even as the growth rate of the workforce declines. As a consequence of the demographic trends, the number of people of retirement age will grow relative both to the population as a whole and to the number of potential workers. Currently, people 65 years and older make up about 12 percent of the U.S. population, and there are about five people between the ages of 20 and 64 for each person 65 and older. According to the intermediate projections of the Social Security Trustees, in 2030 Americans 65 and older will constitute about 19 percent of the U.S. population, and the ratio of those between the ages of 20 and 64 to those 65 and older will have fallen to about 3.

Although the retirement of the baby boomers will be an important milestone in the demographic transition--the oldest baby boomers will be eligible for Social Security benefits starting next year--the change in the nation's demographic structure is not just a temporary phenomenon related to the large relative size of the baby-boom generation. Rather, if the U.S. fertility rate remains close to current levels and life expectancies continue to rise, as demographers generally expect, the U.S. population will continue to grow older, even after the baby-boom generation has passed from the scene. If current law is maintained, that aging of the U.S. population will lead to sustained increases in federal entitlement spending on programs that benefit older Americans, such as Social Security and Medicare.

The second cause of rising entitlement spending is the expected continued increase in medical costs per beneficiary. Projections of future medical costs are fraught with uncertainty, but history suggests that--without significant changes in policy--these costs are likely to continue to rise more quickly than incomes, at least for the foreseeable future. Together with the aging of the population, ongoing increases in medical costs will lead to a rapid expansion of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures.

Long-range projections prepared by the CBO vividly portray the potential effects on the budget of an aging population and rapidly rising health care costs. The CBO has developed projections for a variety of alternative scenarios, based on different assumptions about the evolution of spending and taxes. The scenarios produce a wide range of possible budget outcomes, reflecting the substantial uncertainty that attends long-range budget projections.4 However, the outcomes that appear most likely, in the absence of policy changes, involve rising budget deficits and increases in the amount of federal debt outstanding to unprecedented levels. For example, one plausible scenario is based on the assumptions that (1) federal retirement and health spending will follow the CBO's intermediate projection; (2) defense spending will drift down over time as a percentage of GDP; (3) other non-interest spending will grow roughly in line with GDP; and (4) federal revenues will remain close to their historical share of GDP--that is, about where they are today.5 Under these assumptions, the CBO calculates that, by 2030, the federal budget deficit will approach 9 percent of GDP--more than four times greater as a share of GDP than the deficit in fiscal year 2006.

A particularly worrisome aspect of this projection and similar ones is the implied evolution of the national debt and the associated interest payments to government bondholders. Minor details aside, the federal debt held by the public increases each year by the amount of that year's unified deficit. Consequently, scenarios that project large deficits also project rapid growth in the outstanding government debt. The higher levels of debt in turn imply increased expenditures on interest payments to bondholders, which exacerbate the deficit problem still further. Thus, a vicious cycle may develop in which large deficits lead to rapid growth in debt and interest payments, which in turn adds to subsequent deficits. According to the CBO projection that I have been discussing, interest payments on the government's debt will reach 4-1/2 percent of GDP in 2030, nearly three times their current size relative to national output. Under this scenario, the ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP would climb from 37 percent currently to roughly 100 percent in 2030 and would continue to grow exponentially after that. The only time in U.S. history that the debt-to-GDP ratio has been in the neighborhood of 100 percent was during World War II. People at that time understood the situation to be temporary and expected deficits and the debt-to-GDP ratio to fall rapidly after the war, as in fact they did. In contrast, under the scenario I have been discussing, the debt-to-GDP ratio would rise far into the future at an accelerating rate. Ultimately, this expansion of debt would spark a fiscal crisis, which could be addressed only by very sharp spending cuts or tax increases, or both.6

The CBO projections, by design, ignore the adverse effects that such high deficits would likely have on economic growth. But if government debt and deficits were actually to grow at the pace envisioned by the CBO's scenario, the effects on the U.S. economy would be severe. High rates of government borrowing would drain funds away from private capital formation and thus slow the growth of real incomes and living standards over time. Some fraction of the additional debt would likely be financed abroad, which would lessen the negative influence on domestic investment; however, the necessity of paying interest on the foreign-held debt would leave a smaller portion of our nation's future output available for domestic consumption. Moreover, uncertainty about the ultimate resolution of the fiscal imbalances would reduce the confidence of consumers, businesses, and investors in the U.S. economy, with adverse implications for investment and growth.

To some extent, strong economic growth can help to mitigate budgetary pressures, and all else being equal, fiscal policies that are supportive of growth would be beneficial. Unfortunately, economic growth alone is unlikely to solve the nation's impending fiscal problems. Economic growth leads to higher wages and profits and thus increases tax receipts, but higher wages also imply increased Social Security benefits, as those benefits are tied to wages. Higher incomes also tend to increase the demand for medical services so that, indirectly, higher incomes may also increase federal health expenditures. Increased rates of immigration could raise growth by raising the growth rate of the labor force. However, economists who have looked at the issue have found that even a doubling in the rate of immigration to the United States, from about 1 million to 2 million immigrants per year, would not significantly reduce the federal government's fiscal imbalance.7

The prospect of growing fiscal imbalances and their economic consequences also raises essential questions of intergenerational fairness.8 As I have noted, because of increasing life expectancy and the decline in fertility, the number of retirees that each worker will have to support in the future--either directly or indirectly through taxes paid to support government programs--will rise significantly. To the extent that federal budgetary policies inhibit capital formation and increase our net liabilities to foreigners, future generations of Americans will bear a growing burden of the debt and experience slower growth in per-capita incomes than would otherwise have been the case.

An important element in ensuring that we leave behind a stronger economy than we inherited, as did virtually all previous generations in this country, will be to move over time toward fiscal policies that are sustainable, efficient, and equitable across generations. Policies that promote private as well as public saving would also help us leave a more productive economy to our children and grandchildren. In addition, we should explore ways to make the labor market as accommodating as possible to older people who wish to continue working, as many will as longevity increases and health improves.

Addressing the country's fiscal problems will take persistence and a willingness to make difficult choices. In the end, the fundamental decision that the Congress, the Administration, and the American people must confront is how large a share of the nation's economic resources to devote to federal government programs, including transfer programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Crucially, whatever size of government is chosen, tax rates must ultimately be set at a level sufficient to achieve an appropriate balance of spending and revenues in the long run. Thus, members of the Congress who put special emphasis on keeping tax rates low must accept that low tax rates can be sustained only if outlays, including those on entitlements, are kept low as well. Likewise, members who favor a more expansive role of the government, including relatively more-generous benefits payments, must recognize the burden imposed by the additional taxes needed to pay for the higher spending, a burden that includes not only the resources transferred from the private sector but also any adverse economic incentives associated with higher tax rates.

Achieving fiscal sustainability will require sustained efforts and attention over many years. As an aid in charting the way forward, the Congress may find it useful to set some benchmarks against which to gauge progress toward key budgetary objectives. Because no single statistic fully describes the fiscal situation, the most effective approach would likely involve monitoring a number of fiscal indicators, each of which captures a different aspect of the budget and its economic impact. The unified budget deficit, projected forward a certain number of years, is an important measure that is already included in the congressional budgeting process. However, the unified budget deficit does not fully capture the fiscal situation and its effect on the economy, for at least two reasons.

First, the budget deficit by itself does not measure the quantity of resources that the government is taking from the private sector. An economy in which the government budget is balanced but in which government spending equals 20 percent of GDP is very different from one in which the government's budget is balanced but its spending is 40 percent of GDP, as the latter economy has both higher tax rates and a greater role for the government. Monitoring current and prospective levels of total government outlays relative to GDP or a similar indicator would help the Congress ensure that the overall size of the government relative to the economy is consistent with members' views and preferences.

Second, the annual budget deficit reflects only near-term financing needs and does not capture long-term fiscal imbalances. As the most difficult long-term budgetary issues are associated with the growth of entitlement spending, a comprehensive approach to budgeting would include close attention to measures of the long-term solvency of entitlement programs, such as long-horizon present values of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare.

To summarize, because of demographic changes and rising medical costs, federal expenditures for entitlement programs are projected to rise sharply over the next few decades. Dealing with the resulting fiscal strains will pose difficult choices for the Congress, the Administration, and the American people. However, if early and meaningful action is not taken, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost. The decisions the Congress will face will not be easy or simple, but the benefits of placing the budget on a path that is both sustainable and meets the nation's long-run needs would be substantial.

Thank you again for allowing me to comment on these important issues. I would be glad to take your questions.

Footnotes

1. According to the latest estimates of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), real GDP growth was 3.2 percent in 2005 and 3.4 percent in 2006, both figures stated on an annual-average basis. The figure for 2006 is the BEA's "advance" estimate; a revised estimate is scheduled for release today.

2. Excluding the operations of both Social Security and Medicare Part A, the budget deficit in fiscal year 2006 was $459 billion, or 3.5 percent of GDP. Like Social Security, Medicare Part A pays benefits out of, and receives a dedicated stream of revenues into, a trust fund.

3. Net of Medicare premiums paid by beneficiaries and amounts paid by states from savings on Medicaid prescription drug costs, these outlays were equal to 8 percent of GDP.

4. For example, in 2030, five of the six scenarios imply deficits ranging from 1-1/2 percent of GDP to nearly 14 percent of GDP; a sixth scenario is capable of producing a surplus, but it relies on the confluence of a very favorable set of assumptions.

5. For more information about this scenario, see the description of Scenario 2 in Congressional Budget Office (2005), The Long-Term Budget Outlook, December, pp. 5-13 and 48-49, cbo.gov/LongTermOutlook.pdf (1.0 MB PDF). Consistent with the assumptions used by the Medicare trustees, the CBO's intermediate projections for Medicare and Medicaid are based on the assumption that, over the long run, per beneficiary health expenditures will increase at a rate that is 1 percentage point per year greater than the growth rate of per capita GDP. Over the past twenty-five years, however, per beneficiary Medicare spending has actually exceeded per capita GDP growth by about 2-1/2 percentage points per year. Thus, a significant slowing in the growth of medical costs per beneficiary will be needed to keep expenditures close to those projected in this scenario.

6. To give a sense of the magnitudes involved, suppose--for the sake of illustration only--that the deficit projected for 2030 in the CBO scenario were to be eliminated entirely in that year, half through reductions in discretionary spending and half through increases in non-payroll taxes. (Of course, in reality the fiscal adjustment would likely not occur in one year, but this hypothetical example is useful for showing the magnitude of the problem.) This fiscal adjustment would involve a cut in discretionary spending (including defense) of nearly 80 percent (relative to its baseline level) and a rise in non-payroll taxes of more than 35 percent. The need for such painful measures could be diminished by beginning the process of fiscal adjustment much earlier, thereby avoiding some of the buildup in outstanding debt and the associated interest burden.

7. CBO (2005), The Long-Term Budget Outlook, p. 3.

8. I discussed this issue in Ben S. Bernanke (2006), "The Coming Demographic Transition: Will We Treat Future Generations Fairly?", speech delivered before the Washington Economic Club, Washington, October 4, federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/.

Technorati Tags: Ben S. Bernanke and Committee on the Budget or Federal Reserve and Stock Market, or VIDEO and House Budget Committe or Congressional Budget Office and wall street