MR. DUFFY: Good morning. Let me update you on the President's schedule. Yesterday, after arriving, he went out and did some cutting and clearing brush, and then was at his home on the ranch. And this morning he had his normal intelligence briefings, and he was out this morning clearing some brush and is right now -- or has just recently concluded a bicycle ride and he'll be spending the rest of the day at home with his wife and mother-in-law.

I've got a couple of books that the President brought with him to read over the holiday. One is, "When Trumpets Call, Theodore Roosevelt After The White House," by Patricia O'Toole, recommended to him by Brian Williams. The other is, "Imperial Grunt, The American Military On The Ground," written by Robert Kaplan.

And that's what I have on his schedule. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: Bill signings? There's nothing to report at this point, Deb. As the Congress was late to adjourn, we have several days here before he needs to sign some things. But I'll let you know. I've been keeping close contact on any bill signings. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: Yes, I saw the story. We'll be declining to comment on any specific operational details. The program -- I think the President said in his press conference and the Attorney General briefed very heavily about, the President's most solemn obligation is to protect the American people, and he will continue to do that. He has the authority granted to the President by the Constitution and it's in line with protecting the civil liberties of all Americans. But we'll decline to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: This is a limited program. This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings, and churches. And the President believes that he has the authority -- and he does -- under the Constitution to do this limited program. The Congress has been briefed. It is fully in line with the Constitution and also with protecting American civil liberties. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: Again, I'm going to decline to comment on any specific aspects of the program.

David. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q If I could just follow up on that for a second. In the briefing we had at the White House last -- a week ago, Monday, I think it was General Hayden who said at that time that the technology of the program was such that you could only pick up international calls. And he seemed to suggest at the time that a broader program would not have been technologically possible, even if authorized. Your unwillingness to go repeat that, and not discuss the operational details after the story might be interpreted as suggesting that General Hayden's comment no longer stands. Would that be reasonable? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: Yes, the President was accurate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And one more question. UPI is reporting that the reason why -- let me find it real quick. That the reason -- that the U.S. decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging President Bush at an unprecedented rate. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: The President has already addressed how this program was done within the law, and I don't have anything more to add to that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: I'll leave it where the President left it in his news conference.

Yes, Dana. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q When the President said that -- described this program the way he did in his news conference, did he mean to suggest that it is only limited to eavesdropping on ongoing phone calls, or did he not mean to sort of limit it to just that? I mean, the impression that he left was that the program is just about eavesdropping on conversations as they happen. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: I'll leave it to where the President and the General and General Hayden said; it's people with ties to al Qaeda and terrorist activity. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: I'll decline to speculate about U.S. troop deployments. Those are questions that the President has always left to his military commanders in the field. The President has said repeatedly that as the Iraqi forces are stepping up and are trained and are capable of protecting the Iraqi people and doing the security mission, that U.S. forces will step down. International countries' obligations or commitments to Iraq are those countries' decisions to make -- decisions to be made by those countries. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: I don't know. I can check on that, Warren. But, typically, it's as we've said all along -- a country's decision on whether, or what level to support the mission in Iraq, either with troops or with money, or with other resources, is the country's decision to make on its own. And we respect those decisions.

Mark. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: I think the President will begin the new year very much in the way he left -- or he will end 2005, which is to discuss the country's two top priorities, being keeping our economy strong and growing stronger and creating jobs, and also winning the war on terrorism. And that specific front in the war on terrorism is the conflict in Iraq. So he finished the year discussing those two top priorities and he will begin next year continuing to talk about those two top priorities. And he is in the process, as he always is at this time of the year, reflecting on 2005 and looking forward to 2006 and what he wants to accomplish for the American people. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: Not at this point. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: As you all know, the Congress makes the specific invitation on the State of the Union, and we'll await their announcement. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: I'm sorry, I can't -- retail sales -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: Obviously, the reports are still coming in. The retail sales, at least we know appear to be up, projections are. But one of the things that we do know is it takes quite a while really before all the data is in. But the fact is the retail sales are up, and that's in line with all the very good, strong data that we've seen in the past several months, which are increased job creation, lower gas prices, increased business and personal investment. So all the signs are pointing to a very healthy and strong economic outlook for the near-term.

Jessica. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q As you know, members of Congress, especially many Democrats, are gearing up for the hearings on the spy issue, and on the limits of presidential power. There's a lot of political tension around this issue. Has the President, himself, reached out to any Democrats in the Senate to discuss this with them personally? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: I'll have to check on that, Caren. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: The President's mother-in-law, Mrs. Welch, was on the plane yesterday. I'll check on any further guests. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: Mr. Hagin; Mr. Lago, from the National Security Council -- Phil Lago; Bill Burck, and yours truly -- along with the honorable Blake Gottesman. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: The President is a history buff -- you know that as well as anybody. He does read a lot of books based on recommendations, and Brian Williams recommended it to him, so he picked it up and he's reading it. He is an avid reader. And the President knows full-well that he's got a lot of time left in this second term and he's going to accomplish big things, as he has talked about repeatedly. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: The President is an avid reader. He reads books of all kinds and stripe and persuasion. And he decided to read it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: You have to forgive me -- can you repeat that? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: We'll keep you updated on the schedule. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: The White House is going to continue to push for what the President said. He wants a permanent extension of the Patriot Act and those 16 provisions. The Patriot Act is a vital tool in combating terrorism. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: The new strategy is the same as the old: Give law enforcement the tools to defeat terrorism. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: During this week? I'll update you if there's any calls we want to let you know about. He's determined to see the Patriot Act renewed. It's a key tool for fighting terrorism.

Anything further? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. DUFFY: The budget is in production, I guess is the way to put it. It is typically released the first or second week of February, and that process is underway. I think one note about the budget, before we look forward too much to next year's budget, is to celebrate what happened in this year's budgeting process, in which we had an actual freeze on non-defense and non-homeland security spending, and we also had some significant reductions in growth in entitlement spending for the first time since 1997, which are both key to helping cut the deficit in half by 2009, as long as they are coupled with strong economic growth.

So one of the key principles in next year's budget will be to fund our key priorities like winning the war, and domestic priorities like education and health care, but also continuing to keep the budget on a path that will result in cutting the deficit by 2009. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: Thank you all for being on the call. This is Ruben Barrales. And, again, Kevin Marshall is with us on another phone, as well. I'm just going to briefly go over the report, which happens to be very short, very simple and very straightforward, and then I and Kevin are available to answer any questions that you might have.

We were pleased to be able to take the report to members of Congress this afternoon, to the President for his review, to other elected officials around Puerto Rico and other interested individuals in Puerto Rico and throughout the mainland who have expressed interest in the issue.

I assume you all have a copy of the report. It is, again, as I said, fairly simple, going over the guiding principles, the executive orders pertaining to Puerto Rico, an historical overview that gives those of you who don't have any experience with Puerto Rico and this issue gives you a quick overview, and a legal analysis of the options for Puerto Rico's status. In there we identify what we consider to be the three options allowed for -- (inaudible).

Number one is the current status, which is called the commonwealth status, which is a territorial status. It is the one that Puerto Rico has now, allows for limited self-government. Then there is statehood, which, obviously, is a permanent status. And there is independence, which is another permanent status. I need to reiterate that commonwealth or territorial status is one that we see as can be indefinite, but really at the will of Congress.

The task force makes its recommendations, and in the recommendations we do ask that Congress take up the issue within a year and allow for the people of Puerto Rico to be able to vote and decide whether they wish to retain the current territorial status or move towards a permanent status. And it provides for another recommendation that if the people choose to elect and vote for permanent status, that they be given the option of one of the two, statehood or independence. And then if they initially vote to retain the current status, which they can do, and keep it as a territory indefinitely -- (inaudible) -- periodically, Congress may wish to provide for a vote to gauge the people's will as time moves one.

So it's pretty straightforward. It really is -- as you all know, I'm sure many of you know that the issue has been going on for over a hundred years. There have been attempts to resolve it. We have worked with all parties on the island. The task force has met with anyone who has requested a meeting. We've read volumes and volumes of material. We have been, and are willing to work with any of the parties on the island or here on the mainland to help move the process forward successfully. And we hope to work in cooperation with all of those involved. And at this point, we hope that Congress will take a look at the recommendations and hopefully move the question forward.

So with that, I'm going to see if -- or ask if Kevin has anything he might want to add. MR. MARSHALL: I just want to comment on the legal question a little bit. The primary issue is whether the Constitution allows for some commonwealth status that couldn't be altered without the consent of Puerto Rico. And we conclude that it -- the Constitution does not. In reaching that conclusion, we're reaffirming the position that the Justice Department has taken for the last 14 years in both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration and in the current administration.

But appreciate the importance of the question for Puerto Rico and for the United States. We have in the Office of Legal Counsel done a thorough reconsideration of issue, and concluded that that position is correct. And as part of that, I have met with several superb lawyers representing various interested parties and I've also received excellent written material from them, including from the former head of the office where I work and the former attorney general. And we've appreciated that input very much and I think it's made the report better. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: Well, it is, again, for those who are not very familiar with the issue, it does provide an historical overview very briefly -- so in that sense, maybe, a road map of what's happened to date. And then it provides what I hope is a level playing field for those who are interested in moving the process forward in terms of what we think the options are that are available and our recommendations for a way to move forward, in terms of our recommendations within the report.

There may be other ways to move forward, and we're interested in working with anyone who wants to help in that regard. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: No, this is an inter-agency report. The executive order was very specific that it is an inter-agency report, review the information, met with individuals, read material and is now presenting its recommendations and report -- more of a progress report, you might describe it as -- to the President and to members of Congress. So it is not construed as a position of the administration. MR. MARSHALL: Can I add something? This is Kevin. It was not part of our mission to state a preference or pick among the options. Our job was simply to identify what the options were under the Constitution and what a good way of getting them might be. So the report shouldn't be interpreted as endorsing any of the options that it lays out for the status of Puerto Rico. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: We did electronically and in hard copy deliver copies of the report to members of Congress, and also to the governor's office -- and mainly electronically to other folks who are interested in the issue. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: It's an excellent question. There's absolutely no requirement, and so I think that's important for people to understand. We are trying to help move the process forward, and so we've provided what we hope are helpful recommendations and analysis of the issue. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: As a matter of fact, in the recommendations, we do recommend that Congress set a date certain for an election, hopefully within a year, or at least start hearings within the year to begin moving the process forward. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay. And let's just say that they don't take any action, I mean, in the status. As you said, this is an attempt to try to get -- to move things forward. So if there was no action taken, it would still be the status quo, then, here? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: No, I do not believe so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: I understand. I'm very familiar with that. No, it doesn't -- the report, itself, doesn't change the status quo at all, and basically we think the people of Puerto Rico should be given an option to choose the particular status that (inaudible) that they think would work best for (inaudible). And, no, I don't think it conflicts at all with what happened in the -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The popular Democratic Party, or the executive branch, is saying already that it's a vague report, that, in some sense, you are forcing the issue because that will be -- you are trying Puerto Rico to go to statehood or independence, and probably the alternative to have the votes is the commonwealth or a new commonwealth. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I have a question regarding the time between the second -- or between the first and the second recommendation. You said that Puerto Rico should hold a plebiscite next year. And depending on the result, so the next plebiscite would be on the current status or the independence or the conversion of Puerto Rico in another state of the U.S. So do you have a time for this second plebiscite in Puerto Rico? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I have a couple of questions, if I could. The first one is, why did you -- why do you, in your proposal, why do you suggest that there be a plebiscite between -- for people to decide whether they want to remain as a commonwealth or go into either independence or say -- why don't you just have a plebiscite where all three choices were given at the same time? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: Kevin may want to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. MARSHALL: I would just say that in the recommendations, we do make the point that in ascertaining the will of the people of Puerto Rico, which is, of course, paramount, we want to try to do it in a way that gives clear guidance to Congress or future actions. Some of the prior votes, I think we'd all agree, have not provided clear guidance. And it seemed to us that there was a clear distinction between on the one hand, the current status -- which can be indefinite, but wouldn't be described as permanent -- and on the other hand, statehood and independence. And even though those two are different from each other, they're both a change and what could be called a permanent status, so that choice seemed like a natural first step. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: Let me address -- Kevin, I'm sure, will have something to add. Actually, no, we think it is quite independence. We really think free association would be a configuration of the people and Congress choosing independence. In other words, we could see a scenario where if the people and Congress chose to move in the direction of independence, they might (inaudible), but we want to remain closely associated with the United States, that that would be moving towards independence. And then the details of which we don't get into in the report, but there are issues that relate to dual citizenship, that relate to other ties that would bind the two together. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. MARSHALL: I can grab that, if you want. MR. BARRALES: All right, Kevin, please. MR. MARSHALL: I think in terms of the recommendations we laid out, I think that would fit in recommendation two. If they were to decide between statehood and independence and to choose for independence, that would be a kind of independence. I think you'll see a fuller explanation of that in the legal analysis. We could talk about Micronesia and the Marshall Islands in Palau. We make clear that free association is a form of independence, but still a variation.

So I think ultimately that would be for Congress, the kind of step two stage, to spell that out and determine how to go about determining the exact nature of the independence, because we do explain that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: I'm sorry? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. BARRALES: Potentially. We do not prohibit that, in terms of our recommendation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I just have one last issue I wanted to discuss with you guys. You very clearly say in the recommendation that it is the people of Puerto Rico -- and you reiterated that in this conference -- that it is the people of Puerto Rico that would have to make a choice as to status, right? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Now, it makes me think -- and I want you to react to that conclusion -- that this report could be interpreted as more the White House passing the ball along to the Congress and the people, than actually intervening with a voice as to what should be done. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone. I want to begin with a few opening remarks. The President and Mrs. Bush were glad to go and visit the National Naval Medical Center earlier today, at Bethesda. They were able to visit with 21 of our bravest troops who have been wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and their families. They visited with four of our troops -- it included a sailor, Marines, and a soldier in the intensive care unit. There's one additional one that they would have visited with, but he was being treated at the time. So they visited with the family of that individual. And then they visited 17 of our troops, 16 Marines and one sailor, in Ward 5 of the unit. The President awarded four Purple Hearts during the visit.

It was, as always, an emotional and uplifting experience. It was emotional because of the tremendous sacrifice the troops have made, and it's uplifting because of the courage and strength of the troops, and the strength and spirit of their families. The President is honored to be their Commander-in-Chief. We are forever grateful for their service and sacrifice, and the sacrifice of their families. It was also an opportunity for the President and Mrs. Bush to personally thank our military care givers out at Bethesda, and others -- some were there from Walter Reed. They are the ones who are making sure our troops get the best possible medical care.

And as we enter this holiday season, we send our best wishes to the men and women of the Armed Forces. Many are spending the holidays away from home. All Americans are deeply grateful for the tremendous sacrifice they are making serving our country. We also recognize during this time of war a heavy burden falls on their families. Our nation respects and thanks them for their sacrifices and support. We pray for the speedy recovery of those servicemen and women who have been wounded. We honor the memory of those who have given their lives in defense of freedom. We will always remember their sacrifice of these brave men and women, and we pray for their loved ones to be comforted.

Now I want to jump to the legislative arena. I want to begin with a statement by the President on the deficit reduction package that passed the Senate earlier today: "The Senate vote to reduce entitlement spending is a victory for taxpayers, fiscal restraint, and responsible budgeting. And it will help keep us on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

I applaud the Republicans in the House and Senate who supported the legislation. This will be the first time in nearly a decade that Congress has reduced entitlement spending. This strong bill demonstrates our commitment to funding our nation's priorities and ensuring that taxpayer money is spent wisely." And again, that's a statement from the President.

The Congress has also been moving forward on some other legislation today. We are disappointed that they did not get a cloture vote on the defense spending bill. We urge the Senate to move forward quickly and pass this important piece of legislation. This is about supporting our troops and making sure they have the funding and resources they need to fight and win the war on terrorism. And you heard from the President earlier on that.

Secondly, the Senate is continuing to debate the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. We urge the Senate to get it passed. The Senate Democratic leadership has boasted about killing it. Yet there's a strong bipartisan majority who supported it in the House; there's a strong majority that supports it in the Senate. It was one of the most thoroughly debated pieces of legislation in Congress this year. There were 23 hearings, more than 60 witnesses. It went to a conference committee and the conference committee worked and came up with a good piece of legislation.

The Senate minority needs to stop obstructing its reauthorization. They are standing in the way of making sure that our law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to continue protecting the American people and disrupting plots at home and preventing attacks from taking place.

And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I saw some comments from Senator Specter. I know he's having some discussions, and I'd leave it to him to have any further updates. But we urge the Senate to move forward and get this legislation passed. The House has already acted, they've completed their work, they're now out of session. It's time for the Senate to complete their work and not stand in the way of making sure that our law enforcement and intelligence community have the tools they need to be able to prevent attacks from happening. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't know the reason why the judge resigned from the FISA Court. The FISA Court is an important one. We use FISA in a number of instances. It's one important tool. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we need to talk about what's going on here. What's going on here is pure obstructionist politics. A minority in the Senate, led by Senate Democrats, are putting politics above our nation's security. This bill has been thoroughly debated. It enjoys majority support. They need to give it an up or down vote and quit playing politics with our nation's security. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has already made his views known on that -- I expressed his views last week -- and nothing has changed in terms of our views. That's why it's important for them to go ahead and get this passed now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our view last week; nothing has changed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: You can see what I expressed last week. You know very well what it was. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, nothing has changed in terms of what I said last week. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our views on that last week -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, what I said last week still stands. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I talked about a short-term extension. And Senator Frist has already said that there's not going to be a short-term extension of three months. And Speaker Hastert has already said it would be irresponsible to move with a short-term extension.

Let me talk about the Patriot Act, because when it went through the debate this year, extensive debate, in the conference committee there were changes made to it. There were some 30 additional protections put in there relating to civil liberties. And it seems some Senate Democrats are claiming that's the reason, but we now know from the leader of the Democrats in the Senate that all they were interested in was killing it. All they want to do is extend it in order to seek a way to weaken some of the authorities in the Patriot Act. And that's why I said they need to quit obstructing progress on reauthorization of the Patriot Act and get it passed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into those details. This is a highly classified program. We've already told you why the President moved ahead with this authorization. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: This was an authorization made by the President. And, obviously, he talked to his legal advisors and others, but I'm not going to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into those discussions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to get into those discussions. This is an important authorization that helps us save lives and prevent attacks from happening. It's very limited in nature: one person -- one party to the communication has to be outside of the United States. That's the authorization that was given. There has to be a clear connection to al Qaeda or a related terrorist organization in the communication, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Because this is a highly classified program, and I am prohibited from talking about classified matters. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, General Hayden talked about that the other day, and he addressed that in two different questions that came up in the briefing here at the White House. General Hayden is the Deputy Director of National Intelligence and the former head of the National Security Agency. He's someone who is widely respected for the work he does to protect Americans. And he stated how he can -- he said, I can assure -- this is a quote from him: "I can assure you by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States of America." And the Director of the National Intelligence Office said that they stand by that comment. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm stating to you what the Deputy Director of National Intelligence said to you all the other day, and they stand by that comment. And the authorization is very clear in terms of what is spelled out. And there are safeguards in place, and it's very limited in nature, and, as I said, one party to the communication has to be outside the United States. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he talked about the physics of it, and again, I refer you to what I just said; I quoted him. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the question was asked -- is, if you wind up listening where you realize you shouldn't have, was the question, and he said, we don't have the resources to be able to waste them. We can't waste our resources on targets that simply don't provide valuable information. And he went on to talk about that a little bit further in his comments. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, the specific question, are there cases where you wind up listening and where you realize you shouldn't have, and that's what he was responding to. But again, he talked about the physics of it and the technology and how they go about doing things. But I hesitate to go further in that because then you're getting into operational details. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: But I would encourage you to talk to the Director of National Intelligence Office. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q You have been critical of Democrats in the Senate, but now eight Republicans have joined them in wanting this extension, and it was only four a couple of days ago. There's clearly movement to more Republicans standing in opposition to the President on this. Why not -- ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen the comments from those Republicans. But a majority of the United States Senate supports getting this legislation passed. And I think it's clear what Democrats are up to. All you have to do is go back and look at Senator Harry Reid's comments when he boasted to political supporters saying, we killed it. That's what they were trying to do. They're trying to weaken authorities within the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act has proven effective. It has worked. It has helped us disrupt plots, break up networks here at home, and prevent attacks from happening. And the American people expect us to do everything in our power to protect them. This law is vital to that. It tore down a wall between law enforcement and intelligence, and if this expires, that wall goes back up. And there's a lot of confusion about what information -- intelligence information we get could be shared between law enforcement and intelligence, and what kind of coordination could go on. The Attorney General and Secretary Chertoff talked about this earlier today. That's why it's so vital that they move forward and get this reauthorized. The terrorist threat is not going away. We remain a nation at war, and the terrorists want to strike us again.

This is about connecting the dots. One of the key things the 9/11 Commission said was that the government failed to connect the dots -- not just this administration, previous administration. And this President made a commitment that we're going to do everything in our authority to connect the dots and prevent attacks from happening, and that's exactly what this law has helped us do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: It would be taking away vital tools. Well, I just talked to you about that. The House has completed their work, they're out. And this legislation was thoroughly debated in the Congress over the course of the last year, one of the most thoroughly debated pieces of legislation. It's nothing but politics the Democrats are playing right now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, they've talked about some of the civil liberties in there. This law has found the right balance. It has saved lives and it has protected people's civil liberties. And there are some Democrats who are playing to certain special interests within their party that want to see authorities within this legislation killed. That's clearly what's happening here. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I'm not sure about the number eight; I know that there are few -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, I know that there are a few that had expressed their reservations about the bill. But, no, I wouldn't say that. But we urge all members of the Senate that are preventing this piece of legislation from moving forward to let it move forward. But I think it's clear, if you go back and look at the comments from the Democrats, what they're doing. Again, Senator Harry Reid said, "We killed it." He boasted about it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it's the Senate Democrats. Most Republicans -- almost all Republicans support reauthorizing this legislation. And, again, I don't think you can lump those eight in. I think there are an additional few that were talking about an extension, but those are ones that have also supported this legislation. So let's be clear on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we need to continue to move forward in the coming years on responsible budgeting that meets our priorities and exercises spending restraint. But this is a significant advance in our efforts to control spending and make sure that taxpayer dollars are being used wisely. And that's what the American people expect. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Two questions. One, as we enter the new year, can you just give, on behalf of the President, some of the achievements that the global community can see as the President is fighting this terrorism? And, two, now terrorists, when they torture innocent people, nobody talks about them. And now even Saddam Hussein, who tortured millions of people, he's complaining that he has been tortured while in custody. So what's -- where do we go from here as far as torture is concerned? Terrorists can torture the innocent, but when they're caught then they complain about torture. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me keep going. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's a majority of the Senate that continues to support it, and a clear majority in the House supports it. So we'll continue to push to get that provision passed. The President believes very strongly that we need to continue to act to address the root causes of high energy prices. The American people expect us to do that. We passed a comprehensive energy plan that is helping us meet our energy needs and puts us on a path to reducing our dependence of foreign sources of energy. This legislation is a good piece of legislation that will help build upon that, and help us reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. And that's what the American people want us to do. I think they expect us to act on a number of fronts, and that's one front. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Back on the Patriot Act for a moment. Isn't it a mixed message for the President to say that he's doing everything possible to protect the American people, but at the same time, reject the idea of a three-month extension -- ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: The Majority Leader in the Senate has said we're not going to do the three-month extension. The Speaker of the House has said it would be irresponsible to do so. It's time to act now and get this done. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, a couple of things. One, we urge the parties to come together and resolve their differences. It's important for the people of New York City that they -- that this be resolved, particularly for those who depend on mass transit, including seniors and people with disabilities and people in need. The federal government, though, is prohibited from intervening in transit strikes. This is a situation that we view as unfortunate and we hope that they can come together and resolve their differences. Mayor Bloomberg has talked about how this is costing New York City -- the economy of New York City hundreds of millions of dollars a day.

There is federal mediation -- the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service are available to the parties to help resolve the issues if they are invited to get involved. But the federal government is prohibited from getting involved in a transit strike like this. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the -- I mean, I think you can talk to the Department of Homeland Security, but in terms of any concerns about homeland security, I don't think there's any specific intelligence suggesting any threat to New York City at this time as a result of the strike. And the Department of Homeland Security could probably talk to you about that. But they have a significant presence in New York City, probably the largest of any outside of the Beltway here. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think, again, they can talk to you about what they have in place. And it's important that the parties come together and resolve this.

Go ahead, Sarah. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: So go to your second question. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've put out the President's schedule. As always, if there's any updates to his schedule, we let you all know. But we are certainly thinking about our men and women in uniform who are serving in Iraq, and we wish them all well during this holiday season, and their families here at home. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q You spoke earlier about the President's support for passing the defense appropriations bill that includes ANWR. What specifically is the White House doing to get the defense appropriations bill passed? And has the President personally telephoned members of the Senate this morning to urge them to quash the cloture? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we're beyond that at this point. But I'll leave it up to the Senate to talk about which legislative techniques they used to get things passed. But we continue to support passage of the ANWR provision. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President talks to members of Congress on a pretty regular basis and stays in touch with them on these priorities. And he's urged members of Congress to get this passed, too. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we stay in touch with them through a lot of different ways. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Good morning, everybody. I've got with me the Attorney General and General Hayden here this morning to brief you on the legal issues surrounding the NSA authorization and take whatever questions you have for them on that. The Attorney General will open with some comments and then they'll be glad to take your questions.

And with that, I'll turn it over to General Gonzales. ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Thanks, Scott.

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country. So I'm only going to be talking about the legal underpinnings for what has been disclosed by the President.

The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States. And this is a very important point -- people are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States.

Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. We view these authorities as authorities to confront the enemy in which the United States is at war with -- and that is al Qaeda and those who are supporting or affiliated with al Qaeda.

What we're trying to do is learn of communications, back and forth, from within the United States to overseas with members of al Qaeda. And that's what this program is about.

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

Now, that -- one might argue, now, wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance. Let me take you back to a case that the Supreme Court reviewed this past -- in 2004, the Hamdi decision. As you remember, in that case, Mr. Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who was contesting his detention by the United States government. What he said was that there is a statute, he said, that specifically prohibits the detention of American citizens without permission, an act by Congress -- and he's right, 18 USC 4001a requires that the United States government cannot detain an American citizen except by an act of Congress.

We took the position -- the United States government took the position that Congress had authorized that detention in the authorization to use force, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention." And the Supreme Court, a plurality written by Justice O'Connor agreed. She said, it was clear and unmistakable that the Congress had authorized the detention of an American citizen captured on the battlefield as an enemy combatant for the remainder -- the duration of the hostilities. So even though the authorization to use force did not mention the word, "detention," she felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield was a fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had been authorized by Congress when they used the words, "authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force."

For the same reason, we believe signals intelligence is even more a fundamental incident of war, and we believe has been authorized by the Congress. And even though signals intelligence is not mentioned in the authorization to use force, we believe that the Court would apply the same reasoning to recognize the authorization by Congress to engage in this kind of electronic surveillance.

I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States. Signals intelligence is very important for the United States government to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about to do. It is a fundamental incident of war, as Justice O'Connor talked about in the Hamdi decision. We believe that -- and those two authorities exist to allow, permit the United States government to engage in this kind of surveillance.

The President, of course, is very concerned about the protection of civil liberties, and that's why we've got strict parameters, strict guidelines in place out at NSA to ensure that the program is operating in a way that is consistent with the President's directives. And, again, the authorization by the President is only to engage in surveillance of communications where one party is outside the United States, and where we have a reasonable basis to conclude that one of the parties of the communication is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda.

Mike, do you want to -- have anything to add? GENERAL HAYDEN: I'd just add, in terms of what we do globally with regard to signals intelligence, which is a critical part of defending the nation, there are probably no communications more important to what it is we're trying to do to defend the nation; no communication is more important for that purpose than those communications that involve al Qaeda, and one end of which is inside the homeland, one end of which is inside the United States. Our purpose here is to detect and prevent attacks. And the program in this regard has been successful. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not -- I can't get into the specific numbers because that information remains classified. Again, this is not a situation where -- of domestic spying. To the extent that there is a moderate and heavy communication involving an American citizen, it would be a communication where the other end of the call is outside the United States and where we believe that either the American citizen or the person outside the United States is somehow affiliated with al Qaeda. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.

The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: -- since then. Pardon me? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: What do you mean, "retroactively"? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: If we -- but there are standards that have to be met, obviously, and you're right, there is a procedure where we -- an emergency procedure that allows us to make a decision to authorize -- to utilize FISA, and then we go to the court and get confirmation of that authority.

But, again, FISA is very important in the war on terror, but it doesn't provide the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of threat. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: Let me just add to the response to the last question. As the Attorney General says, FISA is very important, we make full use of FISA. But if you picture what FISA was designed to do, FISA is designed to handle the needs in the nation in two broad categories: there's a law enforcement aspect of it; and the other aspect is the continued collection of foreign intelligence. I don't think anyone could claim that FISA was envisaged as a tool to cover armed enemy combatants in preparation for attacks inside the United States. And that's what this authorization under the President is designed to help us do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful -- can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program has been successful. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But one of the things that concerns people is the slippery slope. If you said you absolutely need this program, you have to do it quickly -- then if you have someone you suspect being a member of al Qaeda, and they're in the United States, and there is a phone call between two people in the United States, why not use that, then, if it's so important? Why not go that route? Why not go further? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well of course, we're not going to -- we don't talk about -- we try not to talk about investigations. As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, as the President indicated, this is really hurting national security, this has really hurt our country, and we are concerned that a very valuable tool has been compromised. As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, we'll just have to wait and see.

And your first question was? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to talk about -- I'll let others talk about when Congress was first briefed. What I can say is, as the President indicated on Saturday, there have been numerous briefings with certain key members of Congress. Obviously, some members have come out since the revelations on Saturday, saying that they hadn't been briefed. This is a very classified program. It is probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government, because the tools are so valuable, and therefore, decisions were made to brief only key members of Congress. We have begun the process now of reaching out to other members of Congress. I met last night, for example, with Chairman Specter and other members of Congress to talk about the legal aspects of this program.

And so we are engaged in a dialogue now to talk with Congress, but also -- but we're still mindful of the fact that still -- this is still a very highly classified program, and there are still limits about what we can say today, even to certain members of Congress. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: The fact that this program has been successful is proof to me that what you claim to be an assumption is certainly not universal. The more we discuss it, the more we put it in the face of those who would do us harm, the more they will respond to this and protect their communications and make it more difficult for us to defend the nation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We're not going to comment on that kind of operational aspect. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I think the existence of this program, the confirmation of the -- I mean, the fact that this program exists, in my judgment, has compromised national security, as the President indicated on Saturday. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I'd like to ask you, what are the constitutional limits on this power that you see laid out in the statute and in your inherent constitutional war power? And what's to prevent you from just listening to everyone's conversation and trying to find the word "bomb," or something like that? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I think some of the concern is because people had not been briefed; they don't understand the specifics of the program, they don't understand the strict safeguards within the program. And I haven't had a discussion -- an opportunity to have a discussion with them about our legal analysis. So, obviously, we're in that process now. Part of the reason for this press brief today is to have you help us educate the American people and the American Congress about what we're doing and the legal basis for what we're doing. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: That's why I mentioned earlier that the program is less intrusive. It deals only with international calls. The time period in which we would conduct our work is much shorter, in general, overall, than it would be under FISA. And one of the true purposes of this is to be very agile, as you described.

If this particular line of logic, this reasoning that took us to this place proves to be inaccurate, we move off of it right away. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, of course. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: No, it would be very -- no, I cannot, without getting into the operational details. I'm sorry. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: There are cases like we do with regard to the global SIGIN system -- you have reasons to go after particular activities, particular communications. There's a logic; there is a standard as to why you would go after that, not just in a legal sense, which is very powerful, but in a practical sense. We can't waste resources on targets that simply don't provide valuable information. And when we decide that is the case -- and in this program, the standards, in terms of re-evaluating whether or not this coverage is worthwhile at all, are measured in days and weeks. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That is something I'm not going to answer, Ken. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Absolutely not. I don't believe anyone is above the law. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, one might make that same argument in connection with detention of American citizens, which is far more intrusive than listening into a conversation. There may be some members of Congress who might say, we never -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I'm just giving you the analysis -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm just giving the analysis used by Justice O'Connor -- and she said clearly and unmistakenly the Congress authorized the President of the United States to detain an American citizen, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention" -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not about wiretapping everyone. This is a very concentrated, very limited program focused at gaining information about our enemy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not going to, you know, try to guess as to what's going to happen about that. We're going to continue to try to educate the American people and the American Congress about what we're doing and the basis -- why we believe that the President has the authority to engage in this kind of conduct. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I think that they may be making or offering up those opinions or assumptions based on very limited information. They don't have all the information about the program. I think they probably don't have the information about our legal analysis. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Judge Gonzales, will you release then, for the reasons you're saying now, the declassified versions of the legal rationale for this from OLC? And if not, why not? To assure the American public that this was done with the legal authority that you state. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not confirming the existence of opinions or the non-existence of opinions. I've offered up today our legal analysis of the authorities of this President. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: One, the whole key here is agility. And let me re-trace some grounds I tried to suggest earlier. FISA was built for persistence. FISA was built for long-term coverage against known agents of an enemy power. And the purpose involved in each of those -- in those cases was either for a long-term law enforcement purpose or a long-term intelligence purpose.

This program isn't for that. This is to detect and prevent. And here the key is not so much persistence as it is agility. It's a quicker trigger. It's a subtly softer trigger. And the intrusion into privacy -- the intrusion into privacy is significantly less. It's only international calls. The period of time in which we do this is, in most cases, far less than that which would be gained by getting a court order. And our purpose here, our sole purpose is to detect and prevent.

Again, I make the point, what we are talking about here are communications we have every reason to believe are al Qaeda communications, one end of which is in the United States. And I don't think any of us would want any inefficiencies in our coverage of those kinds of communications, above all. And that's what this program allows us to do -- it allows us to be as agile as operationally required to cover these targets. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: FISA involves the process -- FISA involves marshaling arguments; FISA involves looping paperwork around, even in the case of emergency authorizations from the Attorney General. And beyond that, it's a little -- it's difficult for me to get into further discussions as to why this is more optimized under this process without, frankly, revealing too much about what it is we do and why and how we do it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: The judgment is made by the operational work force at the National Security Agency using the information available to them at the time, and the standard that they apply -- and it's a two-person standard that must be signed off by a shift supervisor, and carefully recorded as to what created the operational imperative to cover any target, but particularly with regard to those inside the United States. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: What we're trying to do is to use the approach we have used globally against al Qaeda, the operational necessity to cover targets. And the reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced. This is done to chase those who would do harm to the United States. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not going to get into the specifics of when those conversations occurred, but they have occurred. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: They weren't recently. MR. McCLELLAN: The President indicated that those -- the weeks after September 11th. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: If I could just, before you ask that question, just add -- these actions that I described taking place at the operational level -- and I believe that a very important point to be made -- have intense oversight by the NSA Inspector General, by the NSA General Counsel, and by officials of the Justice Department who routinely look into this process and verify that the standards set out by the President are being followed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not aware of discussions with other countries, but that doesn't mean that they haven't occurred. I simply have no personal knowledge of that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: Again, with respect to what the President discussed on Saturday, this program -- it is tied to communications where we believe one of the parties is affiliated with al Qaeda or part of an organization or group that is supportive of al Qaeda. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

GENERAL HAYDEN: We report this information the way we report any other information collected by the National Security Agency. And the phrase you're talking about is called minimization of U.S. identities. The same minimalizationist standards apply across the board, including for this program. To make this very clear -- U.S. identities are minimized in all of NSA's activities, unless, of course, the U.S. identity is essential to understand the inherent intelligence value of the intelligence report. And that's the standard that's used. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q General, when you discussed the emergency powers, you said, agility is critical here. And in the case of the emergency powers, as I understand it, you can go in, do whatever you need to do, and within 72 hours just report it after the fact. And as you say, these may not even last very long at all. What would be the difficulty in setting up a paperwork system in which the logs that you say you have the shift supervisors record are simply sent to a judge after the fact? If the judge says that this is not legitimate, by that time probably your intercept is over, wouldn't that be correct? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I guess I disagree with that characterization. I think that this electronic surveillance is within the law, has been authorized. I mean, that is our position. We're only required to achieve a court order through FISA if we don't have authorization otherwise by the Congress, and we think that that has occurred in this particular case. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: It depends on what it is. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: You heard the statement by the President and Senator McCain. I wanted to just give you a little background. This is on the record. Both the President and Senator McCain, in this discussion, sort of started out with the same framework. That is to say, the shared values that this is a country that stands by its principles, respects its laws, and stands for the rule of law.

Secondly, they also shared an objective that we need to be aggressive in defending the country against the terrorists and protecting the men and women of this country from attack, and finally, that we needed to keep faith with our men and women in uniform and civilians who are on the front lines of the war on terror in so many places. And the discussions, which have been long, deliberate, careful, thorough, intensive, all those words, have been to try and strike the right balance between those three things.

Interestingly, the discussion has been less of the text of the McCain amendment as it was originally submitted, and more discussion about the protections for the men and women, both in uniform and civilians, who are engaged in activities involving detainees and interrogations. That's really where most of the discussion has been, because as you remember, the original McCain amendment didn't address any of that. And that was a piece that the President felt was essential. We needed to do all three things: reaffirm our values and principles, aggressively pursue the war on terror and protecting the country, and protecting, through legal protections, our men and women engaged in that fight. And that's really what the discussion has been about.

I'd like to try and summarize a little bit the key features of what we've agreed upon, and then I'd be glad to take your questions. As you know, our policy has been not to use cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment at home or abroad. That has been our policy. The legislative agreement that we've worked out with Senator McCain now makes that a matter of law, not just policy. And it makes it a matter of law that applies worldwide, at home and abroad.

The McCain legislation does not create any new criminal liabilities; it does not create a private rite of action so that the terrorists can sue our men and women who are on the front lines in the war on terror. But it is a very important statement of policy and it makes that policy binding globally.

The legislation -- the legislative agreement that we have reached includes reasonable protections for these men and women who are doing very difficult work in the interests of the country; it provides that those who are involved in detaining and interrogating terrorists and whose activities have been authorized and determined to be lawful will not be held civilly or criminally liable unless they somehow knew or reasonably should be known -- should have known that their activities were unlawful.

This is a protection that has been available to our men and women in uniform as part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This legislation now makes it available as a defense to civilians who are working in government agencies who are involved in detaining an interrogation -- interrogating terrorists. So it offers a legal protection, a legal defense to those people.

The legislation also provides that good-faith reliance on the advice of counsel will be an important factor in considering whether the standard I described has been met. It also provides that all existing legal defense and protections for our men and women are preserved.

And finally, in terms of the protections, which is -- I dwell on that, because the other provisions of McCain are very well known to all of you -- it also provides that the amendment makes provision for providing legal counsel to and compensating our service members and government employees, again, engaged in activities that I described for any legal expenses in the event that a terrorist attempts to sue them for the activities these folks have taken on behalf of their country.

So that's what -- what all the negotiations has been about. It has been a active, intensive, and in the end of the day, a successful negotiation. We believe that we have struck the right balance between the three objectives and principles and protections -- those three categories that I talked about. And we believe that our men and women in uniform and others in civilian employ will be able to conduct effective intelligence operations that will protect the country, and that at the same time will be conducted consistent with our law and principles. It's what we've tried to achieve, and that's what we think we've achieved today.

Any -- my colleagues want to add anything to that? Okay. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: The standard is the UCMJ standard. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: It already is. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Yes, sir. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Well, the statute does not, by its terms -- McCain, by its terms addresses sort of a narrow piece, which is this issue about cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. And it addresses that because there was a question. As you know, when the United States acceded to the Convention against Torture, we did with a series of understandings that are embodied in the McCain amendment, that it's interpreted by standards of the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendment.

And in light of that, because of that, those standards, as a technical, legal matter, did not apply abroad. And that's what Senator McCain, in the second section of his legislation, wanted to address -- wanted to make clear that those would apply abroad. We applied them abroad as a matter of policy; he wanted to make sure they applied as a matter of law. And when this legislation is adopted, it will.

So that's what this was really addressing. It was that narrow point. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I can tell you what I know. They are in the process of doing that. That is an ongoing process we've been aware of. It's one of the things that many people have called for. The Defense Department, as you know, has had really a two-track approach to deal with issues that have raised about detainees and conduct with respect to detainees: One, investigate them, make assessments, and where appropriate, prosecute and hold accountable people who have violated policy, violated law. And then, secondly, to review procedures and revise them. And revisions of the Field Manual are part of that process. It is ongoing. My understanding is that they've not been finalized. This is a long process and it's still ongoing. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I think a lot of it is clarifying it, giving people clearer guidance. But again, I've not seen it. It's something being done over at the Department of Defense, and that's really where the questions ought to go. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: On the whole -- you'll have to talk to them. I don't -- the Field Manual is a DOD document, and it deals fairly comprehensively with this whole issue of detainees, interrogations. You're going to have to ask that question to them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: No, he didn't. He didn't. Actually, that's just not the case. What was there when we started this process was the McCain amendment, which does not address any of the protections. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: That is a position that he -- he took a position on that issue about having a -- using the UCMJ standard. That was a suggestion that he made. It is one of a whole family of protections. And we had a -- that has been in the mix. But there's been a lot of things in the mix, things he wanted we couldn't do, things we wanted he couldn't do. It's been a long back-and-forth.

We -- something that we both felt very strongly that was embodied in a single sentence was probably something that we negotiated more on than anything else, and we only reached agreement on that sentence yesterday at about 3:30 p.m. in the afternoon. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Next question. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Oh, okay. If I can just follow up on the collection of things that you wanted that he couldn't do. When the Vice President first went up there in the summer, he wanted immunity. Later on, you folks wanted indemnification. Can you tell us why both of those were impossible? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I don't. I have it, but we've not made public -- and I'll tell you why. The language is agreed. The vehicle by which it is going to get enacted by the Congress is still being worked. There are issues, whether it's authorization bills, appropriation bills -- I think Senator Warner was asked about that. They are going to work that issue now. It is going to be a piece, in any case, of a larger package that has been worked. There is the McCain piece, as you know; there's been discussions in the press about some language from -- Senator Graham has been working. This is part of -- and those, in turn, are part of a broader bill -- the Defense Authorization bill, Defense Appropriation bill.

So there is a modalities of enactment that is still being worked. And that, obviously, is going to affect how this -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I'm trying, in what I said, to tell you what is in it. And I think if you heard what I said, you have a pretty good idea of what's in -- what has been agreed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q As I understand it, in a layman's way, what you -- what the Vice President was originally talking about was that civilian intelligence officers, CIA officers, should be able to interrogate detainees, essentially outside U.S.-stated policy, or outside the law. That's why you wanted immunity. Now, you've taken great pains to get whatever you can get, which is some level of protection, legal protection that is a little bit vague because -- well, lawyers do that. They -- ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay, well then maybe you can help us understand -- does this protect the ability of intelligence officers to essentially use rougher tactics with detainees than members of the armed forces, which is essentially what you wanted in the first place, is that right? Is that a fair layman's way to describe it? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I understand that. But can't we cut right to the chase, which is, why did you want immunity? So that they could use -- civilians could use rougher tactics than the policy allowed for? Wasn't that why you wanted the CIA to beyond the reach of this law? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: We do -- we comply with the law -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: There was a discussion of immunity. There are many times in law when the U.S. government gives immunity to people who are engaged in difficult, challenging positions. I'll give you an example -- as you know, there is a program in Latin America where we assist countries to interdict those people who are flying drugs out of their country. They're the country's program, but we assist it with government employees. There's an immunity that was given by the Congress to people involved in that program to ensure that they do not need to worry about lawsuits and harassing lawsuits in a program where they're taking risks at the request of their government to pursue national objectives. This is something that the government does many times, offers immunity from civil and criminal prosecution. It was a legitimate thing to consider in this context.

In the end of the day, we all agreed that in order to achieve all three of our objectives to comply with the law, as the President said everybody in this administration was going to do, and reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law, still be aggressive on the war on terror to be able to defend the country, and to protect -- to give an adequate measure of protection to people, this was the better balance. And that's what the President decided. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: The standard now applies, as I said earlier, both to the armed forces and to the civilians, a common standard applying to anyone who is engaged in this activity. That's where we are. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Peter? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I think that you judge the tactics by the outcome. And we've got a good outcome, and that's what the President wanted to achieve, and that's what we've achieved.

Anything else? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Well, McCain came in with a two-part statute that dealt with the issue of the standard. And again, as I said, three objectives: reaffirm a nation of laws, aggressively fight the war on terror, protect our people. Protect our people didn't show, and that's why we needed to -- that's what the discussion has been about, because it was a third objective. And early on in my conversations with Senator McCain, he was clear that it needed to be addressed, as well. And that's what we've been focusing on. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I don't know when I learned about the House vote, but, you know, you get -- in these negotiations, you kind of get in a tube where they begin to come together. We were in the tube by the time of the House vote. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I think it's evidence that it's not that simple, because there are tensions between these three things. And the question is, how do you get the right balance? And that's what we were talking about. Do you do it by immunity? Do you do it by a legal standard that is a defense? Is that defense the same for military, the same for civilians? Do you tailor that defense to reflect the peculiarities of folks who are dealing with detainees and interrogations? What is the extent of the protections of the indemnification? How is it supposed to work?

These are -- three weeks is not bad, given the complexity and the difficulty of these issues, that's what I'd say. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Yes, ma'am. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone. I want to begin with some brief remarks, talk a little bit about tomorrow.

The President's number one priority is the safety and security of the American people. We are a nation that remains engaged in a war on terrorism. Iraq is critical to our strategy for prevailing in the war on terrorism. The President believes he has an important obligation to keep the American people informed about our strategy for succeeding, the progress were making and the challenges ahead. The President felt it was particularly important during this period to discuss our strategy with the American people as the Iraqi people prepare to meet an historic milestone in their future with the election of a permanent Iraqi government this Thursday.

The President has given three in-depth speeches on our plan for winning in Iraq. He has outlined the three key elements of our plan: the security, political, and economic tracks. It is a dynamic strategy. We have learned from experience and we have adapted to circumstances on the ground. But it is a clear strategy and it is a winning strategy.

The President looks forward to giving the fourth speech in this series tomorrow at the Woodrow Wilson Center here in Washington, D.C. On the eve of an historic election, the President believes it is an important time to take stock of where we are in Iraq, why we are there, why it is important, what the stakes are, and why we will achieve victory. It has been just two-and-a-half years since the brutal, oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled. It has been difficult, but the progress the Iraqi people have made in that time period is remarkable.

This week the Iraqi people will be choosing a permanent representative government. Iraq is the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world. This is a moment of historic change in the center of a dangerous region of the world. Change in the Middle East will make America safer and more secure by laying the foundations of peace for our children and grandchildren. And the President looks forward to going to the Woodrow Wilson Center tomorrow and talking about our efforts to prevail and how we will prevail. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. I don't have any additional information, other than what his office put out. We wish President Ford well and a speedy recovery. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's going to a question of whether or not we should have artificial timetables in place. And the election is another historic milestone in the future of the Iraqi people, but the violence that the terrorists and Saddam loyalists are carrying out against the Iraqi people we expect to continue after the election. We are working with the Iraqi security forces to help train them and equip them so that they can address these threats. And it's important that we continue to stand with the Iraqi people moving forward -- and the President will talk a little bit more about that tomorrow and why it's important that we continue to stay in Iraq until we prevail.

And in terms of troop levels, we all want our troops to come home, but that will be based on conditions on the ground and what the commanders recommend. That's what the President believes those decisions should be based on. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm going to go back and forth between you two today. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: They continue. We continue to work with Senator McCain and others to come up with a good solution. We all recognize that these are difficult issues that we have to address as we continue forward in the war on terrorism. The President spoke about it a little bit yesterday. And we will continue working with leaders on the Hill to try to bring this to a resolution. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it's best to let those discussions occur with the members. And Steve Hadley has been very involved in this. He's had good discussions with Senator McCain and other leaders on the Hill. The President talked about it yesterday. He talked about how Congressman Hunter was involved in this, as well. And so we want to let those discussions take place and try to come to a good solution. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't want to put any expectations on -- in terms of timetables on it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the way I described it -- this kind of pulls it all together -- this kind of pulls it all together and talks about why we are in Iraq, why it's so important, and what the stakes are. That's where the President's focus will be tomorrow. And that's why I talked about how it's going to be discussed in the context of the moment. The Iraqi people are going to be going to the polls on Thursday, and the President felt this was a good time to pull together all these speeches he has given and talk to the American people about the importance of what we're working to achieve and why we will succeed.

Go ahead, April. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Scott, the President said something very poignant in the Brian Williams interview, that he doesn't care what people call him, but don't call him a racist. Is he concerned, still three months after the Katrina relief effort, that there are still some African Americans who may feel that -- the same way as Kanye West, and in these next three years, what can the President do to help turn that feeling around? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But some are saying -- some had been saying that prior to Katrina, and some are saying that Kanye West just exposed the whisperers in the African American community from many years prior to Katrina. What can the President do beyond these steps that you said -- ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But, lastly, and still back on the question I'm trying to get an answer to, is the President still concerned that there is a pocket of African Americans beyond the people who live in Louisiana that feel that -- that still, I guess, feel what Kanye West has said? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, okay, that is just outrageous. And I think the President expressed that yesterday in the interview with Brian Williams. It's outrageous to make such a suggestion like that. And it's based on an ill-informed -- it's ill-informed and misguided comments. The President has acted to help people from all walks of life. And all you have to do is look at his record. The President has acted to make sure everybody has the opportunity to learn and succeed through the No Child Left Behind Act. These are historic education reforms. And that's the best way we can help to address these injustices and inequalities that exist. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Scott, I'm going to preface my question and maybe preempt your answer by saying I know you guys never, ever look at polls. But the bottom line is that you have been -- the President has been doing what you just described out there giving -- tomorrow will be four -- speeches to try to change public opinion, convince Americans that he does have a plan in Iraq. But CNN-USA Today-Gallup's latest poll, which is consistent with others, shows that 58 percent, almost six in ten Americans do not think that he has a plan in Iraq. So what does that say about the hill that you have to climb -- ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's the political analysis that I'll leave to others to do. What the President will continue to do is talking to the American people about our strategy for winning in Iraq. That's what he's been doing the last few weeks. It's important for the American people to have a clear sense of what we're working to achieve and why we're there, and the way forward. And that's why the President is going to be talking about it tomorrow again in his fourth of this series of speeches he has been giving on Iraq. And we're pleased with the response that we've been receiving from the American people on those speeches. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think the American people want to win in Iraq. They understand the importance of winning in Iraq. And they also want to see our troops come home. And polls are snapshots in time. We'll let you all do the analysis of what the polls say. The President is doing what he believes is right and what he believes will make America safer for the long-term. And that's why it's so important that we continue to work to achieve victory in Iraq, and he knows we will.

Now, there have been some Democratic leaders that have chosen very irresponsibly to say that we don't have a strategy for victory. I think it's becoming very clear to the American people in these speeches and in the document we put out just a couple of weeks ago that we have a plan for winning, and it is the right plan for winning. It's important, though, that within that plan, that you be flexible. The tactics -- that you take the tactics and you be able to adjust those tactics to the circumstances on the ground. And war is difficult. That's why it's important that you're flexible in your approach. But the strategy is clear. And the President is going to continue talking about it to the American people. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Scott, one of the things that Mr. Murtha went out of his way yesterday to point out, and others have said, is that part of their frustration or their criticism is that they perceive the President's plan to be open-ended and that the absence of a date certain is the absence of a plan. To the extent that the administration, yourself included, has said that there is an expectation that there could be a conditions-based withdrawal, beginning next year, does that rightly or wrongly create a perception in the American public's mind that there is a glide path to a complete exit? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this is interesting, because this gets to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this gets to the whole discussion here. There are some that think we ought to immediately withdraw, or withdraw completely within a certain amount of time. The President is focused on winning. That's what the American people want. Withdrawing is a strategy for defeat. It's a strategy for retreating in the face of the war on terrorism. We are fighting the terrorists there in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them here. And when we succeed there, we will take away any opportunity for them to have a safe haven in Iraq, and we will deal them a significant blow in the war on terrorism.

They understand how high the stakes are. The President will be talking about those stakes tomorrow in his remarks. The stakes are very high in Iraq. It is critical to winning the war on terrorism. And that's why we will complete the mission and we will win. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: What the American -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Let me just finish the question, because I -- the expectation, acknowledged by the administration, that there is a possibility of conditions-based withdrawals next year should not be taken by the American public as an indication of a long-term glide path to a withdrawal? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, General Casey has. General Casey has talked about it and talked about the importance of training and equipping Iraqi security forces. Our forces understand the importance of what they're doing. I think the families of the military understand the importance of what we're working to achieve. And this goes to a fundamental argument that is being had among leaders in Congress. And the President believes that the wrong approach is to pull out before we have completed the mission, and that leaders who suggest that have a responsibility to explain to the American people how that would make us more safe. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. Martha, go ahead. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the rejectionists -- it's not necessarily defeating them; it's bringing them into the political process. There are a lot of fence-sitters. And what we heard from Ambassador Khalilzad earlier today was that there are large numbers of Sunnis now participating in this upcoming election on Thursday. And that's a significant benchmark to look at for progress. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President outlined what victory is, and he defined that in his remarks. And he talked about how, when Iraq is no longer threatened by those from the outside who seek to establish a safe haven, and he talked about how we must continue to stand with the Iraqi people as we move forward. But, I mean, I think he defined victory for the American people, and it's not the way -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: What are you talking about? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as they have the capability -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.