MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. I don't have anything to start off with, no opening statements, so we can get right into the questioning.

QUESTION: I have nothing to start off with, Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Surprising.

QUESTION: Second day in a row.

MR. MCCORMACK: Wow. Okay. All right, good.

QUESTION: Musharraf attending the jirga -- (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: I understand that Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz is going to be representing the Pakistani Government at the jirga and that President Musharraf and President Karzai have talked. I can't tell you if President Musharraf has any plans to attend the jirga or not, but they are going to be represented at a high level and every indication is that President Karzai understands President Musharraf's need to stay back in Islamabad at this time.

What's important here is that you have the support of both presidents for this process, and it's something that President Bush encouraged both the leaders to lend their support to when they were here last. And you now see the realization of that idea that they first talked about back here in Washington at Camp David.

So it's the start of a process. It's going to be important in order for it to work and produce results that both the presidents and both the leaders continue to support it, whether they are actually there or not. I don't think there's any question about President Musharraf's support for the process.

QUESTION: So you're not disappointed that Musharraf is not going?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think, you know, President Musharraf certainly has -- certainly wouldn't stay back in Islamabad if he didn't believe he had good and compelling reasons to stay back. Certainly, we would understand that. He's the president of the country; he has to make these kinds of decisions.

Again, I'd just underline the fact that he did talk to President Karzai and he did indicate his continuing support for the process, and I think that's what's important.

QUESTION: And have you contacted either President Musharraf or other members of the Pakistani Government and do you understand what are his reasons for choosing not to go?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll let President Musharraf speak for himself.

QUESTION: Sean, this morning you basically -- you indicated the possibility that at least Musharraf may attend some portions of the meeting.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'll leave it to the Pakistanis. I don't know that. At this point, I think Prime Minister Aziz is going to be representing the Pakistani Government, but I don't know if President Musharraf has any plans at this point to attend.

QUESTION: The Afghan presidency has basically expressed some disappointment over Musharraf's absence based on reports we have received from Kabul. What have you got to say?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll -- again, I'll let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: The U.S. clearly has an interest in this and --

MR. MCCORMACK: We have an interest in seeing the process move forward, and it is.

QUESTION: In the world of diplomatic back and forth, isn't it possible that this rebuff by Musharraf will undercut possible results?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, here we go using the word "rebuff." The two presidents have talked about this and I'm sure that they have an understanding of the motivations and the reasons for President Musharraf staying back in Islamabad for this particular meeting.

Look, the -- in terms of diplomacy, the process is moving forward, and that's what's important. Both of them have an interest in seeing this process succeed and they both have an interest in seeing greater cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan in fighting violent extremism. It's important to the future of both countries and I think they understand what is at stake, and that understanding is manifested by the fact that this meeting is moving forward.

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to --

QUESTION: Sean, (inaudible). I mean, when this was first announced, if I'm not mistaken, it was -- I think it was actually in Washington, wasn't it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, it was.

QUESTION: When they had met together with the President?

MR. MCCORMACK: It was.

QUESTION: That was preceded by a period of just very public sniping between the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- two presidents.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And it was, as I recall, the fact of the holding of the jirga was held up as an example of, well, you know, despite the sniping, they're clearly trying to work together on stuff.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Didn't you want him to go?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think just in that narrative, you point out the fact that qualitatively we see a change here, a change in the relationship in which you see the two sides working together. Previously where you saw a little bit of back and forth in the media and behind the scenes, you see a lot less of that and now you actually see them meeting together. So I think qualitatively you are seeing some improvement in the relationship, but look, I'm sure there are going to be differences. You know, one meeting isn't going to resolve the various differences that they either have or might come up in the future.

But what is important is that you now have a mechanism in place to deal with these differences and hopefully you will see some positive results in terms of a different kind of atmosphere coming out of this meeting. I can't tell you that there are going to be -- you're going to resolve all the differences at this meeting. You're not. But it is -- it's the beginning of a process and that's very positive.

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Two days ago, this -- it was a go, the two top guys from these --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- two critically important countries were --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- going to meet. When did you learn of President Musharraf's decision not to --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know exactly. I think it was probably within the past 24 hours or so.

QUESTION: And your understanding is that President Musharraf talk -- and Presidents Karzai and Musharraf spoke?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes. I think they --

QUESTION: When?

MR. MCCORMACK: Recently. I can't tell you exactly when, but I think President Musharraf --

QUESTION: Before or after the decision --

MR. MCCORMACK: It was before.

QUESTION: So your understanding is that Musharraf called --

MR. MCCORMACK: But they have -- they have put out a statement. President Musharraf's office has put out a statement.

QUESTION: Yeah -- no, I'm aware of that. But your understanding is that President Musharraf called President Karzai and said, look, I'm sorry, I can't make it -- before it became public.

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't do a tick-tock for you, Matt. I don't know.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any reactions to the fact that delegates from the Waziristan region are not showing up? I mean, that's a very volatile area.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, you know, they have a -- the Waziristan -- Waziristan is a place that has not traditionally been a place that has -- that he did all the calls of the central government in Pakistan. That's part of the issue here, is how do you deal with those Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

QUESTION: Isn't that the whole point of this conference; to have representatives from that area particularly to be there? I mean, that's --

MR. MCCORMACK: No. That is -- that's not the whole point of the conference. Obviously, you want to have as much participation and buy-in to the process as you can. In any process, it doesn't -- you don't necessarily have all the pieces in place that you necessarily want in order to achieve all the objectives that you have. But this is the start of it. It's important that you do have the buy-in of both of the central governments. And you're going to need to bring in all the elements in order to resolve the critical issue of fighting violent extremism. How do you fight the threat posed by the Taliban and al-Qaida and other violent extremists both to Pakistan and into Afghanistan? There's a mutual interest there.

QUESTION: Certainly, you want to see as much buy-in as possible. You're not particularly happy that President Musharraf is blowing this thing off, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, look, we've gone over this --

QUESTION: I understand, but there's a symbolic value to the head of state showing up.

MR. MCCORMACK: I think the President -- obviously, President Musharraf has good reason for deciding that he was going to stay back in Islamabad.

QUESTION: Do you know what that reason is?

MR. MCCORMACK: We are -- certainly. Certainly, we have talked to President Musharraf. We've talked to President Karzai as well. I am not going to be the spokesman for President Musharraf.

Anyone else on this? Okay, great.

QUESTION: On Iraq.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Iraq and Turkey, in Ankara, signed an MOU against terrorism yesterday.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But it fell short of a full counterterrorism agreement which could take effects very shortly. Any comments?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think this was a very positive step. Again, we move to another geographic region dealing with a similar kind of problem, which you have violent extremists -- in this case, a terrorist group, PKK -- operating in a territory that leads to -- into another country. And you need to, jointly, between those two countries, deal with it. And we're trying to help those two countries deal with it, both Iraq and Turkey. We've made some progress in that regard.

But what's heartening about this is that this is now Turkey and Iraq directly engaging on the issue of fighting the PKK at the highest levels. And you now have buy-in at the highest levels to jointly work on the issue of fighting the PKK. So a very, very positive step. Again, a first step and there should be more to follow. And what is important after this is that flowing from the political commitment, that you actually have actions on the ground that address the threat from the PKK. It's in the interest of both countries, Turkey and Iraq, to fight this problem. They're neighbors, that's not going to change. So it's positive that they are now working through political channels to deal with what is a security threat to both sides.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR. MCCORMACK: Hold on. Did you have a follow-up?

QUESTION: A follow-up on the Kurdish matter.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Saturday in The Washington Times, there was an interview with the leader of Pejak, which is seen as the Iranian arm of the PKK. And that guy, Mr. Rahman Haj-Ahmadi was asking for U.S. military and financial help in their efforts to topple the Tehran regime. Now, what's the U.S. position on Pejak or do you have any relations --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll have to --

QUESTION: -- any contacts, and how can this guy openly visit Washington?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I have to get you answer. I honestly don't know. We'll post an answer up for you.

QUESTION: Post an answer.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we’ll post an answer for you.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Sean, since you raised the similarity between the Turks and the Iraqis and the Pakistanis and the Afghans, with my apologies to Tom, you talked about buy-in at the highest level in terms of Turkey and Iraq. Why do you think you're not seeing buy-in at the highest level on the other one -- the other part of your equation?

MR. MCCORMACK: We do. That's exactly my point.

QUESTION: Well -- but you don't, though.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, you do. Yes, you do. They've both explicitly stated their support for this process. Now, look President Musharraf had to make a decision, and I will let the Pakistani Government and President Musharraf's office talk about his decision to stay back in Islamabad. But still, you have the Prime Minister of Pakistan at this jirga. I think it was a clear indication -- a clear indication -- that Pakistan fully supports this process as does Afghanistan. Anything else on this?

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: On North and South Korea summit. Could we get something on camera regarding how you view the summit and could you elaborate a bit further than you did this morning, perhaps?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know how much more I'll elaborate. But look, we have always encouraged dialogue between the North and the South, and we have encouraged that engagement. This is certainly a welcome and positive step in the context of that engagement. And I would expect that this is in no way detracts from the efforts in the six-party talks to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. And then ultimately have North Korea realize a different kind of relationship, not only with its neighbors, but the rest of the world.

QUESTION: And just to follow up, you said that you don't expect to detract from the six-party talks. But in the past at these kind of summits, North Korea has received substantial amounts of economic aid, would you be happy with something like an arrangement like that again, outside of the context of the six-party talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I think the center of gravity of everybody's diplomatic efforts here really is in the six-party talks. You have South Korea, Japan, Russia, China, the United States and it would seem, North Korea, invested in this diplomatic process. Now, there's still some answers -- questions that need to be answered in terms of whether or not North Korea has truly made that strategic decision to give up its nuclear programs. We'll see about that. But I think that's where the real center of gravity of everybody's diplomatic efforts are. That isn't to say that, you know, South Korea should not pursue this engagement with North Korea, not at all. We -- that is something that we have for quite some time supported as we do this current effort.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Washington Post reports today that the Bush Administration is close to completing a multiyear aid agreement to combat narcotics in Mexico. Is that true and, if so, does this effort reflect any kind of a qualitative change in the U.S.-Mexican relationship on counternarcotics work?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, in terms of the dialogue, at this point, I'm not going to get into the details of discussions that we have going on with the Mexican Government. We are talking to them about how it is that we might fight this common problem. It's a problem for Mexico, it's a problem for the United States. And inasmuch as it is a problem for both countries, the solution lies both in the -- with the United States and with Mexico.

President Calderon has taken a brave and firm stance in fighting these drug cartels, fighting the -- all the activities associated with the production and transit of illicit narcotics. And we want to talk to him about how we can support that effort and that's really the focus of the ongoing discussions. We're engaging Congress on this, briefing -- updating them on where we stand in those discussions. But it's -- we're not at the point right now where we're prepared to go into the details of those discussions. But they're ongoing.

QUESTION: Does the support include financial support?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to get into it beyond even the most general description of it. When the discussions have ripened a bit more and we're ready on both sides to talk about it, we'll have more information for you. But at the moment, we can't say that.

QUESTION: Can you -- just to put credit where credit is due on this, there's been three stories about this -- The Washington Post being the last of the three. The weekend -- over the weekend McClatchy reported this exact same thing and then the Christian Science Monitor did as well. Of the three stories, which would you say comes closest? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: (Laughter.) You know, that's more -- if you go on to -- go on the internet, Matt, there's -- you now have the capability yourself, as well as everybody else in this room, to rate stories or go to digg.com and del.icio.us and so forth. So I'll go ahead and rate --

QUESTION: Which would you rate highest?

MR. MCCORMACK: I will go ahead and rate my -- rate the stories anonymously. I'm not going to do so from the podium here.

QUESTION: Would you object to the idea -- would you object to suggestions of what we're talking about, what you're talking about with them would involve hundreds of millions of dollars in either cash or kind?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not going to go there at this point.

QUESTION: So it might not include money at all? Is that what you're saying?

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, like I said, I'm only going to speak about it in the most general terms at this point.

Anything else on this topic? Yeah, you've been waiting. There you go.

QUESTION: A China trade question. The Associated Press is reporting that a million pounds of suspect seafood from China has gotten past the FDA inspection and has gotten onto store shelves and people's tables. And this may well result in further calls for a crackdown on Chinese imports. There's a story out of London today that Chinese officials are sending the message that they might consider using their $1.3 trillion in foreign reserves to try to counter any pressure like that. Is there concern here at the State Department that there could be some economic retaliation from China if, indeed, any sorts of crackdowns on their products? There is --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I think -- I'm not going to venture out of my lane on this one. Inasmuch as you're talking about -- you know, talking about issues related to the Department of Treasury and buying Treasury bonds and the sale of those bonds, I'm going to kick that question over to my friends at the Department of Treasury.

QUESTION: But are you hearing anything from the Chinese at all about countering with pressure? Certainly would have a --

MR. MCCORMACK: Not going to --

QUESTION: -- widespread economic impact.

MR. MCCORMACK: Not going to venture into those waters.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Sean, has the Office of the Inspector General carried out or commissioned any evacuation plans of the embassies in Baghdad and Kabul, as has been reported in -- on the internet?

MR. MCCORMACK: The OIG? I don't talk about the OIG and their activities.

QUESTION: Has the State Department carried out -- if you want to broaden it out to any other branches in the State Department?

MR. MCCORMACK: (Laughter.) Look, one of the Secretary's most important responsibilities worldwide is to make sure that our people are protected as best we can. And she want -- she expects that each ambassador, each security officer, and then the relevant offices back here in the State Department, ensure that under any given circumstance that our people are protected as best we possibly can.

QUESTION: So this would include contingency planning for -- I'm not talking about these embassies, but for all embassies.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I understand. I understand it, Matt. Look, there are --

QUESTION: If you suddenly had to evacuate Ottawa, are you ready?

MR. MCCORMACK: (Laughter.) I am fully confident that our folks, working with other elements of the U.S. Government, are fully prepared to address whatever contingencies might arise.

Yeah. Let's go to Charlie here.

QUESTION: Different subject. This morning, the senior Cuban diplomat in Washington addressed the back and forth that's been going on about processing visas in Havana.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And said the State Department was "lying" about the reasons for the problem. And I wondered if you would care to address that accusation and/or explain why you haven't fulfilled the 20,000 allocation.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think we are -- at some point, I can't remember when, within the past month or -- within the past month or two, I actually went through and gave a pretty lengthy explanation of the issue; and it's in the transcripts. I can't repeat that performance off the top of my head, I'm sad to say.

QUESTION: It was just the other day.

MR. MCCORMACK: (Laughter.) Yeah, there we are.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: So, you know, take a look back at the transcript, Charlie. What we did is we presented the facts. We gave a very clear explanation, the accusations of this particular individual notwithstanding.

Okay.

QUESTION: Japan's main opposition leader is basically rejecting a personal appeal from the U.S. Ambassador in Tokyo to support U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, we very much appreciate the fact that Japan has made some real contributions in the war against terrorism, whether that's with respect to Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere around the globe. And we very much appreciate what the Japanese Government and the Japanese people have done. Of course, any decisions about Japan's engagement -- what kind of engagement, level of engagement they have -- is going to be completely up to the Japanese Government and Japanese people. But I can say, to date, certainly, we very much appreciate what they've done.

QUESTION: But are you not worried that Japan, being a key ally of the U.S., with the opposition controlling the upper house, there could be a prospect of a delay in deployment of Japanese forces in Afghanistan, for example, especially when the bill comes up in November, which is about two, three months away?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Again, this is going to be a decision for them to take internally. And certainly, we would encourage Japan as well as others to contribute -- to continue with the contributions that they have made. But it's going to be completely up to them.

Okay.

QUESTION: Two quick ones. Do you have any more information now than you did this morning about the missile incident between Georgia and Russia?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, nothing more now.

QUESTION: Okay. And then did you get anything on the Zimbabwe -- the threat to arrest farmers, white farmers who refuse to give up their --

MR. MCCORMACK: Still -- I'm still trying to extract some information from the bureaucracy on that particular issue. We will post an answer for you.

QUESTION: Sean, just on the Georgia thing, the Georgian Foreign Minister said just now that they supposedly feel that Georgia may bring this up with the UN Security Council. And if they bring it up, the U.S. back up (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, listen, I think we'll talk to the Georgians about what they have in mind. You know, as I said this morning, inasmuch as there are any differences, political tensions, they need to be resolved through political channels. And I know the Georgian Government has made real attempts to do that.

In the past -- let's put aside this particular incident that we're still analyzing. We would condemn any attack on a sovereign country regardless of the circumstances. In the past, the Russian Government has conducted some aerial raids that have resulted in bombs being dropped or shots being fired in Georgian territory. And we've spoken to those particular issues. So we've talked to Georgian authorities about this. We've talked to Russian authorities about this.

With respect to this particular incident, we're still trying to get a full picture of exactly what happened. But clearly, any sort of incursion into sovereign territory is something that, you know, we would condemn.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, I sort of raised this earlier with one of your colleagues, but are you aware of this family -- Palestinian American family, or parts of three members of this family -- who are stuck right now in Gaza and can't get out?

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Yesterday, I think, the Council on American Islamic Relations wrote a letter to Secretary Rice asking for -- if there was anything that you guys could do.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right.

QUESTION: Can you talk about this case at all? They've gone public. I understand that there -- as of earlier today, there hadn't been a Privacy Act Waiver signed.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: However, they are not -- the father, who is in Tennessee, is speaking out publicly, which --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's one -- again, it's one of these weird situations where we don't have a Privacy Act Waiver, so I can't speak in specific terms about the circumstances that you just outlined. But I can say, back in -- on a couple of occasions -- back in June, we went out to all American citizens in the Gaza and made it clear to them that we would help people get out. And, in fact, on two separate occasions, we did.

I can't go into the circumstances surrounding this particular case, but it is important to note that we did act on behalf of American citizens to help get out those people who, at those times, wanted to get out.

QUESTION: Okay. So people who are still there and stuck there, tough luck for them? Or have you finished your --

MR. MCCORMACK: No. Any time you have American citizens around the globe that perceive that they are in distress, then we're going to see what we can do. But I just wanted to provide a little bit of background, a little bit of context, to the current situation.

QUESTION: Can you -- do you know -- can you say if you're even aware of this -- of the case to which I'm referring?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: You are?

MR. MCCORMACK: I am aware of it, yes.

QUESTION: And do you know if there's anything being done for these people or, in a broader sense, for any Americans who might still be in Gaza and who want to -- and who want to leave, despite your previous warnings --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right.

QUESTION: -- not to go there and to leave immediately and your -- at least two is I think is what you said, evacuations over the last couple months?

MR. MCCORMACK: Of course, we're going to take a look at the situation and see if there's anything that we might do.

We've got a few more back here. Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Were you able to develop any information on the energy working group meetings in Panmunjeon?

MR. MCCORMACK: I understand that they're -- that it was focused primarily on trying to establish a baseline understanding of what the North Koreans' needs were. There are some capacity issues in terms of how much fuel oil they can take in and use in the kinds of tranches and the kind of time frame that we're talking about. There was also a discussion about what other in-kind assistance North Korea might have. This was not a meeting where there were any hard conclusions about who was going to be doing what. So think about it in terms of setting up that baseline, setting up a foundation for eventually getting to a solution of matching up needs with resources.

Yes, in the back there.

QUESTION: This is in the case of Juan Carlos Ramirez, a Colombian drug lord captured in Brazil. Yesterday, Mr. Casey mentioned in the briefing that before the Justice Department make any formal request for extradition they will consult with you here at the State Department. Have you received any notice or any information, any request, from Justice Department on that regards?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check for you. I'll check for you. We'll give you -- try to get you an answer.

QUESTION: Will Ambassador Crocker push for an additional meeting with the Iranians in light of today's announcement that Iranian-provided EFP attacks in Iraq were at record levels last month?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing -- nothing scheduled at this point. Just over the past couple of days, he did have another engagement directly with his counterpart through the channel that we've established. There was a subcommittee meeting at which we were represented at the sub-ambassadorial level, and the Iranians the same on their side, to talk about security issues related to Iraq.

That particular diplomatic channel is just one way in which we are engaging on this issue. The military is also engaged in breaking up and thwarting these kinds of attacks, trying to break up the networks that bring in the supplies, bring in the money, bring in the technology as well as the personnel that are targeting our troops.

We're also engaged at the regional level through the working groups that were established through the neighbors meeting. There was just today in Damascus a working group on the security issue. Now, we were observers at that meeting. We were represented at the sort of sub-ambassadorial level. We had several representatives there from MNFI and a couple others from the Embassy.

So we're trying to address this, the issue of Iraq's borders and the flow of foreign fighters, the flow of the kind of technologies and money that are adding to the instability in Iraq. Thus far, our diplomatic engagement through the channel that Ambassador Crocker has set up hasn't yielded positive results. As a matter -- as a matter of fact, you've seen, as General Odierno pointed out, an actual increase in the attacks from these EFP networks.

So it is our -- it is our hope that Iran would, in fact, match its actions with its stated desire. And its stated desire is to have greater strategic stability in Iraq. If you want greater strategic stability in Iraq, you have to add in a positive way to the security situation. Thus far, they have not.

QUESTION: You said in the past that you don't want to have meetings for meetings' sake.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: So I'm just curious, in principle, if you'd like to see these meetings continue, given that you haven't seen any changes in --

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see. We'll see. That's going to be a decision Ambassador Crocker takes along with the Secretary and talking to folks at the White House.

QUESTION: So you won't rule it out at this point --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I'm not going to rule it out at this point. We'll see.

Samir.

QUESTION: I want to ask you about the meeting in Damascus today.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think I gave you a little bit -- a little bit of the flavor. We are observers of the meeting. As of when I came out here, I don't think it had ended yet. They were still -- it was still ongoing. But it was focused on how to get a better handle on Iraq's borders, and obviously Syria is going to play a big role in that. I haven't gotten a sense yet from our observer delegation whether or not Syria was -- said it was going to play a positive role.

You know, it's clearly very important for Iraq and Iraqis' future. So we would hope that Iraq's neighbors would match actions with their words and that this working group process out of the neighbors meeting would be a mechanism through which you can actually see some positive results.

Yes, again.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up in the same case. This morning, the --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to have any more than I had in the first (inaudible).

QUESTION: It's a little bit different than that. Just on the reward program, the DEA this morning, according to news reports in Brazil, confirmed that it would give this money to the police officers. But talking to the State Department, it's conflicting, because they said that they cannot give this money to the governments or police departments, but only to individuals. Can you explain a little bit, this difference?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll try to -- along with the answer to your first question, provide you an answer to your second question. We'll post it. Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:05 p.m.)

DPB # 141