White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 04/12/07 VIDEO

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, White House Conference Center Briefing Room, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Dana M. Perino Biography, 1:23 P.M. EDT . MS. PERINO: You heard from the President this morning.

The United States strongly condemns the attack on the Iraqi parliament against the democratically elected government of Iraq. This attack demonstrates that the terrorists and extremists will go to great lengths to disrupt the Iraqi government, one that is working for peace and stability in not only their own country, but in the region. The United States and Iraq cannot and will not let those terrorists succeed. We continue to monitor the situation, and we are a part of the investigation to find out how it happened, and we will provide you as many updates as we can as the day continues.

Questions.

Q Is there any concern that the loss of White House emails through outside email providers might involve a violation of law?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think one of the things to step back and take a look at is that we are talking about a very small universe of emails. There are 1,700 employees that work for the Executive Office of the President, 1,000 of those are political employees, like myself, and 22 of them have political email accounts. That's about 2 percent of the people.

We have a policy in which any emails that are sent to somebody like myself at an EOP or a White House email address are archived and retained indefinitely, forever, so that we always have those. There are a small slice of people, that 2 percent, that has access to RNC-based emails, based on the fact that at the beginning of the administration we did what previous administrations had done for the past 25 years, which is, if you want to avoid the criminal violations that exist with the Hatch Act, you make sure that you don't use any government equipment in order to do political business.

There are gray areas. There are White House official business and there's political business, and to make sure that you don't cross that line, people, either out of an abundance of caution, or because of convenience, were, as we went on through the administration, sometimes erring too much on the side of caution. And we have recognized that error. We have changed the White House policy, and we are talking to, in the process -- Counsel's Office is in the process of talking to political employees that have those email accounts to make sure that they are in compliance with both the Hatch Act and also making sure that they are preserving records for the Presidential Records Act.

Q You speak of it as an error, but I guess my question is, is there any concern that any law may have been broken?

MS. PERINO: I've not heard an indication of that. I do -- I will say to you, though, our Counsel's Office is in communication with the RNC general counsel to make sure that we understand the full extent of the problem, and making sure that they understand -- if any potential emails were lost, understanding how we might be able to use forensics in order to get those back and make sure that they are a part of the presidential records.

Q Isn't it a given that some were lost, and -- well, just that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that the -- we don't have an idea on the universe of the number of emails that were lost. I went through the small slice of the universe of the emails that could potentially have been there, but truly, we just don't know enough yet. And we will continue to update you as the review goes on, and as we continue to talk with the RNC general counsel's office to understand how those emails were archived, or not.

But one thing I will mention is that for -- since 2004, for the political employees, those emails that were sent using those RNC-provided accounts, for political employees, have been archived.*

Q Dana.

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q On March 27th at this podium, you said that there were only a handful of White House aides who had these political RNC accounts. Now you're saying 22. That doesn't sound like a handful.

MS. PERINO: Well, I didn't know how many there were. And I think that, again, if you look at the number of people that work at the White House, almost 2,000, to have 22 people that -- I mean, that's obviously -- I grant you, it's a very large handful, but it's still a relatively small number. And it's based on the people who have responsibilities, both White House official responsibilities, but that also have responsibilities in their job description to do political activities. And to make sure that they didn't violate the Hatch Act, they had access to this other equipment.

Q But The L.A. Times today quotes Scott Stanzel as saying that there were about 50 aides.

MS. PERINO: The 22 is current, current White House employees -- 50 over the course of the administration.

Q At that March 27th briefing, as well, you said that Fred Fielding, the White House Counsel, was in touch with the RNC general counsel to make sure that there was archiving taking place. And when pressed on it you said that these were not archived just since Henry Waxman had asked you about it on the Hill, that they had been archived for a very long time. So --

MS. PERINO: I think that's -- going back those few weeks ago, this is how we have developed a better understanding of how the RNC archived or did not archive certain emails. As I said, folks like Karl Rove emails using this equipment go back to being archived to 2004. The extent of how many people had these accounts, I didn't have it readily at my fingertips. I understood it to be a handful of people. I knew that it would be at least some, if not all, of the people that worked in the Office of Political Affairs.

Q Dana, this comes at a time when the Senate Judiciary Committee is already a little bit put out in terms of negotiating with the White House. And Senator Leahy said today, "I don't know if it's more the dog ate my homework, or we're back to the Rose Mary Woods 18-minute gap." Are you concerned at all that this is going to further poison the well --

MS. PERINO: I would hope that it wouldn't, because what we have done has been forthcoming, honest, and to tell you that -- I don't have all the answers right now, but there's a review that's ongoing, we're going to keep you updated. We are trying to understand to the best of our ability the universe of the emails that were potentially lost, and we are taking steps to make sure that we use the forensics that are available to retrieve any of those that are lost. And we've changed the policy so that we can make sure that this doesn't happen again.

Q This seems to be -- at least Senator Leahy seems to be suggesting now this is a credibility issue; that the explanations coming out of the White House don't pass some sort of sniff test for him.

MS. PERINO: I don't know how you could possibly say that when what we have done is endeavor to be very forthcoming and honest in talking about a policy that we've had. Now, it would be different if we hadn't said anything at all. But we didn't. We have come forward. I would prefer to have every single answer available to you, because you have a lot of questions. And as Scott Stanzel said to you this morning, we don't have all the answers yet, but we are working with the committees --

Q But what you've said has shifted even over the last couple of weeks.

MS. PERINO: Give me an example of that.

Q Fifty, 22, handful.

MS. PERINO: Look -- and I explained that. You have to admit that when I said a handful, I was asked based on something that I didn't know.

Q I'm saying this is what Senator Leahy and the folks on the Judiciary Committee are hearing shifting explanations, and wondering what the deal is.

MS. PERINO: Well, I would be happy to personally speak to them about my reasoning for using the word "handful." But I think the proof is -- the truth is we have 1,700 employees, 1,000 of them are political employees, and 22 of them currently have these accounts. The number 50 is based on the number since the beginning of the administration. That story hasn't changed. I will be happy to explain to them why I used the word "handful," because it was based on my limited understanding of who all in the Political Affairs Office might have used them.

Q But let's take this idea that perhaps the emails could have disappeared, when I think the first thing anybody learns taking a job in America today is that emails never disappear from a workplace computer.

MS. PERINO: That is true at the White House for EOP accounts. I can't speak to any other organization, or their policies, although we are trying to work with the RNC to understand their policy. As I said, anyone with those emails here, as I understand it, since 2004, those emails have been separated from an RNC policy which is to automatically delete every 30 days deleted emails. So we have worked to try to be both in coordination and compliance with the Hatch Act, as well as the Presidential Records Act.

Q So nobody's dog ate anybody's homework?

MS. PERINO: I don't believe so.

Q How does that square with what Scott Stanzel was saying this morning, where he was saying that staffers could, so-called, double-delete?

MS. PERINO: That is true. When I say that we're trying to find if there were any potential emails that were not captured in that system, if someone had the capability to -- if they wanted to clean out their inbox -- delete a message, and then when your inbox -- when your deleted box fills up, and you decide that you want to clean that up, if you delete that one, as well, where did those emails go? And that's exactly what we're trying to find out.

Q A couple minutes ago you were saying that for sure since 2004 it's been archived, though. But I'm trying to understand, with the double-delete, can that override the archiving?

MS. PERINO: I think that it might be able to. And I can't speak to any individual's personal email habits, but let me -- I'm not a technical expert, so let me make sure we find that.

Q If it could override it, then what you said earlier about it's archived since 2004 may not be true, because it could be double-delete -- some of the emails could be --

MS. PERINO: Let me look into the specific technical pieces of that.

Q We've heard the name Karl Rove. Are there are any other assistants to the President, that highest title, that have these outside accounts? Will you provide the names of all the 22 who do use these outside the --

MS. PERINO: Let me take that back and see if I can get you either a list, or if I can at least find out if there are any other assistants to the President. I'm not aware of one off the top of my head, but, again, I said handful, and there were 22, so I'm being called on that. So I'll hold back until I have the correct answer.

Q Is part of the review to ask these 22 why they chose to use outside email? You've said abundance of caution, perhaps the convenience.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think the Counsel's Office is certainly talking with everyone, but I think that the reason that they were using outside email is for the very reason I explained, which when you get into the White House and you received the previous policy and the previous manual, you were given one paragraph based on what you should do in terms of your official White House -- conducting official business on a White House account, but you're given extensive explanation, over two pages, over how to avoid the Hatch Act**. And people were very concerned about making sure that, out of an abundance of caution, and to make sure that -- to avoid any sense of impropriety, that they would use their RNC-provided equipment to avoid that Hatch Act violation.

Q Understanding that distinction, but is it possible that there could be a motivation to avoid having the communication be part of the permanent record before using it?

MS. PERINO: I'm not aware -- I am not aware of any, but again, I can't speak to all the personal motivations or the personal email habits of individuals. If there's more I can get you on that, I will.

Q Is that part of the review?

MS. PERINO: I am -- I don't know. I'll have to check with Counsel's Office.

Q What does the President know about this?

MS. PERINO: The President, when he heard about it, said that he wanted to make sure that it was getting fixed. That is one of the reasons that we have a new policy, and that the Counsel's Office is talking with anyone who would have one of these accounts to make sure they understand the new policy. And part of that is also that there are going to be gray areas, and the Counsel's Office has an open door for people that, if they have a question about whether something falls on this side of the line or that side of the line, that they can go to the Counsel's Office and help get a judgment call.

Q What is new?

MS. PERINO: Well, we have -- it's clear, in regards to making sure people understand White House official business should be done on your White House official account. You should still endeavor to make sure that you don't have a Hatch Act violation. But one of the things that's new is that you have to -- if you err on the side of using a political email, that you would also archive that some way.

So you would either print it off, or you would forward it to another email, to your personal account -- I'm sorry, to your White House account, in some way keep that so that in the future, if the Counsel's Office needed to look back at those records, that they would have access to that. And in addition to that, I believe that individuals will just have to sign off that they got the policy and that they understand it, and that they will follow it.

Peter.

Q Are these outside forensics experts, or are they with some FBI, or some other investigative --

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I don't know. Let me check. I don't know if they've hired anyone yet. I wonder if -- I wonder if they're still consulting on how it could be done, and to the extent it can be done. So I'll need to check.

Q No forensics experts have delved into this yet?

MS. PERINO: No, no, not yet.

Q How and when was this -- just this loss, if that's what it was, discovered, and who discovered it?

MS. PERINO: I believe that it was in the context of looking into the document requests from the -- on the U.S. attorneys matter.

Q And who discovered it?

MS. PERINO: I don't know exactly which individual discovered it, possibly someone in the Counsel's Office, or maybe a combination of people.

Q So you have this new policy and what -- you're going into the seventh year of this administration. Why did it take so long to enact this policy?

MS. PERINO: Well, I will admit it, we screwed up and we're trying to fix it. The policy that existed from the very beginning -- remember, this is before BlackBerrys ever existed. Most people in the White House did not get BlackBerrys until well after September 11th. And that communication has now become ubiquitous. I know you all use it, and we do, too. And so now you're on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and it seems that you don't ever have a break. And so technology really moved quickly. And the policy should have evolved with it, and it didn't. But we're trying to fix it now.

Q I didn't understand -- I thought these were laptops at the RNC. They also gave BlackBerrys?

MS. PERINO: There are laptops and there was -- yes, yes. And there are also -- I think there was a question this morning on whether or not the RNC had paid for the phone lines, and we didn't have the answer at the morning, but we checked, and they do. They pay for the installation and they pay the monthly fee.

John.

Q Does the President have one of these RNC-maintained accounts?

MS. PERINO: I don't think so, no. The President says he doesn't email.

Roger.

Q Scott talked a little bit this morning about a meeting between White House staff and House Judiciary staff. Is --

MS. PERINO: Yesterday.

Q Yesterday. Are they meeting again today? And what was the upshot of that? Are they willing to wait for days, weeks?

MS. PERINO: I didn't get a readout from that meeting. I know that Waxman had had a request. We went up and fulfilled the request, provided as much information as we had at the time. And then we'll take it from there.

Q Pending the rest of the attempted recovery --

MS. PERINO: I'll see if there's -- what the next step is there. I'm not sure.

Matt.

Q Dana, just a quick change of subject, if we probably continue on this. We keep on hearing from the administration that attacks like the one at the Iraqi parliament today are to be expected as the security crackdown in Baghdad continues. But if the Green Zone, and the parliament, a very key target in the Green Zone, can't be protected four years into this war, how can we expect that ordinary Iraqis will have faith in U.S. forces to bring security to their neighborhoods?

MS. PERINO: Well, as I said, we are working with the Iraqis to understand exactly what happened here and to make sure it doesn't happen again. I think what this tells us more than anything is that we are facing an enemy that has -- is filled with such brutality. You can't imagine if that attack would have happened here at home, just up the street. It is just inconceivable how barbaric the enemy we face is, and quite determined.

And our troops are there to help the Iraqis who are in that parliament have enough space away from the violence in order to work out their political differences and make sure that they can move forward and be a democracy that can, as you've heard the President say, sustain, defend, and govern itself.

It's very troubling that this happened inside the Green Zone, and we're going to work to make sure that, one, we find out how it happened, and that it doesn't happen again. I don't -- I can't say exactly who was manning which door and how it happened yet.

Q But there was also the destruction of a major bridge today by a suicide bomb. And at what point does the persistence of these kinds of attacks say to the administration that this operation, this security crackdown is not working?

MS. PERINO: Well, you've heard General David Petraeus say it's going to take a long time to get all that -- all of our people there on the ground, all of our troops there on the ground, and get the violence under control, and working with the Iraqis to make sure that the violence can be curtailed. I don't know if we'll ever see the end of suicide bombings. It is extremely troubling, and I think that what this shows is that this is an enemy that, they say they're defending Islam, but they are killing their fellow Muslims and destroying their infrastructure and ruining their way of life.

It is very troubling, and I can only imagine how scared and hurt the families are for the people that were wounded today inside the parliament building. And I -- we really feel for them. We stand with them. And we'll make sure that we find out as much as we can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Let me go to Mark real quick.

Q A couple more on the missing emails. As you just described the system that is in place now, is it still possible to, if you ignore the instructions, delete those emails?

MS. PERINO: No, that option has been curtailed.

Q So, regardless of whether you print out a copy or whatever, that's going to be archived, period?

MS. PERINO: As I understand it, yes. But let me just -- let me just be precise. The capability to delete from your inbox and then delete your -- clean up your deleted files, that option has been curtailed.

Q The mechanism, the door has been closed?

MS. PERINO: Correct.

Q That which you find when the forensics experts recover what it is that is lost, will you turn it over?

MS. PERINO: You mean if it's -- if it's responsive to the request in terms of the documents for the U.S. -- on the U.S. attorneys matter? Yes, that was within the package that we offered to the House and Senate Judiciary members. But that was -- that would be a part of it.

Q You understand that what Senator Leahy is saying is that this is -- the whole point of this is to not turn this stuff over.

MS. PERINO: No. I understand his point, but he's wrong.

Q Can I ask about the war supplemental meeting, or --

MS. PERINO: Anybody else on this?

Q On this.

MS. PERINO: Okay.

Q Senator Leahy said this morning, "They say they haven't been preserved, I don't believe that. You don't erase emails today. They've gone through too many servers. These emails are there, they just don't want to produce them." What does it say about the lack of credibility that the administration has that he would say something like that?

MS. PERINO: Well, it's troubling. I don't know if Senator Leahy is also an IT expert, but I can assure you that we are working very hard to make sure that we find the emails that were potentially lost and that we are responsive to the requests if there are responses that are provided -- that need providing on the U.S. attorneys matter. We're being very honest and forthcoming, and so I hope that he would understand the spirit in which we have come forward and tried to explain how we screwed up our policy, and how we're working to fix it.

Q Have you thought about calling in the FBI?

MS. PERINO: Let me check -- in terms of, like, the forensics -- that's one of my areas of -- I just don't have a clue. You can ask me about global warming, I'll know, but IT forensics is not my strong point. But we'll work to get back to you.

Q Can I go on that, as well? Following up on Mark's question. The stuff that Waxman has asked for, I think you're saying is in the realm of the stuff that you've offered to the committees, right, on the U.S. attorneys matter?

MS. PERINO: Let me check on that, because there are so many different requests coming from the Hill, that I --

Q The ultimate question is, even if you find the stuff that's been deleted, it sounds like you might not want to give it to Waxman because it's part of the U.S. attorneys matter.

MS. PERINO: No, no, no, what I'm saying is that -- and I don't think that this was a Waxman request. And I'm looking at the Judiciary Committee's request regarding U.S. attorneys, and we had said that as part of our deal, we would allow for top aides to the President to go and be interviewed by the committee, and in addition to that, we would provide all emails that had come from outside of the White House into the White House, and inside the White House, out.

What I was explaining was that the emails that would have used -- would have been sent on those RNC computers would be within that universe of requests. Does that make sense?

Q Yes. So stuff that didn't find its way into the White House system isn't going to be a part of that universe anyway? Is that what you're getting at? No?

MS. PERINO: I don't know if that is actually it. We said that outside -- emails that were coming from here, outside, that would include -- so for example, because I know this is the example you guys want, if Karl had sent an email from his RNC BlackBerry that went to an outside person, would that be included? The answer is, yes. I think that's what you were asking.

Let me go up here, and then I'll go to the back. Was it -- Wendell? Yes.

Q So Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi will be coming here after their day-long boycott yesterday. Who blinked?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to get into that. What I can tell you is that we offered a meeting on Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. -- 2:00 p.m. or 2:30 p.m. That is the meeting to which they responded positively, and we look forward to it.

Q And what's the state of the effect of not having a supplemental right now? Any untoward effects now? Are we still waiting until --

MS. PERINO: I would -- well, I would refer you to Secretary Gates and General Pace who issued a letter yesterday to the Hill outlining their additional concerns.

Can I go to the back?

Q Senator Reid says the President needed to come to the Hill because what he's being told here is what he wants to hear, and not what he needs to hear.

MS. PERINO: The President has -- hears from a lot of different people. You all have covered all the different people that he hears from. The President extended an invitation to Senator Reid and the rest of the bicameral, bipartisan leadership. We are glad that they took us up on the offer. We need to get the money to the troops. And I think the tit-for-tat is just something I'm not going to get into.

Q Dana, on the supplemental, on Tuesday the President said that because the Democrats have not gotten this in yet -- "The failure to fund our troops will mean some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines, others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner." Why did the President mention -- this is a day before his own Pentagon is going to announce that, actually, those loved ones are going to stay in harm's way longer. And he clearly had to know that this policy was going to take place, that the deployments were going to be stretched from 12 months to 15 months. So why did he tell the American Legion that people would be staying in Iraq longer because of the Democrats, when his own Pentagon, 24 hours later, was going to keep people there longer?

MS. PERINO: Well, one, I don't know if the President knew about the -- the meeting -- remember, yesterday morning is when Secretary Gates came and talked to the President. But also, Secretary Gates was talking about a longer-term policy, to make sure that the dwell times are going to be long enough so that we can keep our troops refreshed and get them time with their family. The long-term goal, ultimate goal is to have for active duty one year deployed with two years off, and then for reservists, one year on and five years off.

We have never said that if we got the money immediately tomorrow, that folks would be able to have just a 12-year [sic] deployment and a 12-year [sic] dwell time.*** Every day that we don't get the money is one that, as Secretary Gates and General Pace have said, creates problems in terms of the training. And so by piecemeal, you see some troops have been there for 16 months, and that's what we're trying to avoid.

Q Is that really the first time the President -- it's a pretty big policy, to keep people in Iraq three months longer --

MS. PERINO: No, I think that we've known for a while --

Q -- he just heard about it yesterday morning?

MS. PERINO: I think we've known for a while that Secretary Gates was trying to figure out a way to make sure that we can alleviate this problem of having longer deployments, or troops being deployed for a longer period of time. And one of the things that he did yesterday was to say that we need more certainty for the troops. And I talked to the President about that this morning, that having more certainty for a military family to plan ahead is something that is probably priceless. I can't imagine what it's like for a youngster, when three months seems like five years, that their parent isn't going to be home.

So the point was that the end strength of the Army and of the Marines is going to be expanded. But until we get there, there are going to be these 15 -- what Secretary Gates wanted to do was give people more time to plan, because what's been happening is that you have people out there for 12 months, and then you extend them by another month, and another month, and another month. And that's quite disruptive to the troops and their families.

Q But if the President really wants certainty for the families, he had an opportunity before the American Legion, a highly respected veterans organization, to say, you know what, for certainty's sake for these families, tomorrow we're going to announce a pretty big change. They're going to stay in harm's way longer. Why wasn't he straightforward with the American Legion about his own policy?

MS. PERINO: I think the President was absolutely straightforward. And remember, I don't -- I know that Secretary Gates came and talked to the President yesterday morning, so that speech you're talking about was last Tuesday. We've known for a while that we're going to have to --

Q Two days ago, the speech.

MS. PERINO: Yes, two days ago, right.

Q And so the President didn't know about his own policy until Wednesday?

MS. PERINO: I'm not aware that the President knew that there was going to be -- that Secretary Gates had come to any decisions. But we did know that people, one, needed more certainty, because that had been a complaint and that's one that we had heard about; and two, we need to make sure that we can get the money for the troops so that the readiness issue, the training issue -- because if the troops here can't be trained, which is one of the issues that Gates and Pace said is a problem of not having the money now -- if they can't be trained, then you can't get the fresh troops out in the field. And that means that the people who are there have to stay longer.

And so I guess the way I would put it is that it gets better than it would otherwise be if we get the money today, and it gets worse than it would otherwise be if we don't.

Let's go to Lambrose and then Les.

Q The Turkey General Yasar Buyukanit asked today for permission by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan to invade northern Iraq against the Kurdish people, and the Prime Minister refused. How do you -- the U.S. forces are trying for a unified Iraq?

MS. PERINO: Mr. Lambrose, I have to admit that if you're going to be coming to my briefings, I need to get up to speed on those types of politics in that region of the world, so until then I'm going to have to ask Gordon Johndroe to get back to you. And I'll ask him to do that today. But I will endeavor to study up.

Q Yesterday I --

MS. PERINO: I know, I didn't do it -- the dog ate my homework. (Laughter.)

Les, go ahead.

Q Thank you, Dana; two questions. The top leaders of the two largest veterans organizations -- the American Legion and the VFW -- have written Congress, asking members to pass a clean war funding bill for the sake of the troops. Does the President believe the majority of Congress will accede to the request of these veteran leaders, or not?

MS. PERINO: The President is going to invite the bicameral, bipartisan leadership to the White House next Wednesday, and we hope at that meeting we can find a path forward so that a clean bill can get to the President's desk.

Q Thank you. I can't believe the President has no concern about the three Duke lacrosse players whose families face huge legal fees because they were falsely accused of rape by a female stripper. And my question, surely you can tell us that the President is glad that all charges have been dropped against these three young men, because you don't want to leave the nation in any doubt as to where the President stands on this issue, do you?

MS. PERINO: Les, I'm going to decline to comment on a legal matter --

Q It's a legal matter that's been settled.

MS. PERINO: -- I haven't spoken to the President about it. If I get a chance to, then I'll be able to respond.

Q You will speak to him?

MS. PERINO: If I get a chance to see him, I will do that.

Q Thank you.

END 1:52 P.M. EDT

*It is our understanding that since 2004 the RNC has excluded White House staff with RNC email accounts from their automatic 30-day deletion policy, though the RNC did not disable the user's capacity to manually delete emails until recent weeks. If users didn't manually delete messages from their computers since that time, the messages should be accessible. However, we cannot be sure that all communications dating from 2004 are preserved and that issue is part of the review process.

**avoid violating the Hatch Act

***12-month

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, April 12, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and VIDEO, or Podcast and Hatch Act, or White House emails, and Presidential Records Act, or Karl Rove and Senate Judiciary Committee or EOP accounts

Gates Extends Army Tours in Iraq to 15 Months VIDEO PODCAST TEXT

Gates Extends Army Tours in Iraq to 15 Months By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE WASHINGTON, April 11, 2007 – All soldiers in the U.S. Central Command area of operations will serve 15-month tours in the region beginning immediately, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced today.

“Effective immediately, active Army units now in the Central Command area of responsibility and those headed there will deploy for not more than 15 months and return home for not less than 12 months,” Gates said, during a Pentagon news conference.

This policy applies to all active duty Army units with the exception of two brigades currently in Iraq that have already been extended to 16 months. The policy does not apply to Marine Corps, Navy or Air Force units serving in Central Command. It also does not apply to Army National Guard or Army Reserve units deployed to the region.

The 15-month tour applies to active duty soldiers serving in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and all the countries in the region. U.S. Central Command stretches from Kenya to Kazakhstan and Egypt to Pakistan.

Soldiers will receive an extra $1,000 a month for each month or portion of the month that they serve longer than 12 months, Gates said.

Gates called this policy an “interim change.” The goal for active duty units is 12 months deployed followed by 12 months at home station. Ultimately, the Army would like to see soldiers deployed for 12 months and home for 24 months.

“My objective was to set clear guidelines that our commanders troops and their families could use in determining how future rotations in support of the global war on terror would effect them,” Gates said.

Upon taking office in December 2006, Gates learned that even the sustaining the level of deployed Army forces needed before surging five brigades into Iraq would require active duty units to flow into Iraq before they had spent a full 12 months at home. He said this reality was a significant factor in his decision to recommend to President Bush that defense officials increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps over the next five years by 62,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

The deployment change is intended to provide better clarity, predictability and sustainability in how the Defense Department deploys active duty Army forces, Gates said.

He said the changes produce clear, realistic, executable, and long-term policy goals to guide the deployment of active duty forces. The change will also allow the Army to support the 20 brigade goal of the surge as long as it is needed, he said.

“Without this action we would have had to deploy five Army active duty brigades sooner than the 12-month at home goal,” Gates said. “I believe it is fairer to all soldiers that all share the burden equally.”

The secretary said he realizes his decision will ask a lot of Army troops and their families.

“We are deeply grateful for the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their commitment to accomplishing our mission,” he said. “In the end, this new approach will better allow the Army to better support the war effort while providing a more predictable and dependable deployment schedule for our soldiers and their.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dr. Robert M. Gates and Secretary of Defense or U.S. Central Command and CENTCOM or Pentagon and National Guard or video and Army active duty brigades or podcast

Policy Podcast: Avian Influenza and Human Pandemic VIDEO PODCAST TEXT

John E. Lange, Special Representative, Avian and Pandemic Influenza, Sean McCormack, Department Spokesman. Launch in external Player. FULL STREAMING VIDEO, PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE, MR. MCCORMACK: Welcome, Ambassador John Lange, Special Representative for Avian Influenza and Human Pandemic here at the State Department.

Thanks for joining us for Coffee Break at the State Department. I'd first like to talk to you a little bit about where we stand with respect to Avian Influenza. When we last left this issue, it was blaring across the headlines. People were concerned about the transmission from animals to humans and then the possibility of human-to-human transmission. Can you fill us in on where we stand, how has the virus evolved or mutated and what's the specific threat now to humans from the Avian Influenza?

AMBASSADOR LANGE: Thanks. I'll be happy to talk about that, because the threat is the same now as it was before. The majority of experts, really, the mainstream scientists will tell you that it's far too early to dismiss this as a serious threat. In the year 2006, Avian Influenza spread primarily in poultry populations. It started in 14 countries at the beginning of 2006. By the end of the year, it was in 55 countries. So there was really quite a dramatic spread.

MR. MCCORMACK: Is there a geographic focus for these countries -- 55?

AMBASSADOR LANGE: Yes. In fact, it has not yet hit the Western Hemisphere as we speak. It started out in Southeast Asia and then, especially in the spring of 2006, moved to Africa and to Europe and the Middle East. And now, it's -- while it's been stamped out in some of those countries, those particularly in Western Europe, in some other countries, it's really still in existence and may even become endemic.

So that Avian Influenza spread is of great concern not only because of the economic loss; when you have chickens that are dying, you -- if you're really going to stamp this out, you have to take a lot of action to kill birds within a certain radius of the site that is infected, you have to compensate the farmers, you have to, in some cases, vaccinate the chickens just so that you can prevent the disease from spreading. And it really affects the economies of these countries.

But the big concern for many people in the back of their minds is what if this mutates? What if the H5N1 virus ever goes from just being a virus that is in chickens and other poultry and foul that humans can get, but if -- only if they're very close to the poultry and if instead, it mutates to form human-to-human transmission?

And that's a driving concern at the highest levels of the United States Government and around the world, because if you have that human-to-human transmission, you -- and if it becomes sustained and efficient, we then have a global pandemic. It may be a mild pandemic like the one we had in 1968. It was a little worse in 1957. But the fear is it would be -- the worst case that we're aware of in the 20th century, 1918. And that 1918 pandemic severity is quite scary. You could have 70 million people in the world die; 1.9 million of them would be Americans in the worst-case scenarios. That's a very scary thought and that's why we're so concerned about this.

MR. MCCORMACK: It certainly is. So I know that these viruses are inherently unpredictable in how they may or may not mutate. Have the scientists detected any mutations that make this more dangerous now for human-to-human contact or is it sort of maintaining the same threat level, if you will?

AMBASSADOR LANGE: It's about the same threat level. There was a case in which there could have been human-to-human-to-human transmission back in May of last year in the Southeast Asia region, but then it died out. And we're monitoring this on a regular basis. Every day, we get reports in for --

MR. MCCORMACK: How do you monitor? What is the specific mechanism? How do you connect from a clinic in Indonesia to Washington, DC, where you can evaluate all the data? How does that connection work?

AMBASSADOR LANGE: The U.S. Government's national strategy has the Secretary of State coordinating our international engagement. And so my office is really an interagency office that works very closely with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of U.S. -- of Agriculture, U.S. Agency for International Development, Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and others.

And we then are working very closely with the U.S. embassies, with governments around the world to try to follow what is going on. We have laboratory facilities in some of those countries and we're in regular touch with them. In fact, even today, there was a concern that we had in which there had been a concern of a doctor may have become infected by a patient who died of H5N1. It turned out to be a false alarm, but that immediately caused us to call a U.S. Government laboratory in that country to find out exactly what was going on. So we're very much on top of this and there are many, many others in the world who are following this very closely.

MR. MCCORMACK: So this sounds like a pretty extensive effort. What sort of resources are we devoting to this? You know, you always hear from doctors and medical professionals that prevention is a big part of stopping something like this from happening, you know, getting on top of it quickly. So what sort of resources are we devoting to it?

AMBASSADOR LANGE: There's a whole domestic side of this which I will leave to the Department of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and others to talk about. But the -- on the international side, the world community and the donor governments and others have pledged a total so far of $2.3 billion for the international assistance to -- for countries on that. The United States Government is the largest donor and our pledge at this point is $434 million.

So we have a lot of programs that we're doing to -- and we're not just focusing on immediate concerns. If we had the opportunity to build some long-term capacity, we're trying to do that through our resources; improving laboratories, training veterinarians, helping countries to try to stamp out the Avian Influenza virus and to deal with the spread of the Avian Influenza, while at the same time, to prepare for a possible pandemic.

And that's one of the key distinctions. Avian Influenza is what is occurring in birds and particular chickens. We're concerned also about a possible human pandemic and once a pandemic begins and we hope it never does -- we're not sure that this will happen with this particular virus, but if it does happen, at that point, the focus is on the humans because you won't get sick from a chicken; you'll get sick from a human.

MR. MCCORMACK: So your office, then, could -- if you -- if there is any future threat from a different kind of virus, then your office would be responsible for preparing ourselves for a possible human pandemic, then?

AMBASSADOR LANGE: Yes, as long as we're around, although I have to say a good word -- our temporary office will be around for a few years, I assume, and the focus is really on this particular threat, because that's what has galvanized scientists and others because they're very concerned, the way this virus has spread, that the severity -- even though a relatively small number of people in the world have become infected from the virus because it's very hard to get -- you have to be very close to the chicken to be infected -- it's under 300 people in the world who become infected by this; over half of them have died. So it's very severe once one gets infected from this and if it ever mutates, we're very concerned.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Let me ask you on behalf of all the travelers out there, what can they do to protect themselves? We certainly -- we don't want to alarm people, but what can they do to be smart if they're going to countries where there is a proven presence of the H5N1? What steps do they need to take?

AMBASSADOR LANGE: The first thing I would do is to check with the United States Embassy and their website in terms of any notifications that have been sent from the consular section in terms of notices to any Americans who are living in the country or traveling to the country, because our embassies have been very much aware of this concern and they will provide advice.

And in countries that have endemic Avian Influenza, you just want to take some normal precautions, make sure that the chicken you're eating has been cooked to a proper temperature, which is 165 degrees Fahrenheit, make sure that if you deal with raw chicken, you're washing your hands with soap afterward, some basic precautions that one would take.

As I said, it's very hard to get the Avian Influenza from a chicken unless you're very close to it, but in the areas where there is widespread concern and where the disease is present, those precautions are warranted.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Ambassador Lange, thanks so much for joining us here at Coffee Break at the State Department. It's been very informative. And so people, if they want to get more up-to-date information, they can visit the embassy websites or get to them through state.gov?

AMBASSADOR LANGE: Well, there's another catch-all United States Government website that they may find very interesting. It's called state.gov/waterfall/www.pandemicflu.gov. And on that website, you can find the guidance that is provided by the Centers for Disease, Control, and Prevention; you can find information on the President's Initiative for the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza, which we work with other countries on, and many other activities. It's really a catch-all website that we have.

MR. MCCORMACK: It sounds like a great resource for people.

AMBASSADOR LANGE: That's what we try to do, a one-stop shopping for this.

MR. MCCORMACK: Good. Ambassador Lange, thanks so much for joining us.

AMBASSADOR LANGE: Thanks very much. # # #

Technorati Tags: 1918 Pandemic and Influenza Virus or CDC and Pandemic and Avian influenza or Bird Flu and H5N1 or adenovirus and recombinant or vaccines and Epidemiology or Human Pandemic and State Department

President Bush Discusses Comprehensive Immigration Reform VIDEO

President Bush Discusses Comprehensive Immigration Reform in Yuma, Arizona U.S. Border Patrol - Yuma Station Headquarters, Yuma, Arizona. FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Fact Sheet: Acting This Year to Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and In Focus: Immigration Reform, 10:21 A.M. MST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you all very much, please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome. Thanks for the warm weather. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Twenty-eight degrees in Washington.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, 28 degrees in Washington, that's right. I appreciate you sharing that with me. (Laughter.) Sometimes it's a little hotter than that in Washington. But I'm glad to be back here in Yuma.

Thank you so very much for your hospitality. Thanks for your service to the country. I appreciate so very much the work you're doing day and night to protect these borders. And the American people owe you a great debt of gratitude.

The Border Patrol is really an important agency. I know some people are wondering whether or not it makes sense to join the Border Patrol. My answer is, I've gotten to know the Border Patrol, I know the people serving in this fine agency --

I would strongly urge our fellow citizens to take a look at this profession. You're outdoors, you're working with good people, and you're making a solid contribution to the United States of America. And I want to thank you all for wearing the uniform and doing the tough work necessary, the work that the American people expect you to do.

Last May, I visited this section of the border, and it was then that I talked about the need for our government to give you the manpower and resources you need to do your job. We were understaffed here. We weren't using enough technology to enable those who work here to be able to do the job the American people expect. I Returned to check on the progress, to make sure that the check wasn't in the mail -- it, in fact, had been delivered.

I went to a neighborhood that abuts up against the border when I was here in May. It's the place where a lot of people came charging across. One or two agents would be trying to do their job and stopping a flood of folks charging into Arizona, and they couldn't do the job -- just physically impossible. Back at this site, there's now infrastructure, there's fencing. And the amount of people trying to cross the border at that spot is down significantly.

I appreciate very much Ron Colburn and Ulay Littleton. They gave me the tour. Colburn, as you know, is heading up north. He's going to miss the weather. More importantly, he's going to miss the folks he worked with down here. I appreciate both of their service, I appreciate the tour. The efforts are working -- this border is more secure, and America is safer as a result.

Securing the border is a critical part of a strategy for comprehensive immigration reform. It is an important part of a reform that is necessary so that the Border Patrol agents down here can do their job more effectively. Congress is going to take up the legislation on immigration. It is a matter of national interest and it's a matter of deep conviction for me. I've been working to bring Republicans and Democrats together to resolve outstanding issues so that Congress can pass a comprehensive bill and I can sign it into law this year. (Applause.)

I appreciate the hard work of Secretary Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I appreciate Commissioner Ralph Basham, he's the main man in charge of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. David Aguilar, Chief of the Border Patrol is with us. David, thank you for the job you're doing. Lieutenant General Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau. I want to thank the governor of the state of Arizona, Janet Napolitano. I appreciate you being here, Governor, thank you for taking time from the session to be down here. It means a lot when the governors take an active interest in what's going on in the borders of their respective states.

I appreciate so very much Senator John Kyl. Kyl is one of the most respected United States senators and I'm proud to be with him today -- and glad to give him a ride back to Washington, I might add. (Laughter.)

I appreciate members of the congressional delegation who have joined us: John Shadegg; Jeff Flake -- from Snowflake, Arizona, I want you to know -- and I appreciate you working on this immigration issue; Congressman Trent Franks, and Congressman Harry Mitchell. I appreciate you all taking time for being with me here today, it means a lot that you'd come.

I want to thank Senator Tim Bee, he's the president of the Arizona State Senate, for being here. Mr. Mayor, thank you for coming. Larry Nelson, the Mayor of Yuma, Arizona. I appreciate you being here, Mr. Mayor.

I do want to thank Major General David Ratacheck, the Adjutant General of the state of Arizona; thank all the local and state officials; and, most importantly, I want to thank the Border Patrol agents and I want to thank the National Guard folks for wearing the uniform. I am proud to be the Commander-in-Chief of all these units here today and I appreciate your service to the United States of America. (Applause.)

I hope by now the American people understand the need for comprehensive immigration reform is a clear need. Illegal immigration is a serious problem -- you know it better than anybody. It puts pressure on the public schools and the hospitals, not only here in our border states, but states around the country. It drains the state and local budgets. I was talking to the governor about how it strained the budgets. Incarceration of criminals who are here illegally strains the Arizona budget. But there's a lot of other ways it strains the local and state budgets. It brings crime to our communities.

It's a problem and we need to address it aggressively. This problem has been growing for decades, and past efforts to address it have failed. These failures helped create a perception that America was not serious about enforcing our immigration laws and that they could be broken without consequence. Past efforts at reform did not do enough to secure our nation's borders. As a result, many people have been able to sneak into this country.

If you don't man your borders and don't protect your borders, people are going to sneak in, and that's what's been happening for a long time. Past efforts at reform failed to address the underlying economic reasons behind illegal immigration. People will make great sacrifices to get into this country the find jobs and provide for their families.

When I was the governor of Texas I used to say family values did not stop at the Rio Grande River. People are coming here to put food on the table, and they're doing jobs Americans are not doing. And the farmers in this part of the world understand exactly what I'm saying. But so do a lot of other folks around the country. People are coming to work, and many of them have no lawful way to come to America, and so they're sneaking in.

Past efforts at reform also failed to provide sensible ways for employers to verify the legal status of the workers they hire. It's against the law to knowingly hire an illegal alien. And as a result, because they couldn't verify the legal status, it was difficult for employers to comply. It was difficult for the government to enforce the law at the work site. And, yet, it is a necessary part of a comprehensive plan. You see, the lessons of all these experiences -- the lesson of these experiences is clear: All elements of the issue must be addressed together. You can't address just one aspect and not be able to say to the American people that we're securing our borders.

We need a comprehensive bill, and that's what I'm working with members of Congress on, a comprehensive immigration bill. And now is the year to get it done. The first element, of course, is to secure this border. That's what I'm down here for, to remind the American people that we're spending their taxpayer -- their money, taxpayers' money, on securing the border. And we're making progress. This border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut down to criminals and drug dealers and terrorists and coyotes and smugglers, people who prey on innocent life.

We more than doubled the funding for border security since I've been the President. In other words, it's one thing to hear people come down here and talk; it's another thing for people to come down and do what they say they're going to do. And I want to thank Congress for working on this issue. The funding is increasing manpower. The additional funding is increasing infrastructure, and it's increasing technology.

When I landed here at the airport, the first thing I saw was an unmanned aerial vehicle. It's a sophisticated piece of equipment. You can fly it from inside a truck, and you can look at people moving at night. It's the most sophisticated technology we have, and it's down here on the border to help the Border Patrol agents do their job. We've expanded the number of Border Patrol agents from about 9,000 to 13,000, and by the end of 2008, we're going to have a total of more than 18,000 agents.

I had the privilege of going to Artesia, New Mexico, to the training center. It was a fantastic experience to see the young cadets getting ready to come and wear the green of the Border Patrol. By the time we're through, we will have doubled the size of the Border Patrol. In other words, you can't do the job the American people expect unless you got enough manpower, and we're increasing the manpower down here.

This new technology is really important to basically leverage the manpower. Whether it be the technology of surveillance and communication, we're going to make sure the agents have got what is necessary to be able to establish a common picture and get information out to the field as quickly as possible so that those 18,000 agents, when they're finally on station, can do the job the American people expect.

But manpower can't do it alone. In other words, there has to be some infrastructure along the border to be able to let these agents do their job. And so I appreciate the fact that we've got double fencing, all-weather roads, new lighting, mobile cameras. The American people have no earthly idea what's going on down here. One of the reasons I've come is to let you know, let the taxpayers know, the good folks down here are making progress.

We've worked with our nation's governors to deploy 6,000 National Guard members to provide the Border Patrol with immediate reinforcements. In other words, it takes time to train the Border Patrol, and until they're fully trained, we've asked the Guard to come down. It's called Operation Jump Start, and the Guard down here is serving nobly.

I had the chance to visit with some of the Guard, and Mr. Mayor, you'll be pleased to hear they like being down here in Yuma, Arizona. They like the people, and they like the mission. More than 600 members of the Guard are serving here in the Yuma Sector. And I thank the Guard, and, equally importantly, I thank their families for standing by the men and women who wear the uniform during this particular mission. You email them back home and tell them how much I appreciate the fact they're standing by you.

I appreciate very much the fact that illegal border crossings in this area are down. In the months before Operation Jump Start, an average of more than 400 people a day were apprehended trying to cross here. The number has dropped to fewer than 140 a day. In other words, one way that the Border Patrol can tell whether or not we're making progress is the number of apprehensions. When you're apprehending fewer people, it means fewer are trying to come across. And fewer are trying to come across because we're deterring people from attempting illegal border crossings in the first place.

I appreciate what Colburn said -- he puts it this way, they're watching -- "They see us watching them," that's what he said, "and they have decided they just can't get across." And that's part of the effort we're doing. We're saying we're going to make it harder for you, so don't try in the first place.

We're seeing similar results all across the southern border. The number of people apprehended for illegally crossing our southern border is down by nearly 30 percent this year. We're making progress. And thanks for your hard work. It's hard work, but necessary work.

Another important deterrent to illegal immigration is to end what was called catch and release. I know how this discouraged some of our Border Patrol agents. I talked to them personally. They worked hard to find somebody sneaking in the country, they apprehended them; the next thing they know, they're back in society on our side of the border. There's nothing more discouraging than have somebody risk their life or work hard and have the fruits of their labor undermined. And that's what was happening with catch and release. In other words, we'd catch people, and we'd say, show up for your court date, and they wouldn't show up for their court date. That shouldn't surprise anybody. But that's what was happening. And the reason why that was happening is because we didn't have enough beds to detain people

Now, most of the people we apprehend down here are from Mexico. About 85 percent of the illegal immigrants caught crossing into -- crossing this border are Mexicans -- crossing the southern border are Mexicans. And they're sent home within 24 hours. It's the illegal immigrants from other countries that are not that easy to send home.

For many years, the government didn't have enough space, and so Michael and I worked with Congress to increase the number of beds available. So that excuse was eliminated. The practice has been effectively ended. Catch and release for every non-Mexican has been effectively ended. And I want to thank the Border Patrol and the leaders of the Border Patrol for allowing me to stand up and say that's the case.

The reason why is not only do we have beds, we've expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. Now, these are non-Mexican illegal aliens that we've caught trying to sneak into our country. We're making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. I said we're going to effectively end catch and release, and we have. And I appreciate your hard work in doing that.

The second element of a comprehensive immigration reform is a temporary worker program. You cannot fully secure the border until we take pressure off the border. And that requires a temporary worker program. It seems to make sense to me that if you've got people coming here to do jobs Americans aren't doing, we need to figure out a way that they can do so in a legal basis for a temporary period of time. And that way our Border Patrol can chase the criminals and the drug runners, potential terrorists, and not have to try to chase people who are coming here to do work Americans are not doing.

If you want to take the pressure off your border, have a temporary worker program. It will help not only reduce the number of people coming across the border, but it will do something about the inhumane treatment that these people are subjected to. There's a whole smuggling operation. You know this better than I do. There's a bunch of smugglers that use the individual as a piece of -- as a commodity. And they make money off these poor people. And they stuff them in the back of 18-wheelers. And they find hovels for them to hide in. And there's a whole industry that has sprung up. And it seems like to me that since this country respects human rights and the human condition, that it be a great contribution to eliminate this thuggery, to free these people from this kind of extortion that they go through. And one way to do so is to say you can come and work in our country for jobs Americans aren't doing for a temporary period of time.

The third element of a comprehensive reform is to hold employers accountable for the workers they hire. In other words, if you want to make sure that we've got a system in which people are not violating the law, then you've got to make sure we hold people to account, like employers. Enforcing immigration is a vital part of any successful reform. And so Chertoff and his department are cracking down on employers who knowingly violate the law.

But not only are there coyotes smuggling people in, there are document forgers that are making a living off these people. So, in other words, people may want to comply with the law, but it's very difficult at times to verify the legal status of their employees. And so to make the work site enforcement practical on a larger scale, we have got to issue a tamper-proof identification card for legal foreign workers.

We must create a better system for employers to verify the he legality of the workers. In other words, we got work to do. And part of a comprehensive bill is to make sure work site enforcement is effective.

Fourth, we've got to resolve the status of millions of illegal immigrants already here in the country. People who entered our country illegally should not be given amnesty. Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. I oppose amnesty, and I think most people in the United States Congress oppose amnesty. People say, why not have amnesty? Well, the reason why is because 10 years from now you don't want to have a President having to address the next 11 million people who might be here illegally. That's why you don't want amnesty. And, secondly, we're a nation of law, and we expect people to uphold the law.

So we're working closely with Republicans and Democrats to find a practical answer that lies between granting automatic citizenship to every illegal immigrant and deporting every illegal immigrant.

It is impractical to take the position that, oh, we'll just find the 11 million or 12 million people and send them home. It's just an impractical position; it's not going to work. It may sound good. It may make nice sound bite news. It won't happen.

And, therefore, we need to work together to come up with a practical solution to this problem, and I know people in Congress are working hard on this issue. Illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, and pay their taxes, and learn the English language, and show work -- show that they've worked in a job for a number of years. People who meet a reasonable number of conditions and pay a penalty of time and money should be able to apply for citizenship. But approval would not be automatic, and they would have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law.

What I've described is a way for those who've broken the law to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

Finally, we have got to honor the tradition of the melting pot, and help people assimilate into our society by learning our history, our values and our language. Last June I created a new task force to look for ways to help newcomers assimilate and succeed in our country. Many organizations, from churches to businesses to civic associations, are working to answer this call, and I'm grateful for their service.

And so here are the outlines for a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It's an emotional issue, as I'm sure you can imagine. People have got deep convictions. And my hope is that we can have a serious and civil and conclusive debate. And so we'll continue to work with members of both political parties. I think the atmosphere up there is good right now. I think people generally want to come together and put a good bill together -- one, by the way, that will make your job a lot easier.

It's important that we address this issue in good faith. And it's important for people to listen to everybody's positions. It's important for people not to give up, no matter how hard it looks from a legislative perspective. It's important that we get a bill done. We deserve a system that secures our borders, and honors our proud history as a nation of immigrants.

And so I can't think of a better place to come and to talk about the good work that's being done and the important work that needs to be done in Washington, D.C., and that's right here in Yuma, Arizona, a place full of decent, hardworking, honorable people. May God bless you all. (Applause.)

END 10:45 A.M. MST.

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, April 9, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio or Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Biofuels: More than just ethanol

As the United States looks to alternate fuel sources, ethanol has become one of the front runners. Farmers have begun planting corn in the hopes that its potential new use for corn will be a new income source. What many don't realize, is the potential for other crops, besides corn, to provide an alternate energy source to fossil fuels. Scientists studied the greenhouse gas emissions and bioenergy of corn, hybrid poplar, switchgrass, and other crops to determine the efficiency of various biocrops in terms of energy consumption and energy output.

The study, "Net greenhouse gas flux of bioenergy cropping systems using Daycent", was completed by Paul Adler (United State Department of Agriculture - USDA), Stephen Del Grosso (USDA and Colorado State University), and William Parton (Colorado State University).

Results appear in the April issue of Ecological Applications. "Biofuels have a great potential to reduce our dependence on gasoline and diesel fuel," says Parton. "We have performed a unique analysis of the net biofuel greenhouse emissions from major biofuel cropping systems by combining ecosystem computer model data with estimates of the amount of fossil fuels used to grow and produce crop biofuels."

Adler, Del Grosso and Parton used the Daycent biogeochemistry model, developed by Parton and Del Grosso to asses greenhouse gas fluxes and biomass yields for corn, soybean, alfalfa, hybrid poplar, reed canary grass and switchgrass.

The results of the study showed that when compared with gasoline and diesel, ethanol and biodisel from corn and soybean rotations reduced greenhouse gas emissions by almost 40 percent, reed canarygrass by 85 percent. Greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by about 115 percent for switchgrass and hybrid poplar. Both switchgrass and hybrid poplar offset the largest amounts of fossil fuels reduced emissions compared to other biofuel crops and offset two times as much fossil fuels if they are used for electricity generation via biomass gasification.

Study results showed that nitrogen (N2O) emission resulting from production of the biofuel crops is the largest greenhouse gas source, while displaced fossil is the largest greenhouse gas sink followed by soil carbon sequestration.

This research shows that farmers will have a variety of biofuel crop options available in the future and that these biofuel crop rotations will have different environmental impacts. Detailed studies of the environmental impact of biofuel crops similar to this study need to be done at the regional and national levels before biofuel national policy decisions are finalized. ###

The Ecological Society of America (ESA) is a scientific, non-profit, 9700-member organization founded in 1915. Through ESA reports, journals, membership research, and expert testimony to Congress, ESA seeks to promote the responsible application of ecological data and principles to the solution of environmental problems. ESA publishes four scientific, peer-reviewed journals: Ecology, Ecological Applications, Ecological Monographs, and Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. For more information about the Society visit http://www.esa.org/.

Contact: Annie Drinkard annie@esa.org Web: Ecological Society of America

Photos Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Credit - Warren Gretz

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 or switchgrass and hybrid poplar

Freedom Calendar 04/07/07 - 04/14/07

April 7, 1862, President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade.

April 8, 1865, 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.

April 9, 1866, Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.

April 10, 1953, Oveta Culp Hobby, appointed by President Eisenhower, confirmed as first woman to be U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

April 11, 1908, Birth of Republican Jane Bolin, first African-American woman in nation to serve as judge, appointed by New York Mayor LaGuardia in 1939.

April 12, 1824, Birth of African-American U.S. Rep. Richard Cain (R-SC); served 1873-75 and 1877-79, securing passage of civil rights legislation.

April 13, 1933, Birth of Native American U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)

April 14, 1896, George Myers, nationally prominent African-American Republican, rallies southern blacks to support William McKinley, helping him win 1896 presidential nomination.

“We love freedom more, vastly more, than slavery; consequently we hope to keep clear of the Democrats!”

Rep. Joseph Rainey (R-SC), the first African-American in the U.S. House of Representatives (1870-79)

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or NAACP and Republicans or African-Americans and 13th Amendment or right to vote and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Brown v. Board of Education and Martin Luther King or Dred Scott

Bush radio address 04/07/07 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 04/07/07 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address . 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. This week, people around the world celebrate Passover and Easter. These holy days remind us of the presence of a loving God who delivers His people from oppression, and offers a love more powerful than death. We take joy in spending this special time with family and friends, and we give thanks for the many blessings in our lives.

One of our greatest blessings as Americans is that we have brave citizens who step forward to defend us. Every man or woman who wears our Nation's uniform is a volunteer, a patriot who has made the noble decision to serve a cause larger than self. This weekend, many of our service men and women are celebrating the holidays far from home. They are separated from their families by great distances, but they are always close in our thoughts. And this Passover and Easter, I ask you to keep them in your prayers.

Our men and women in uniform deserve the gratitude of every American. And from their elected leaders, they deserve something more: the funds, resources, and equipment they need to do their jobs.
Sixty-one days have passed since I sent Congress an emergency war spending bill to provide the funds our troops urgently need. But instead of approving that vital funding, Democrats in Congress have spent the past 61 days working to pass legislation that would substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our generals in the field.

In both the House and Senate, Democratic majorities have passed bills that would impose restrictions on our military commanders, set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq, and fund domestic spending that has nothing to do with the war. The Democrats who passed these bills know that I will veto either version if it reaches my desk, and they know my veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And now the process is on hold for two weeks, until the full Congress returns to session.

I recognize that Democrats are trying to show their current opposition to the war in Iraq. They see the emergency war spending bill as a chance to make that statement. Yet for our men and women in uniform, this emergency war spending bill is not a political statement, it is a source of critical funding that has a direct impact on their daily lives.

When Congress does not fund our troops on the front lines, our military is forced to make cuts in other areas to cover the shortfall. Military leaders have warned Congress about this problem. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pete Pace, recently testified that if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on training, equipment repair, and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. In a letter to Congress, Army Chief of Staff Pete Schoomaker put it this way: "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."

If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army will be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for depots where pivotal equipment is repaired, delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces, and delaying the formation of new brigade combat teams. The bottom line is that Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

The full Congress will not be back from spring vacation until the week of April 16th. That means the soonest the House and Senate could get a bill to my desk will be sometime late this month, after the adverse consequences for our troops and their families have already begun. For our troops, the clock is ticking. If the Democrats continue to insist on making a political statement, they should send me their bill as soon as possible. I will veto it, and then Congress can go to work on a good bill that gives our troops the funds they need, without strings and without further delay.

We have our differences in Washington, D.C., but our troops should not be caught in the middle. All who serve in elected office have a solemn responsibility to provide for our men and women in uniform. We need to put partisan politics aside, and do our duty to those who defend us.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, April 7, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Congress

Presidential Podcast 04/07/07

Presidential Podcast 04/07/07 . 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 Congress

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 04/07/07

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 04/07/07 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. Esta semana la gente alrededor del mundo celebra la Pascua Judía y la Pascua. Estas fiestas religiosas nos recuerdan de la presencia de un Dios cariñoso – que libra a Su gente de la opresión y ofrece un amor más fuerte que la muerte. Nos alegra pasar este tiempo especial con familia y amigos – y damos gracias por las muchas bendiciones en nuestras vidas.

Una de nuestras mayores bendiciones como estadounidenses es que tenemos ciudadanos valientes que toman un paso adelante para defendernos. Cada hombre o mujer que viste el uniforme de nuestra Nación es un voluntario – un patriota que ha tomado la noble decisión de servir una causa más grande que la de su propio ser. Este fin de semana, muchos de nuestros hombres y mujeres en las fuerzas armadas están celebrando las fiestas lejos de sus hogares. Están separados de sus familias por grandes distancias – pero siempre están cerca en nuestros pensamientos. Y esta Pascua y Pascua Judía, quiero pedirles a ustedes que los tengan en sus oraciones.

Nuestros hombres y mujeres en uniforme merecen la gratitud de cada estadounidense. Y de sus líderes electos merecen algo más – los fondos, los recursos y los equipos que necesitan para llevar a cabo sus deberes.

Han pasado sesenta y un días desde que yo envié al Congreso un proyecto de ley para gastos de guerra de emergencia para proporcionar los fondos que nuestras tropas necesitan con tanta urgencia. Pero en lugar de aprobar ese financiamiento vital, los Demócratas en el Congreso han pasado los últimos 61 días trabajando para aprobar legislación que sustituiría el juicio de los políticos en Washington por el juicio de nuestros generales en el terreno.

Tanto en la Cámara de Representantes como en el Senado, las mayorías demócratas han aprobado proyectos de ley que impondrían restricciones sobre nuestros comandantes militares… fijarían una fecha arbitraria para retirarnos de Irak… y financiarían gastos domésticos que no tienen nada que ver con la guerra. Los Demócratas que aprobaron estos proyectos de ley saben que yo vetaré cualquier versión que llegue a mi escritorio – y saben que mi veto se mantendrá. Sin embargo siguen hacia adelante con esa legislación. Y ahora el proceso está suspendido por dos semanas, hasta que el Congreso en pleno vuelva a reunirse.

Reconozco que los Demócratas están tratando de mostrar su oposición actual a la guerra en Irak. Ven al proyecto de ley para gastos de guerra de emergencia como una oportunidad de afirmar ese punto. Sin embargo, para nuestros hombres y mujeres en uniforme, este proyecto de ley para gastos de guerra de emergencia no es una declaración política – es la fuente de fondos fundamentales que tiene un impacto directo sobre sus vidas diarias.

Cuando el Congreso no aprueba fondos para nuestras tropas en el frente, nuestras fuerzas armadas se ven obligadas a hacer cortes en otras áreas para cubrir el déficit. Los líderes militares le han advertido al Congreso sobre este problema. El Presidente de la Junta de los Jefes del Estado Mayor, el General Pete Pace, recientemente declaró que si el Congreso no aprueba un proyecto de ley que yo pueda firmar hasta mediados de Abril, el ejército se verá obligado a considerar rebajas en entrenamiento, reparación de equipos y en la calidad de iniciativas de vida para nuestras fuerzas de Guardia y Reserva. En una carta al Congreso, el Jefe del Estado Mayor del Ejército, Pete Schoomaker dijo: “Sin la aprobación de fondos adicionales en abril, nos veremos obligados a tomar medidas cada vez más draconianas que tendrán un impacto sobre la preparación del Ejército e impondrán privaciones sobre nuestros soldados y sus familias”.

Si el Congreso no aprueba un proyecto de ley que yo pueda firmar hasta mediados de mayo, los problemas se harán aún más graves. El Ejército tendrá que considerar demorar o hasta congelar el financiamiento para depósitos donde se reparan equipos fundamentales… demorar o disminuir el entrenamiento de ciertas fuerzas activas… y demorar la formación de nuevos equipos de combate en brigada. El resultado final es que la falta del Congreso de financiar nuestras tropas significará que algunas de nuestras familias militares podrían esperar más para que sus seres queridos regresen del frente. Y otros podrían ver a sus seres queridos enviados de vuelta a la guerra más pronto de lo necesario. Para mí esto es inaceptable – y creo que es inaceptable para el pueblo estadounidense.

El Congreso en pleno no volverá de vacaciones hasta la semana del 16 de abril. Esto significa que lo más temprano que la Cámara y el Senado pudieran entregarme un proyecto de ley sería a fines de este mes – después de que las consecuencias adversas para nuestras tropas y sus familias hayan comenzado. Para nuestras tropas, el reloj no se detiene. Si los Demócratas siguen insistiendo en hacer una declaración política, deben enviarme su proyecto de ley lo más pronto posible. Yo lo vetaré y luego el Congreso puede ponerse a trabajar en un buen proyecto de ley que le de a nuestras tropas los fondos que necesitan – sin trabas y sin más demoras.

Tenemos nuestras diferencias en Washington, D.C. – pero nuestras tropas no deberían estar atrapadas en el medio. Todos los que sirven en posiciones electas tienen la responsabilidad solemne de mantener a nuestros hombres y mujeres en uniforme. Debemos poner a un lado la política partidaria – y cumplir con nuestro deber hacia quienes nos defienden.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata. Oficina del Secretario de Prensa. 7 de abril de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush

Blair Statement on Release of Sailors VIDEO TEXT

British P.M. Blair Statement on Release of Sailors FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Prime Minister Blair makes a statement about Iran’s release of 15 British Naval sailors and marines. 4/5/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 14 min. Artist - Source: C-SPAN Copyright: 2007 National Cable Satellite Corporation

Tony Blair:

Good Morning to you. Just as we rejoice at the return of our 15 Service personnel, so today we are also grieving and mourning for the loss of our soldiers in Basra who were killed as a result of a terrorist act. So on the one hand we are glad that our Service personnel returned safe and unharmed from their captivity, but on the other we return to the sober and ugly reality of what is happening through terrorism in Iraq, terrorism designed specifically to thwart the will of the international community because our forces are there with full United Nations authority, and thwart, obviously, the will of the democratically elected government of Iraq that wants us there.

Now it is far too early to say that the particular terrorist act that killed our forces was an act committed by terrorists who were backed by any elements of the Iranian regime, so I make no allegation in respect of that particular incident, but the general picture, as I have said before, is that there are elements, at least, of the Iranian regime that are backing, financing, arming, supporting terrorism in Iraq and I repeat that our forces are there specifically at the request of the Iraqi government and with the full authority of the United Nations.

This is maybe the right moment to reflect on our relationship with Iran and over the past two weeks we have pursued very much a dual track strategy - being open to bilateral dialogue with the Iranian regime but at the same time mobilising international support and pressure, whether in the United Nations or Europe, the United States of America or our allies out in the region. And in my view it would be utterly naïve to think that our personnel would have been released unless both elements of the strategy had been present.

And that I think has got to continue to be our strategy in dealing with Iran. It is correct that over the past couple of weeks there have been new and interesting lines of communication open up with the Iranian regime and it is sensible for us to continue to pursue those. However, the international community has got to remain absolutely steadfast in enforcing its will, whether it is in respect of nuclear weapons or in respect of the support of any part of the Iranian regime for terrorism, particularly when directed against democratic governments. And the choice in a sense is a choice that has to be made by Iran because as I have said before, and I say again, the possibility of a different relationship with the international community is there, but it has to be based on proper support for the law of that community and the choice in the end is one that Iran will have to make.

Once again let me repeat my profound sympathy for the families of the soldiers that have lost their lives, they are very brave and committed people who are doing such vital and important work out there.

Question:

Prime Minister, could I ask you personally, how uneasy you felt watching that stage managed press conference yesterday? Would you agree that Iran and the Iranian President could come out the winners?

Tony Blair:

First of all I don't think really people are taken in much by the theatre, I think certainly our own public and international community are sufficiently intelligent to realise what was happening there. I think what is more important is to recognise though that it was only by being calm and firm at the same time that we managed to come through this with the personnel being released, and I don't really want to comment on what President Ahmadinejad said. In the end I am afraid when you are the Prime Minister and you have got 15 of your Service personnel and their families in a state of the most acute anxiety, they should come first. And I think what has actually happened is that we have managed to secure the release of our personnel I think more quickly than many people anticipated, and have done so incidentally, and I want to make this very, very clear, without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature whatever. We made it clear at the outset we weren't going to do that and we held firm to that position throughout.

Question:

It sounds unfortunately like despite the fact that these personnel are returning as we speak, it is back to business as usual, pointing the finger again at Tehran's involvement with Shia militia in the south of Iraq. It doesn't sound as though frankly, despite the diplomatic channels between here and Tehran, that much has changed in your view?

Tony Blair:

Well I think that the reality is these events show us that yes of course we are glad that our Service personnel have been returned safe and unharmed, but there is a continuing attempt by terrorism to stop our forces carrying out what is a task and a duty they are performing with the full support of the United Nations and at the request of the democratically elected Iraqi government. And therefore the position that we have to have is to say at the same time as we are open to bilateral dialogue, and to pursue the lines of communication that have opened up in the last two weeks, we have to hold absolutely firm on the position of the international community in relation to support by any elements of the Iranian regime for terrorism. There can be no possible justification for this.

And one of the reasons why it is so important that at the same time as we say look there is a different relationship there available to Iran if it wants it, we also say but we will not tolerate attempts by terrorism to kill our forces, attempts to support terrorism around the world, or attempts to secure nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community's will.

And let me make it clear to the Iranian people yet again, we have no quarrel with the Iranian people at all, and indeed in respect of the nuclear ambitions of Iran, if the ambition, as they say it is, is for civil nuclear power and for scientific progress, let me make it clear the international community stands ready to help Iran with that, not merely to allow Iran to develop civil nuclear capability, but to help in the development of that civil nuclear capability, but obviously we have to make sure that the non-proliferation aspects of the international treaties that govern the issue of nuclear weapons are upheld. And so in a sense you are right, it is a moment when we reflect on our joy at the return, unharmed, of our personnel, but as I said earlier the ugly and sober reality of attempts by terrorism to stop the democratic will of the Iraqi people and the international community's will being properly upheld.

Question:

Prime Minister, President Ahmadinejad talked about a letter from the British authorities making a promise about not going into Iranian waters in future. You say there have been no negotiations, no deal, has there been any understanding reached. Is there any linkage with the Iranians being held by US authorities in Iraq, and are there going to be any follow-up talks about the question of boundaries between Iranian waters and Iraqi waters?

Tony Blair:

Well these are two quite separate questions. It has always been our position that we acknowledge that our forces should not be in Iranian waters, obviously it is our contention that they weren't, so that is, as it were, nothing new. But let me make it absolutely clear, no there are no agreements about any Iranian elements that may be held in Iraq because they are being held in Iraq as the result of the wrongful interference with the business of Iraq. But you know, I would like to return to the point that I made earlier because over these past couple of weeks it is correct to say that there are channels of communication that have opened up that have not been available to us in the same way before, and I am not just content, I think it is sensible that we pursue those channels of communication.

But in the end there can't be any misunderstanding as to the basis upon which that communication takes place. If Iran has genuine concerns about the region, and of course it is absolutely right, it is of vital strategic interest to them and the region, if they have concerns about their interests in the region or concerns about aspects of what is happening there, these are things that can be discussed, not just with us but with the international community. But what you cannot have, and as I say I make no allegation about this particular incident, but what you cannot have is a situation where there is an attempt to subvert the will of the democratically elected government in Iraq or the international community. Now we need to have that dialogue on that very clear basis.

Question:

Now our 15 personnel are home, is there anything that you now think could have been done differently to get them home sooner? Would you still have pursued the UN route, which seems to have angered the Iranians. And after all it was Nigel Sheinwald that seemed to hold the key to unlocking this crisis, not the Foreign Secretary.

Tony Blair:

Well first of all let me knock on the head very firmly any notion that had we simply sat back and not mobilised the international community, the support of Europe, the United Nations, the United States of America, other partners out in the region, we would be in a better position. These are judgments that you make. My judgment is that it would be extraordinarily naïve to think that is the case. Now in the end, yes it was a bilateral dialogue that resolved this, but I think the dual track of having international pressure mobilised and the door opened to that dialogue, without any deals, without any negotiation, I think it was the dual track that delivered this.

But you know these are judgments people make, but my experience of these situations is that you need to create the context in which you are likely to get the best outcome in a bilateral way. And in respect of Margaret and the Foreign Office, they were absolutely crucial throughout this, and it is not surprising that you have also got in an issue of such importance, particularly when the President of Iran is engaged himself, that you have the head of government here engaged also.

Question:

How can you ensure this doesn't happen again, given that you clearly maintain that they would still maintain that they were doing a job that they were mandated to do by the UN?

Tony Blair:

Well I am sure that the Royal Navy will look at the situation very carefully, although incidentally I totally support the action that they took, and indeed the actions that the personnel took at the time, for the reasons I gave at the time. And remember these types of events where they would go and board a vehicle in order to make sure precisely that we protect the integrity of Iraq, this type of situation they have been doing hundreds of times and there was nothing in particular to lead them to think that this was going to be any different. So I think some of the criticism that has been directed is actually misplaced, but obviously the Navy will go back over the incident and analyse it carefully.

Question:

Were you surprised in any way by the confessions, whatever degree of duress there was for the captives held, and have you any suspicions about how those confessions were obtained?

Tony Blair:

Well I think that is far too early to say and I have no doubt there will be a full debrief, but I don't think anyone who has watched these types of situations was very surprised by any of that.

Question:

What about the training for the British forces in the future who may find themselves captives?

Tony Blair:

I think that is a matter for the Armed Forces rather than me.

Question:

Inaudible.

Tony Blair:

No, I think they will obviously be looked after now by the Navy and by the Armed Forces and that I think is very much as it should be.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Prime Minister Tony Blair and United Kingdom or Great Britain and 10 Downing Street or release of UK sailors and Iran or Margaret Beckett

National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day, 2007

National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day, 2007, A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

The men and women of the United States Armed Forces have made great sacrifices to defend our Nation. They have triumphed over brutal enemies, liberated continents, and answered the prayers of millions around the globe.

On National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day, we honor the brave individuals who put service above self and were taken captive while protecting America and advancing the cause of freedom.

Throughout our Nation's conflicts, American prisoners of war have defied ruthless enemies and endured tremendous hardships as they braved captivity. Their strength showed the power and resilience of the American spirit and the indomitable character of our men and women in uniform. Their sacrifices are a great example of courage, devotion, and love of country.

Our Nation's former prisoners of war have helped secure the priceless gift of freedom for all our citizens, and we will always be grateful to them and their families. On National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day and throughout the year, we honor the American heroes who have been taken as prisoners of war and remember their legacy of bravery and selflessness.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 9, 2007, as National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day. I call upon the people of the United States to join me in honoring the service and sacrifices of all American prisoners of war. I call upon Federal, State, and local government officials and private organizations to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH # # #

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, April 5, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day and United States Armed Forces

The White House Easter Egg Roll VIDEO

The annual White House Easter Egg Roll will be held Monday, April 9 from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on the South Lawn of the White House. Activities on the Ellipse begin at 7:30 a.m. with food and entertainment. Children age seven and under can participate in the egg roll on the South Lawn. For all family members, there will be live entertainment from Sesame Street, Miley Cyrus who stars in the hit series Hannah Montana, and several other stage performances. Families can also enjoy animal introductions from Peter Gros from Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom.

>

Special guest readers include NASCAR driver Kasey Kahne, children’s book authors Michelle Knudsen and Mary Pope Osborne, author and illustrator David Wiesner, Olympic medalist Kerri Strug and actor Stephen Baldwin. Shrek, Bugs Bunny, Charlie Brown, Clifford the Big Red Dog, the Official White House Easter Bunnies and many other strolling characters will also entertain children on the South Lawn.

The National Park Service will distribute free tickets on two dates for entry to the South Lawn. The majority of tickets will be available beginning at 7:30 a.m. on Saturday, April 7, and a small allotment of tickets will be available beginning at 7:30 a.m. on Monday, April 9. The tickets, which are timed for entrance, will be distributed on a first-come basis at the Ellipse Visitor Pavilion (southwest corner of 15th and E Streets). A maximum of five tickets will be issued per person. Children of all ages are welcome to attend, as long as there is at least one child seven years old or under and no more than two adults per group. Tickets are required for every attendee, including small children, to enter the White House South Lawn. No tickets are necessary for access to the events on the Ellipse.

Baby strollers and wheelchairs will be permitted on the South Lawn; however, outside food, coolers and lawn chairs will not be allowed on the White House grounds. In order to facilitate entry into the event, guests should limit carry-in items. All public entry into the Egg Roll will begin on the Ellipse. Guests will be escorted to the South Lawn per their designated ticket time. Parking will not be available near the White House and the use of public transportation is strongly encouraged. The closest Metro stops are Federal Triangle and Metro Center.

In case of inclement weather, the event will be canceled.

For the most up-to-date information on the White House Easter Egg Roll and other public events at the White House, please call the Visitors Office 24-hour information line at (202) 456-7041. To learn more about the White House Easter Egg Roll, please visit whitehouse.gov/easter/2007/.

The story of the White House Easter Egg Roll, (FULL STREAMING VIDEO) which begins at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue and continues at the other, is one of the oldest and most unique traditions in presidential history.

Rolling eggs on the Monday after Easter was a tradition observed by many Washington families, including those of the President. Some historians believe Dolley Madison first suggested the idea of a public egg roll, while others tell stories of informal egg-rolling parties at the White House dating back to President Lincoln's day.

Public egg-rolling celebrations, however, were held not at the White House, but on the grounds of the Capitol. Press accounts from as early as 1872 recount stories of Washington children of all ages joining together to roll eggs on the congressional grounds.

The children of Washington apparently caused such a ruckus on the Capitol grounds in 1876 that Congress passed the Turf Protection Law to prohibit the area from being used as a playground in future years. The event was rained out in 1877, but in 1878 the children were alerted by a small notice in the local newspaper informing them that the egg rollers would not be allowed at the Capitol that year.

Two versions of the story follow: Either the angry rollers rushed to the gates of the White House and demanded that they be let in to roll their eggs on the President's lawn or President Rutherford B. Hayes, alerted to the plight of the children, opened the gates to the South Lawn and welcomed all the rollers to his end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Either way, the first White House Easter Egg Roll was held in 1878.

Over the years, the Egg Rolls have evolved and changed, with different games and amusements popular in different years. Near the end of the nineteenth century, children played "Egg Picking," "Egg Ball," "Toss and Catch, " and "Egg Croquet." Soon the event evolved into a more elaborate affair, with bands, entertainers and food.

John Philip Sousa and "The President's Own" Marine Band performed for the assembled crowd, while vendors of all kinds sold their goods in 1889. Forty years later, Lou Hoover, wife of President Herbert Hoover, instituted folk and maypole dances to complement the egg-rolling but, perhaps because of the combination of stomping feet and boiled eggs, the practices were not continued for long.

At her first Egg Roll in 1933, Eleanor Roosevelt greeted visitors and listeners alike for the first time over the radio, on a nationwide hookup. She also introduced more organized games, but it was not until 1974 when the most famous event of modern Easter Egg Rolls, the egg-rolling race, was introduced with spoons borrowed from the White House kitchen.

Subsequent celebrations included a circus and petting zoo in 1977 and exhibits of antique cars, Broadway shows and giant balloons in 1981. Egg hunt pits were introduced in 1981. Children would search straw pits for autographed wooden eggs.

Presidents and their families have long enjoyed the White House's largest public celebration, and it has been customary, from the outset, for Presidents, First Ladies, their children, grandchildren and pets to attend the festivities. Among the most eagerly anticipated guests each year, of course, is the Easter Bunny.

The White House Easter Bunny, usually a White House staffer dressed in a special White House rabbit suit, was introduced by Pat Nixon, wife of President Richard Nixon, in 1969. Strict guidelines prohibit the bunny from being seen without his costume head, but the identity of the staffer inside is revealed every once in a while. Perhaps the most famous bunny of all was the wife of President Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese III. Ursula Meese so enjoyed the role that she performed for six seasons, earning her the nickname "The Meester Bunny."

On occasion, the Easter Egg Roll has been cancelled, either due to inclement weather or in times of war. At these times, it is sometimes relocated to another Washington site, such as the National Zoo or even back to the Capitol. The longest hiatus was for World War II, followed by a White House renovation. When President Eisenhower reintroduced the Egg Roll in 1953, a whole generation of children had never experienced this treasured tradition.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Easter Egg Roll and Dolley Madison or Public egg-rolling celebrations and Egg Picking or Egg Croquet and Easter Bunny or South Lawn and VIDEO

Tony Blair on release of UK sailors FULL TEXT

I am glad that our 15 service personnel have been released. I know their release will come as a profound relief, not just to them but to their families that have endured such distress and anxiety over these past 12 days.

Throughout we have taken a measured approach, firm but calm, not negotiating, but not confronting either. I would like to thank our allies in Europe, our allies in the United Nations Security Council, for their support and also our friends and allies in the region who played their part. We are grateful to all of them as we are to the officials in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence and here in Downing Street for the work that they have done.

And to the Iranian people I would simply say this, we bear you no ill will. On the contrary, we respect Iran as an ancient civilisation, as a nation with a proud and dignified history and the disagreements that we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully, through dialogue. I hope, as I have always hoped, that in the future we are able to do so.

That is all that I have got to say for this evening. Thank you very much indeed.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Prime Minister Tony Blair and United Kingdom or Great Britain and 10 Downing Street or release of UK sailors and Iran or Margaret Beckett

Freedom Journal Iraq 04/04/07 VIDEO

Freedom Journal Iraq, 04 April 2007 - A daily news program produced by American Forces Network Iraq. The program focuses on military missions, operations and U.S. military forces in Iraq.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dr. Robert M. Gates and Secretary of Defense or U.S. Central Command and CENTCOM or Pentagon and Freedom Journal Iraq or video and U.S. military forces or military