MR. JOHNDROE: Okay, today's schedule: The President taped his radio address this morning. In it the President will announce the release of the 2008 National Drug Control Strategy. This report lays out the methods the administration is using to combat drug abuse in America and highlights the hopeful progress that we are making in the fight against addiction. ONDCP will have more on that later.

At 8:00 a.m. the President had his normal briefings. At 11:05 a.m. this morning the President will meet with the Secretary General of NATO in the Oval Office. That will be pool at bottom. The President looks forward to meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. Following the meeting in the Oval will be lunch in the Old Family Dining Room.

Today's meeting is an opportunity to talk about the upcoming NATO summit in Bucharest in early April, where NATO's transformation through improved military capabilities and continued NATO enlargement will be the key focus. The President and Secretary General will also discuss other critical issues on NATO's agenda, including Afghanistan and the long-term commitment to that mission, as well as missile defense.

At 1:00 p.m. the President departs the White House via Marine One for Texas, and at 4:30 p.m. Central time the President and Mrs. Bush will welcome Prime Minister of Denmark Rasmussen and Mrs. Rasmussen to the Ranch. They will have dinner tonight and meetings tomorrow. This visit underscores the good personal relationship the two leaders have, as well as the strong relationship the United States has with Denmark. The discussion will be wide-ranging, will include Afghanistan, where Denmark is playing a leading role in both security and reconstruction assistance, and in Iraq, where Denmark has contributed to stability efforts since 2003.

They'll also talk about the NATO summit coming up in Bucharest. I expect the President will brief the Prime Minister on Africa and hear about Denmark's own contributions there on that continent. They'll also discuss developments in the Middle East, as well as energy and the environment.

And I will do the week ahead at the end. With that, I'm happy to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: We've seen those reports that are just coming out. I think there's one thing that remains clear, and that is the United States, Turkey and Iraq all will continue to view the PKK as a terrorist organization that needs to be dealt with. So we will continue to have cooperation with them on dealing with that organization. I don't think there's anything else to add at this point. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: Yes, I think you heard the President address this yesterday. It was a targeted and relatively short operation, but I would certainly expect that in the future, that unless the PKK gives up terrorism, that we're going to have to continue to work with the Turks and the Iraqis to go after them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: No, I would just say that we'll continue to have to deal with the PKK in the future. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: Yes, Ann. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: One, the President realizes that the high price of gasoline is a hardship for many Americans, but the President's point was that neither his advisors nor Energy Department analysts are at this point forecasting $4 a gallon gasoline. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: I think that the national average, as of earlier this week, was $3.15, according to the Energy Department and other surveys. And so, no doubt, the price of gas is high. It causes hardship for many Americans. There is a -- it is something the President is concerned about. He talked about that yesterday. It's important for people to remember there are no short-term solutions to this.

There's a -- several things that need to be done. One, Congress certainly shouldn't raise taxes that would increase the cost of gasoline. That would certainly not be helpful. And we need to continue to encourage environmentally friendly domestic production, reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and look to increase technological advances for efficiency and alternative sources of energy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: I think, one, the government analysts are not forecasting it. But, two, I think it's something that we've heard for quite some time now in the news media, to be frank, for -- I can remember, last year, waking up to some of the morning programs forecasting $4 a gallon -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: -- gasoline. And so it's something we've heard for a while. As of now, that is not the national average. It may or may not happen, but I think the President's point was: one, he realizes the problem and is concerned about it; but two, that's not what the official analysts are predicting.

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

MR. JOHNDROE: Well, I think it's unfortunate that he continues to make these comments. He just further isolates Iran and the Iranian people, and that's not our goal at all. But it looks like the U.N. Security Council is probably headed towards a vote sometime relatively soon on a third set of sanctions against Iran.

And so Iran knows what it needs to do. Iran is the outlier here, as the international community unites. You have the permanent five members plus Germany who have been working on this, and are talking to other Security Council members. And so Iran knows what it needs to do, and then could reap the benefits of that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: Well, let's let the vote take place. But I think things are -- we've been talking a lot again with the other members of the P5, as well as Germany, and other members of the Security Council. And so I think that -- I think everyone is in agreement that Iran should not be enriching uranium, and so let's just -- let's let the vote take place in New York. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q A quick one on Lebanon, too. Prime Minister Siniora comes out today and says he has summoned the

MR. JOHNDROE: No, I would say we have regular consultations with Prime Minister Siniora and his government, as well as our allies, both in the immediate region, as well as in Europe on the situation in Lebanon.

And so there's constant communication at various levels. But let's be clear: The purpose of the U.S. Navy ships in the eastern Mediterranean is a show of support for regional stability. So I think we all want to -- I know we share with Prime Minister Siniora a desire for the situation in Lebanon to be resolved, and resolved by the Lebanese people. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: I'll look into the specifics, but we consult regularly with the Lebanese government. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: On Hezbollah's concerns? I would express some of our own concerns with Hezbollah's actions. So I'll just leave it at that.

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

Q Two quick questions. One, just briefly on Russia. Has the President spoken to Putin at all this

MR. JOHNDROE: All right. Well, one, on Russia, I'm not aware of any phone calls with President Putin this week, and we'll let you know about any future calls coming up with regards to the election or with President Putin.

And second of all, NATO, there will -- certainly the President will discuss with the Secretary General of NATO the mission in Afghanistan. He will discuss it with the Danish Prime Minister. He discussed it a couple of days ago with the Czech Prime Minister. It is something the President is very much focused on. We appreciate the work of these allies and the troops that they have deployed in Afghanistan and the work that they've done there. And we're talking with other members of NATO about additional troop deployments. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: I think that our commanders on the ground -- I think General McNeil has talked a little bit about some of the needs there. Obviously the President sent in about 3,200 additional Marines. They're, I believe, deploying now. So there's a need for more trainers to help set up the Afghan army and Afghan police and additional PRTs, additional units for various functions. And so we're in discussions with our allies on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: Part of the Marine outfit will be involved in that, as well, but the Defense Department can tell you a little more about that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: Yes, Peter. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: I would say we have pretty regular contact. I think that Secretary Bodman was out in the region right after President Bush was in the region. We have regular contact with all the -- with many of these countries. So we'll see. There certainly is a --

(Fire alarm goes off.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: I know, right. Well, I guess we're over. I guess we're done now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: Yes, right, exactly. There's a button up here on the new podium. See if one of these guys has something to say. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: Yes, right. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. JOHNDROE: Yes, no kidding. Do you want me to just release it? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Two statements for you. Today we learned that William F. Buckley has passed away and that has saddened everyone here at the White House. Mr. Buckley was a longtime friend of the Bush family. I informed the President of Mr. Buckley's death at 11:45 a.m., while the President was in the Oval Office.

In 2005, when President Bush hosted an event in honor of the 50th Anniversary of National Review, he praised Mr. Buckley's life, saying that "he helps contribute to the realm of ideas for America and helped turn dreams into reality. His work impacted millions of Americans who shared his strong belief in the power of freedom." And the Buckley family will be in our thoughts and prayers.

In addition to that, as you know, on the President's recent trip to Africa we had the opportunity to see firsthand the success of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. We saw people who are alive today because of the program; people who are living better lives; babies who are HIV-free; couples who were able to get married and, even though they both had HIV/AIDS, were able to have a baby that is HIV-free. By every measure, this has been an incredible program and a very successful one and one that the American people should be very proud of.

We also heard on the trip the pleas from African leaders and care-givers involved in the PEPFAR program of the critical need for Congress to reauthorize the program, including the President's call to double funding over the next five years. We were pleased to see today, just recently, that the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the first step in reauthorizing the program. We support this legislation and we want to express that today. We appreciate the effort to draft in a thoughtful, bipartisan way; we appreciate that we were able to work with them. It retains the important policy principles that have made the program such a success and we applaud the committee's work in quickly moving this bill forward and we hope that the House and Senate will soon follow suit and send it on to the President for signature. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think you're referring to what the President was talking about today, which is we're down to a mere three words differences between -- of working out the details on the missile defense agreement. As President [sic] Topol nek said, it's really not even a problem at all; it's technical, it's a matter that we expect to be resolved quickly. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, I don't necessarily know that to be true. I know that the issue involves three words and deals with the environment. But I don't know necessarily what the context is or what the technical details are about it. Obviously we are going to adhere to environmental standards wherever we go and whatever activities we are doing, both here in the United States and around the world.

So as the Presidents [sic] both said, they are very close to an agreement and we look forward to being able to announce that soon. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, we have actually just announced -- Secretary Rice just announced that we have increased our amount of humanitarian aid. We certainly don't want any innocent Gazans to suffer. And we believe that the reason that they are suffering is because of Hamas. But that said, we continue to provide food and other necessities, medical supplies, through humanitarian programs. And Secretary Rice just announced this week that we are looking to increase that, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: In the past? I hadn't heard that Russia had made an announcement. We obviously have been working very closely with them, Secretary Rice, especially, and her team. And it would not be surprising that at the end of the day we win support for these sanctions because we have gotten unanimous support in the past. So we can check into it and see if there is any more to announce.

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

MS. PERINO: I didn't see his comments and I -- obviously we think that the package that the President signed, the $157 billion in tax credits, as well as tax rebates for people that are going to be getting checks soon, was the right package and that we think that -- Secretary Paulson, I remember, said that the time frame that it's going to take for the IRS to be able to get those checks out is sufficient in order to have the impact that we think we need to avoid a deeper slowdown than we would want. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think the point is that the President's economic advisors, who are -- including the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary Paulson and his Council of Economic Advisors here, the Chairman, Eddie Lazear, all believe that the patch that the President signed, and when he signed it, was sufficient in order to help us deal with the softening in the economy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: He said yesterday that he does not believe so, but there's no doubt that the economy is softening, and that's why we're taking measures in order to guard against that, as well as working with Congress to make sure that they could pass some of the legislation we want, in the housing area especially. And we're also going to prevent Congress from raising taxes on the American people.

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

MS. PERINO: That they're debating it? Well, if -- look, the President is willing to talk about Iraq anytime anybody wants to talk about Iraq. And I think that the Senate Republicans yesterday decided that it was time to spend -- it was time going to be well spent, to talk about Iraq and talk about the progress that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have made, in concert with the Iraqis and with our partners there.

The President said that an artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an enemy, just wait them out; it would say to the Iraqis, don't do the hard things necessary to achieve your objectives; and it would be discouraging for our troops. And that's why the President said yesterday he would veto the Feingold amendment that they are now debating on the Hill. So we think that it is time well spent to talk about Iraq. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: But we still -- that is still true, but this is, like, the third or fourth that they've decided to do that. We still have the votes in order to prevent this bill from becoming law. What the vote was yesterday was yesterday was yesterday was a procedural vote to move forward to have debate -- 30 hours of debate. This is what -- Senator Reid called up the bill. He probably didn't expect to get cloture. He got cloture and now he's got 30 hours of debate, and we think that that's absolutely appropriate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Look, we still have the votes. If they want to continue to keep bringing this up, we'll be happy to continue to talk about it. They're not going to -- there's no way that this bill is going to pass, especially now that they've -- that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have met the obligations that they said that they would meet, which is to bring down the violence and to start to bring together political reconciliation.

As General Petraeus said yesterday, though, we have a long way to go, and the Iraqis are continuing to work together. We saw today that democracy is at work, and they are working through some of the politics there with one of the bills that passed last January. So we are hopeful, but we know that we have a lot more work to do.

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

Q The U.S. military conducted 19 focus groups throughout Iraq last November, and its report on those

MS. PERINO: I don't know if he has. I haven't either, and I'd refer you to DOD because I don't know the accuracy of that.

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

MS. PERINO: Obviously, high gas prices have a huge impact on the economy, on families across America, and especially on businesses, small businesses in particular -- those especially that have transportation as a part, integral to their business, like florists or plumbers -- that those type of businesses, it really does have an impact.

So we're mindful of it. It's not a problem that was created overnight; it's not going to be solved overnight. But the President is aware of it. He's going to be getting an economic update tomorrow that will include the issues such as the high price of fuel.

The thing that we have to consider is that demand for crude oil is at -- is very high across the world, especially in developing nations like India and China. And what we have tried to do here is put forward policies that will help us find alternatives to traditional oil use, increase efficiencies, such as in raising mile-per-gallon -- miles-per-gallon standard, that the President signed in December, which was part of his 20-in-10 initiative, as well as make sure that we are doing everything we can to wring efficiencies out of our businesses, which we have been able to do over the past several years.

But in order to have economic growth, you have to have a good, strong power supply and a fuel supply. And so increasing the amount of production that we have in the United States is important, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Most of those things that you've mentioned, short of the last one, production, are long-term things

MS. PERINO: We keep -- the President keeps a close eye on the issues of inflation, and he actually relies on Ben Bernanke at the Fed and also Treasury Secretary Paulson in order to advise him on these issues, and we know that they have an impact. One of the most important things that we can do right now is work on pro-growth policies.

One, we have a stimulus package that's going to be flooding into the economy because if we have a stronger economy, we can make sure that people are able to have a better prospect at having either more money to spend in their pockets -- because one of the things that the President recognizes is that when fuel prices go up, people still have to -- they're always going to have to pay for energy costs. They have to pay for the gas that goes in their cars in order to get back and forth to work, or back and forth to family activities, or to take the kids to ball practice, or whatever that might be.

So the President is very mindful of it. There is not a lot of short-term fixes that exist out there. We've been dealing with this for several years. The issue of high energy prices is something that was created over a long period of time, and it would be wrong of us to say that there is any silver bullet that would have a short-term solution. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: In terms of from OPEC? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't know about any of the private conversations that have gone on back and forth, but obviously, given the situation that we have today, and that the reason increase in gasoline prices is being directly linked to a supply issue in regards to crude oil, we remain concerned. And we would like to not only have exporting countries increase their output, but we would also like here, in the United States, to be able to increase production -- domestic production in environmentally friendly ways. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Obviously this is -- this was their decision. And the President is not going to be able to just go over there and open up the spigot. We have to work with our partners. We have to explain to them that having fulsome supplies of gasoline and crude oil is good not just for our economy, but for the world economy. And what the President heard on his trip to the Middle East is that those countries understand full well that they don't want to see a downturn in the United States economy or in Europe, for that matter. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Kevin. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, last night at the debate Senator Clinton talked about the release of some personal papers

MS. PERINO: We did check on that, and we had a more fulsome response, which I won't read for you here, because it was quite long. We don't have any pending requests. We've been able to -- any requests that we've gotten we've been able to turn them around very quickly.

The process is that the White House Counsel's Office receives notification from the National Archives that it proposes to release records. We then wait for the representative for President Clinton, who is Bruce Lindsey, and he reviews those records and makes the decision as to whether or not we should release or withhold them. And if the Clinton representative approves the release of the records, we act as quickly as practical to get them out. And as I said, we don't have anything pending at the moment. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We've been able to turn everything over -- turn everything around very quickly, and we don't have anything left. I would say to date, it says over 550,000 pages have been released in whole or in part, and we have not made a decision to object to the release of any Clinton records. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: It could be. If there's something that has to do with -- the lawyers look at it, if it has something to do with national security or something, it might be "in part."

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

Q Thank you, Dana; two questions. WorldNetDaily has reviewed Consumer Product Safety Commission

MS. PERINO: Secretary Leavitt led a group by the President and a task force in order to help address these issues. And we know that right now, up on Capitol Hill, they are about to take up a reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. So we're working with Congress on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Thank you. When asked last night about the endorsement of him by Louis Farrakhan, Senator Obama

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment in any way on the '08 election. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: If you want to ask two questions, you should make sure they're two that I can answer. (Laughter.)

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

MS. PERINO: A baseball question -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, this is an event for the President to celebrate the win with the Boston Red Sox. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I have no reaction to that. Obviously Congressman Waxman is a very prolific letter-writer, and I'll have to refer you to the Justice Department for anything on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this issue with you. I just want to give a very brief overview. I know this is a very complex subject and a lot of discussion out there, and it's hard sometimes to follow it.

Let me start. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 passed because of the abuses of the 1960s, 1970s, and frankly, prior to even that time frame. There was a balance struck in the 1978 act for the intelligence community, and it said, if you're doing your foreign intelligence mission overseas, you do not need a court order to do that mission. It specifically exempted the international signals intelligence activities that our community does. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. What the law said was that if you are doing your foreign intelligence mission, looking at communications abroad, you do not need a court order. That is what the law said. Okay? And -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, that's what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 did, and that is what the legislative history specifically says, and that's what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act says. I can get you the actual text. We can furnish that to you. I mean, it's plain as day. I could pull up the quote right now that says this law specifically exempts the international signals intelligence activities conducted by the National Security Agency.

What it said, though, is if you're doing your mission here in the United States you need a court order. So if you're targeting a U.S. person here in the United States, to intercept their communications you need to get a court order. That was the balance that was struck in 1978.

In 1978 -- let me divide the worlds of communications into wire and wireless -- 1978, wireless communication; radio and satellite, primarily for our international communications system. Fast-forward to today -- 90 percent I think, or so of the international communications systems carried in a glass pipe; a wire, for purposes of FISA. So we've had a huge shift from what was radio and satellite in 1978 now to wire, to fiber optics -- a huge, massive shift. The international communications system is also routed through the United States in many cases. Extraordinarily cheap to use this fiber optic system, a large price advantage over other types of wireless communication.

What caught us -- what got us caught up was, in 1978, when they did the law, when they thought of wire, they thought of privacy, and if you're on the wire that is what they use to define when we would need to get a court order, exempting this international activity by exempting out the radio and satellite communications mission that we do.

So we had this shift. I think in this debate, I think everyone has agreed now that FISA needs to be modernized to reflect the technologies of today; that they wrote FISA in 1978 to reflect the way the technology was then. I think everyone is basically on board with the fact that we need to have FISA modernized.

That brings us to the Protect America Act and the passage of the Protect America Act. The Protect America Act said, if you are targeting a foreigner overseas, you do not need a court order. But it went one step further than what was even in the 1978 act. It said, for your targeting procedures, to intercept that foreign communication you need to have those procedures submitted to the FISA court and approved by the FISA court. In 1978, our mission to target international communications, the FISA court had no role in that.

We did submit those targeting procedures in August. The FISA court approved those in January of this year.

Obviously, lots of concerns about some of the language of the Protect America Act. For the past six months, we worked very closely with the Senate on their bill. That bill responds to a lot of concerns raised by the public and by members. It expands the role of the FISA court even more in the foreign targeting procedures. Not only does it say that these foreign procedures -- that the procedures that we're going to use to target foreign people overseas have to go to the FISA court, but now the documents signed by the Attorney General and DNI that authorized this acquisition activity have to go to the FISA court. And in addition, something called "minimization procedures" are now going to have to be approved by the FISA court. None of this was part of the balance struck in 1978.

Let me pause and talk one minute about this word "minimization" that you've heard. Somebody is going to ask me the question: But when you're targeting a foreigner, don't you get a U.S. person sometimes? And the answer is, yes. And the answer is, for many decades we have encountered information to, from, or about a U.S. person when we're doing our overseas foreign intelligence mission. The way we deal with that is a process called "minimization." That's a whole separate briefing that Dana probably does not want me to give, but what that basically means is that we minimize the information concerning the U.S. person. And there's elaborate procedures that are a part of that.

That is not anything new. Minimization procedures are mentioned in the FISA -- in the act of 1978. It's something that was recognized would be a part of our intelligence community process.

So we are trying to basically restore the balance that was struck in 1978 through this legislation. That is the goal. In fact, what we've restored -- yes, we've restored the balance, but we have a greatly enhanced role for the FISA court, compared to anything that was done in 1978. And certainly the Senate bill expands on that role, in addition to a whole set of oversight procedures and reporting requirements that are in that.

This brings us to immunity and the issue of immunity. The bills have prospective liability protections, so going forward with our activities. Then there's the issue of what to do about retroactive liability protection. And this involves the program that the President spoke about on December 17, 2005, in his radio address.

The Senate committee report is perhaps the best source of information about this. I would commend all of you to read it. They did an exhaustive analysis of this. The bill passed out of the Senate Intelligence Committee 13 to 2. Of course, you know it passed the Senate with 68 votes.

What do they say in that report? They say it's absolutely vital to our intelligence community mission that we have the cooperation of the private sector. It says that their help is indispensable to the safety of the nation. It also says -- it goes through what they call the unique historical circumstances after the attacks of September 11th, the fact that the private parties were given documentation showing that the President had authorized the program, and showing that the legality of the program was also certified by high-level administration officials. It said that they had a good-faith basis for cooperating with the government. It does not make a judgment about the ongoing discussions about the respective powers of the Congress and the President, and make an ultimate legal determination about that program.

What is it from the perspective of the private parties? What are those who are alleged to have assisted with this caught up in, and what is the problem? Well, first, they can't defend themselves. And you say, well, that's our fault because we have asserted state secrets in various lawsuits. And the answer is, we have. And the reason we've done that is because the only way to defend yourself is to go out and describe the exact activities that I am talking about, and that would be a very bad idea if we want to continue to gain vital information, particularly in the counterterrorism arena. Second, they did act in good faith, in reliance on the documents that they received and are discussed in the Senate committee report.

With that, I guess I would just leave you with -- kind of in summary, if I had to reduce this and try to make it simple about what we're trying to do, three basic principles that the Director has always acted on: One, no court order to do our foreign intelligence mission. Let us do our foreign intelligence mission targeting foreigners overseas without a court order. That was fine in the Cold War of 1978; today we face, frankly, a more dynamic enemy than we faced in 1978 in terms of their ability to exploit our technology and to change their procedures, compared to the Soviet Union that we faced.

Second, a court order for targeting Americans. Something that is overlooked in the Senate bill, for the first time a court order is required if we are targeting an American anyplace in the world. That was not deemed appropriate in 1978; now the Senate has deemed it to be appropriate. That would be a large change. Prior to -- frankly, the way it is today, we go to the Attorney General to authorize those activities abroad targeting an American. The Senate bill would change that.

And finally, we need to have liability protection for the private sector, both prospective and retroactive, and we need the ability to compel their cooperation.

With that, I'll have [my colleague] -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the law has expired, so the court has approved procedures that are part of now, frankly, an expired law. So first, what are the procedures? The procedures are, how do we determine if somebody is reasonably believed to be outside the United States? How do I know that when I am going after somebody to get intelligence information, how do I know -- right? We want to make sure that they're overseas and that they're not here in this country. So that would be a concern, do we have adequate procedures that we're making sure. Now, there's a lot of technical ways to do that and other things that we've laid out for the court, and that's what they've approved. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. The law, of course, has expired -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we're still operating under those procedures. There is some activity that continues past the expiration of the act. And there's some -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There is some activity that will continue past the expiration of the act. We have said that we issued some -- what are called "authorizations for activities" in August. So those authorizations would last until this coming August.

But, lots of confusion out there. These authorizations are authorizations signed by the Attorney General and DNI that authorize the activity. So it says, yes, agency -- pick your agency -- you are hereby authorized by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to undertake the following activities; and here are the rules and procedures you're going to follow, and you're going to file the procedures with the FISA court, and here's how you're going to act.

Separately -- so that just gives us the ability internally to go and do this activity. Separately we have to issue directives to private parties to cooperate with us. We can't do those activities under the authorization without the help of the private parties.

` So now that the law is expired, that has led to great concern on the part of our private parties. It's also in great question whether or not we could issue new directives to new private parties. So, yes, the authorizations, which are enabling documents that give the authority to our agencies to act, continue past the expiration of the act. But if I need to issue new directives to new private parties, or to modify the authorizations and directives that are already out there, I have an expired act, and that is something that would lead to great concern.

Everyone assumed that under the old authorizations we could continue the activity we were doing, and add, essentially, new information to those same activities. We found in the last week that even that piece of information that we thought everyone was agreed on, and we think our arguments were strongest on, we had problems with that in the last week. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: "Electronic communication service providers" is the way I would phrase it, but, yes, private parties -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: They have lots of concerns. They've seen that companies have been sued. They have to protect their shareholders, they have fiduciary duties, they have all of those responsibilities. So we can make very strong arguments that these things continue even past the expiration of the act, and you've seen discussions of that in the public sphere. We can make those strong arguments, but they're the ones -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Ma'am, your question about targeting procedures, I think that's a good question, because it goes to sort of the internal logic within the Protect America Act. What's lost in this debate is that there is sort of a good, common-sense basis to the Protect America Act and the legislation that we want to see made permanent. And it is basically what [my colleague] described, that FISA if you take -- if you look at the scope of potential surveillances out there, FISA in 1978 was intended to cover this scope, this part of it, which was targeting surveillance within the United States. Because of the change in technology, it started to creep out and cover the whole field. So Congress -- and I think there is a consensus on this -- said, wow, we need to bring it back to what we originally intended; we shouldn't be giving Fourth Amendment protections to terrorist suspects overseas.

How do we do that? We create a scheme that says, you do have to go to the court and get approval, just like you always have, if you want to target someone living in the United States -- under traditional FISA. But if you, the government, the executive branch, want to target somebody outside the United States, you just have to have procedures that are -- that reasonably determine that the person you want to target is outside the U.S. If you have procedures in place that say, "Check this, check this, check this," and the conclusion is that person -- we expect that person is outside the United States, and those are reasonable procedures that reasonably lead to the conclusion that the person is outside the U.S., based on that conclusion we should be able to go ahead and target that person for surveillance without having to go to FISA court.

And so in the debate, that is a very common-sense notion that gets lost, I think, in the debate. We had a really good, sound process in place in the Protect America Act, and that is, of course, incorporated pretty much into the Senate bill. And that's what we really need. We need that flexibility to be able to go up and do that surveillance overseas without having to go to a court, show the Fourth Amendment probable cause standard -- what was designed for people within the United States -- when they're trying to target someone who's maybe in a cave over in Afghanistan. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But that's not what you're arguing about in Congress. No one in Congress has disputed the notion

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, no, I said that there's consensus on this. And I think people tend to forget that this was a very well-thought-out process. I mean, we've been involved -- we spent half our life up on Capitol Hill over the last year in briefings and hearings. And I'll tell you, the experience, at least from my perspective, is that it was a -- it's been a very healthy legislative process. I mean, every aspect of that scheme that I just laid out and the immunity issue has been hammered on from both sides and debated. And the result was a very solid, well-thought-out bill out of the Senate.

And the bill, of course, incorporates not only that scheme I'm talking about, not only immunity, but also, as [my colleague] said, a lot of limitations and protections that weren't in the original Protect America Act.

So one of the reasons why I think you're seeing sort of a strong effort on the part of the proponents of the Senate bill is because we saw the legislative effort that went into that product, and we know that it's very sound. And you're not going to find any piece of that legislation that wasn't really carefully debated on both sides. And we think that with a bipartisan majority that passed it, it should be taken up in the House. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So let me address the question, then, of -- we were asked to kind of give an overview of the whole issue, so you had kind of that broad context about our mission and what we're trying to do in the legislation and how critical the private sector is to this. Certainly the past week has reminded us very clearly that no matter how strong our statutes and arguments, we really do need the willing cooperation of the private sector, who have different issues and other issues to consider besides just the national security.

There is a debate over the activities the President authorized after 2001. The Senate committee report acknowledges that debate and says they are continuing to review that matter. There's heated disagreement about that matter. No doubt about it. And the issue, though, is whether in this heated disagreement between the President and some members of Congress about the scope of people's powers under the Constitution -- the scope of the President's national security powers, the ability of Congress to pass certain statutes -- whether private parties are going to be the way to play that out, and essentially, while our intelligence capabilities continue to degrade, is that how we're going to settle those issues, many of which have gone on for over 200 years? Why should private parties be caught in the middle of what is ultimately a debate over separation of powers and between the branches, no doubt a debate that people feel very strongly about, but these are private parties who acted in good faith to help protect the nation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, the Attorney General -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Because to show that somebody was acting under the law, under the allegations and the numerous lawsuits that were filed, first they would have to show what exactly was done, they would have to show whether or not they engaged in the activity -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, if the Senate committee reports suffice, which says that the President authorized this, and the legality was -- assurances of legality were provided to them, I wish that were sufficient to make the lawsuits go away. But that's not sufficient. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we've seen there are, what, 40-some suits out there right now, and we've seen -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I'm not going to speak to what the lawyers of the other parties think. But bottom line is that some of these cases have gotten some traction. But we have been resisting on a number of different grounds. The problem is, is that aside what effort it puts us to, the providers are being sued. And they are in a position where they can't really defend themselves, because this is all classified, confidential information. Their reputations are in some danger, they go through the expense and the disruption of a litigation process, all because they really stepped forward and were good citizens after 9/11. And it's just -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, what we've done is we've shown this to members of Congress, and to the Judiciary Committees and the Intelligence Committees, shown the documents -- the documents that contain the assurances that were given from the administration to the providers at the time when they were asked to assist. And those -- the Senate intelligence report, as [my colleague] said, found those were good faith -- those were assurances that the program was legal and that it was directed by the President, and that the providers had a good-faith basis for going ahead and stepping up and assisting the government and protecting the country against another attack. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I just have one more question. I know I'm being -- don't mean to monopolize -- but can you honestly

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The reason I hesitate is because, as [my colleague] said, we will target surveillance against somebody overseas, and that person might -- 90 percent of the time that person is probably talking to people overseas, but sometimes that person is talking to somebody in the United States, and we intercept that communication. And as we've always done, we review that communication, and if it's irrelevant, we minimize it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, this is what [my colleague] was talking about. If it's an American -- United States person -- let's say we're targeting somebody, a terrorist suspect in the Middle East. That person calls over to an American phone number and gets a United States person. There are minimization rules in place that the intelligence community has been following for decades, for whenever they do target surveillance overseas they follow these rules. And if that communication is captured -- and [I], United States person, am on that phone call, there are rules that limit the dissemination of information about [me,] because I'm a U.S. person. My name can't be disseminated in intelligence reports in this kind of thing.

So there are protections in place to protect the privacy of Americans, but still allow us to target surveillance against targets overseas, where we really need to find out about threats. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Without a warrant, yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Just a couple things -- just so I make sure I understand. It would be the administration's position

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. I mean, the -- I wish -- I certainly wish the process were that we show them the Senate Intelligence Committee report, file a classified declaration and the suits are dismissed and go away. That is not the way our system works. There's possibilities of discovery; there's appeals. We could get you lots of information about the different suits, the appeals that have happened, those types of things. Each one of those cases runs a -- I mean, from our perspective, runs a risk of disclosing our sources and methods, each kind of a little bit more as more information is out there.

So from the intelligence community perspective, that is of great concern. And while we wish it were that the Senate Intelligence Committee report or our classified declarations suffice to simply dismiss all the lawsuits -- I'll defer to [my colleague] on litigation matters -- but that's not exactly the way it works. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I think I understand that. So I guess my next point is, I mean, I've seen it happen in a lot of

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And that's -- those are the ways we've been pursuing so far. But as [my colleague] said, that sort of puts the -- the providers are still in an awkward position because they've got these complaints, these claims against them, but they're precluded from actually litigating them and defending against them. So it's actually -- that's not ideal for the providers, and it's not ideal for us, because we can't predict exactly how every one of these litigations is going to go.

And if I could add on to this, [my colleague] enumerated a couple of the reasons why it's important that the providers get immunity. One is just because -- these people stepped up to help and they did so as good American companies, so we shouldn't subject them with litigation. Two, as he said, the fact that in these litigations, we really run a risk of disclosing classified and very sensitive information about our most sensitive intelligence programs.

But don't underestimate the third thing, which is we have an interest in this, which is we really do -- as somebody said over here -- we rely on the providers to cooperate. We don't own the communication systems. We have to work with them. And, yes, we can compel them to assist us through various court orders or directives. But I know as a prosecutor working criminal cases, trying to get telephone records, there's some companies that work well with you and you get them in a day, and you can -- that will help you to run down the bad guy more quickly. Others will take the full two weeks. And so there's cooperation, and there's cooperation.

Also, keep in mind that, yes, the providers, if they want to, they can litigate everything we give them. They have the right under the PAA -- the Protect America Act -- to go ahead and challenge these directives, and that's within their right to do so. And at the end of the day, we might prevail -- we will prevail because we have the authority to do it. But during the time that that's being litigated, the surveillance we're asking them to do is not happening. So there's some foreign intelligence target out there we think we need to be able to surveill, we're not surveilling that person. So we don't know what information we're missing.

So don't underestimate -- because there's no immunity, the providers are understandably concerned. They've got shareholders, they've got fiduciary duties to their shareholders, they've got to protect them. And one thing the general counsels do is then they try to minimize their risk. And they do that by, sometimes, litigating things more just to make sure that they've got a court order to cover them at every step of the way. And that will really slow us down. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q On that last part, can you just clarify exactly what happened over the weekend with the provider

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: My answer -- let me step back a second. Both [my colleague] and I -- step back even farther for a second. Keep in mind who we're up representing. I'm in the Department of Justice. I have attorneys working with me who appear before the FISA court. So we're sort of the lawyer part of this equation. [My colleague], of course, in the intelligence community and is the operator part of the equation. Both of us have to work together to get these warrants -- FISA orders -- and to implement the Protect America Act.

Last week -- over, actually, the last few weeks, both [my colleague] and I, and colleagues of ours, both in ODNI and DOJ, have been working very closely with general counsels offices in the various providers, because they've been asking about this looming potential expiration for some time and what its implications will be. And in terms of -- to answer your question, I'm basically going to stick with what's been made public. And there's actually been a pretty good record so far made public between the letter from the DNI and the AG, and then -- which came out Friday afternoon, I guess. And then there was a subsequent press release or statement the next day from DOJ and ODNI.

Bottom line is, as the AG and the DNI said in that letter, most providers were complying with requests for new surveillances. These are surveillances we wanted to go up on under the directives that continued in force after the expiration of the PAA, but we wanted to go up on new surveillances under those directives. Most providers were complying, but as of the time that we sent the letter, not all. And then soon after that -- we've been in intense discussion, back and forth, with a number of different parties, we achieved full compliance -- just with that, with the compliance with our request to go up on new surveillances under those PAA directives. However, they've made it very clear that this isn't a permanent situation, and they're concerned about it and they might -- they may well withdraw that cooperation if the situation doesn't get cleared up with permanent legislation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q So what intelligence was lost? You talked about the loss of intelligence. Can you quantify that

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Last summer was a more long-term development in coming. This was an intense period over a week, so we were not up on the new surveillances that we needed to go up on. So we were not up on those. We had valid foreign intelligence reasons to want to be initiating surveillance on these activities. We were not able to do that because of this issue with the providers. So we lost that time period from when we would have initiated these new surveillances to the time period in which we were able to come back up on them.

It's important to note -- let me just add one asterisk here, though, which is, the act has expired. This was what we thought was the clearest part of the act. And we had talked -- [my colleague] and I had both talked up on the Hill in hearings about this -- and I saw articles quoting us about, oh, yes, we can do -- we think we can do surveillances; that's pretty clear under the statute; we think we'll be successful on that. We outlined we were very concerned about new providers, new directives, new activities, which we thought we may encounter some issues on.

So we still have that problem with the act expired. So in addition to a problem we thought we didn't have, where everyone said, oh, yes, you could do new surveillances under existing directives and authorizations, we found that that was called seriously into question. And we still have the other problem -- we have an expired act and we need those tools. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll characterize my back-and-forth with them. They're raising questions, and they're saying, look, we've got an expired piece of legislation; it's not crystal clear, for instance, what [my colleague] just said about, can we use the directives that are in place -- they continue for a year after they are put in place -- can we use them not only as to the providers to whom those directives were directed, but to another provider? And you look at the Protect America Act; it doesn't -- it's not crystal clear on that. It's not clear at all about that. And there's, they think, a very strong argument in the other direction.

So these general counsels are doing their jobs. They're saying, wait a minute, is that potential liability? We've got billions of dollars in liability looming in the background here from -- that we haven't been immunized from. We're very worried about that. We're not seeing immunity coming down the road any time real soon. And you're asking us to do something that's not terribly clear under a statute that's expired, and I've got shareholders to whom I owe my first duty. So should I just go ahead and cooperate under your reading of the statute, Mr. Government, or should I be extra cautious and risk-averse, and challenge that directive, when you ask me to go up on a surveillance against a terrorist suspect overseas -- should I challenge it in the FISA court and then go through the steps of litigation that will keep us in the dark? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And it should escape nobody's notice, because it certainly didn't escape them in my conversations -- so you're saying that the Attorney General believes this is clear, and he believes that this is legal, and he believes that we can rely on this representation? It escapes nobody's notice that that resembles a certain situation in 2001 where they still have not received any relief from it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: From when each of those directives expires. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I do not expect the existing directives are sufficient for the future to do our mission. As to when I might need a new directive, I could get back to my office right now and have a phone call saying we've discovered that there's something going on, a communication path that we do not cover with the current existing directive to a provider, and we need to have a directive out to cover this situation.

Let me back up. We do not issue directives widely. We issue them because we have a specific mission need to issue them, and we have procedures in place, and we have compliance in place, and we have the technical means in place. We do not just mail directives to people. This is very technical, and it's very complex. And it's something that we roll out very carefully. We can go through a great detail of what we've done over the past six months in terms of compliance, in terms of reporting to Congress, in terms of oversight by multiple organizations, in terms of briefings to members of Congress and staff. So we've rolled this out extremely carefully. We want to make sure that we are in compliance, that we have the right procedures in place. So that is not a system by which we are just broadly doing something without making sure we have all those procedures in place before we act. But there's many scenarios I can envision where we would need new directives. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The situation you just laid out, just to be clear, of needing a new directive, that has not happened

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. Okay, excellent. The answer is, no. And this question, if I may rephrase a little bit is, well, you could just use the FISA court. We've seen that debate out there -- you just go to the FISA court and get an order. Remember what [my colleague] described: Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we have to go to the FISA court and make a number of showings. One of those is a probable cause showing, under the Fourth Amendment.

These are not things that are done quickly, necessarily. This kind of gets back to the debate of last summer, before the Protect America Act expired, which was, do we take our operators, our linguists, our analysts -- we're always asked, do you have enough people who speak the right languages; do you have people who understand the cultures -- should I pull them off of their mission to write a thick application, court application, making this probable cause showing, and then go to court for individual surveillances on foreign targets abroad? We simply cannot do that as an intelligence community. Certainly that was part of the huge problem last summer, where we were caught where the law had not been updated.

Second, should we have to make that probable cause showing? If you're going to make that -- if you're going to import the probable cause showing that applies here in the United States, and require us to have that same level of information that we use to wiretap somebody here in the United States, or do a physical search of a U.S. citizen, that is not a minor thing to do. So if you're going to apply that to our foreign targets abroad, that's a huge shift in what we do as a community, and you're changing the level of intelligence information that I need to initiate surveillance on somebody abroad. You're essentially applying something derived from the Fourth Amendment to our foreign mission.

I think DOJ did about 2,000-something FISAs in 2006 -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Twenty-three hundred or so, something like that. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't think I -- I'm not giving out any information to suggest that maybe there's more than 2,300 targets globally that the United States may be interested in. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me just add to that, keep in mind, we can individualize orders with each target surveillance with the FISA court. The Protect America Act allows us to do some broader surveillances, and that's hugely important operationally. Also, keep in mind, we talk about this Fourth Amendment standard -- what that means is that we have to establish, to the satisfaction of a federal judge, the person we want to target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Now, there are a lot of circumstances where we're going to want to target somebody overseas for a legitimate foreign intelligence purpose -- and under the Protect America Act, that's all we need -- we need to show there's a legitimate foreign intelligence purpose -- but we might not have that probable cause here. There are a lot of surveillances like that. And so we have to resort to the FISA court for any category of surveillances. We would take all those surveillances for which we can't meet that probable cause standard, and we just wouldn't be able to do them. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. I mean, two points that are perfect examples -- and we were severely criticized in the congressional joint inquiry. One of those criticisms was, of course, over the Moussaoui case, and you can read all about the details in the back-and-forth of what was required to meet that standard -- how do we show he's an agent of a foreign power; what kind of information; can we produce that information? All of that back-and-forth.

If you're saying that that standard needs to be applied to our foreign targets overseas, you're going to see that type of Moussaoui back-and-forth in -- I mean, it's just not something that's feasible for us to be able to do our mission as it was structured in 1978.

Let me hit one other point, which is, while under FISA you have the emergency authorization process -- the Attorney General can initiate an emergency authorization, and then you have 72 hours where you have to go to the FISA court. So why can't you act quickly under the emergency authorization part of FISA? There is no free pass under FISA. An analyst in my community cannot just initiate surveillance of somebody. The way it works is, that analyst goes to their supervisor, goes to their supervisor, goes to their supervisor -- that goes over to the Department of Justice; they vet it; it is personally signed -- approved by the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General or [my colleague]. If we get it wrong, there are certain penalties that kick in under FISA, if we thought we had probable cause, but it turns out somebody got the facts wrong. Depending on what happens, we may have certain penalties that we incur.

So the showing is the same. I can tell you from experience that the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for National Security do not just accept an incoming phone call from somebody who -- an analyst who gives them a little bit of information; they say, sure, go ahead, and we'll take 72 hours and kind of figure out what the real facts are. The statute is very clear. We have to make that showing before the Attorney General will give us the approval. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, FISA is -- again, here in the United States, domestically, the Protect America Act, the Senate bill: court order, go through FISA if you're acting -- if you're targeting here in the United States, domestically. And broader, targeting a U.S. person anywhere in the world we now have to go to the FISA court. So, no, I still expect that we'll have large numbers of FISAs for our domestic mission. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can you clarify, though, while with the law being expired, are you operating wholly under the Protect

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we have some of the Protect America Act, that portion that continues that we've described. So we hope that the act -- the authorities that have been issued and these directives, that people will continue to act under them. So we're acting under those.

To the extent there are new things, we're going to have to mitigate the problem and figure out ways to mitigate it. FISA is not a complete substitute. In many cases, it may not be much of a substitute at all. It's a problem right now. We're trying to figure out if I have other problems, how I would mitigate them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, it's been a subject of debate since 2006. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me -- okay, in the summer the Director of National Intelligence, he had his three principles I outlined; you can see the statements on our website, they're all out there. And those were his three principles: court order for targeting an American; no court order for doing our foreign intelligence to target overseas targets; and three, protection, both prospective and retroactive, and an ability to compel the help that we need.

It was determined in the situation that we were in, in the end of July, and the gravity of the situation, that the Congress was not going to be able to address this issue of retroactive liability protection. The DNI discussed this in a statement of, I believe, August 2nd or August 3rd, where he certainly had the strong belief that this was going to be addressed in September of 2007, and that was his understanding. So this has been discussed all the way going back to 2006. And the Senate has addressed in a very strong fashion. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q On lost intelligence, could you just be a little bit more specific, because when people hear that

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, first, we had surveillances that we wanted to do, that we had valid reasons for doing the surveillances, that we were not able to do because the providers were not cooperating and because of the concern that they expressed -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. It's very difficult for me to quantify. I mean, I have a number of indications -- I'm actually trying to get some of that additional information right now. I can't give you -- I mean, those numbers are all going to be highly sensitive, but I'll say this: All weekend, when the act expired, prior to the law being expired the intelligence agencies were very concerned. When they felt there was an impairment they got very concerned. And on a daily basis we were working this issue, I was contacting -- working with the Department of Justice -- they were working extraordinarily hard, as were the intelligence agencies. And the problem got worse over the week, as we identified new things that we needed to be doing. And certainly the intelligence agencies felt it was significant. They also felt that Congress needed to be notified.

So I'm not going to get into quantifying things, but if it was one piece of kind of unclear activity, I don't think I would have seen the same concern from the intelligence agencies. I'm going to rely on their judgment, but they certainly felt it was a significant impairment and they certainly advised me that the Congress needed to be notified. And I don't think they would have done that if they didn't feel it was a significant impairment. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q -- the letter that was put out today by Richard Clarke and Rand Beers and other intelligence officials

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I'll let Dana and Tony speak to administration issues. I will speak for the -- from the Director's perspective and the intelligence perspective. I've not heard anyone question the NIE of the summer that talks about the homeland threat, the public version of that that we talked about -- I think it was the July NIE key judgments are public. So maybe people want to debate that NIE, but it is -- as far as I know, it's been fairly widely accepted. I did not hear members of Congress questioning what the NIE said. I have not heard members questioning what the DNI has outlined, in terms of the situation with the leadership, in terms of reconstitution, in terms of space to train and operate.

He's talked about the fourth piece that they're missing, in terms of operative cells, as far as we're aware here domestically. As recently as his last open threat testimony, though, and in some of the discussions that he's had, he's talked very clearly about what they want to do, in terms of moving operatives out of where they are into Europe, without visas, and how you would look at infiltrating the United States, or carrying out an attack elsewhere. So he's been very clear on that. And we track these people through a number of these tools, as he's discussed. So I'm not sure where the credibility gap is. The Germany -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, you made the statement about -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q My question was probably unclear then. The letter today from Clarke, Beers, Suzanne Spaulding,

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, well, I mean, I stand by his statements. He's concerned that we had a dynamic tool under the Protect America Act. We've talked about some of the examples of the information that we've gathered over the past six months. We think it's been very valuable information under the Protect America Act.

We do not have all of the tools that the Protect America Act provides available to us right now. We had the issue of last week. We have, even on the things that we thought were most clear, we have people telling us, for now we will continue with those things. We don't have some of the new tools that we provide.

So from the Director's perspective, who is charged with providing warning of threats to the nation, he's concerned; he doesn't have these dynamic tools that he thinks he has. If people want to question that, that's certainly their right to do it, but I think it's well backed up by the evidence. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: If I could just -- one last thing on this. Please go look at the joint Attorney General-DNI letter from last Friday. It's very thorough, and it's a very reasoned letter that's sort of making the point in measured terms what it is we're missing, and what the problem is that we're facing now that the act has expired. And people have suggested that maybe this was something that was playing to politics, but you've got to look at the context here.

This was, A, it was a letter that was in response to inquiries from the Hill. We got a letter -- the President received a letter from Chairman Reyes about this very issue, so he asked the AGG and the DNI to respond, so they did respond with this well-thought-out letter. The letter itself acknowledges that most of the providers were cooperating with our requests, but that not all were.

I can't remember the exact language, but they say that we're hopeful that we will continue with our further efforts, we'll be able to mitigate these concerns, so we make it clear that we're working on it. And then later on that evening, once we do get to full compliance, the DOJ and ODNI immediately notify the intelligence committees up on the Hill that we've got full compliance now on that one area. And then the next day we put out a statement. So I think that whole exercise shows -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It was a back-and-forth engagement with the general counsels' offices, so that they got to the point where, as the announcement says, they were willing to comply with our requests, but there's no guarantee they'd continue to do so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Hello, everybody. A couple of announcements. One, the statement on housing, just an update. As the housing market continues to transition, President Bush is helping responsible homeowners across America through a series of targeted actions. This past fall, you may remember, he announced the creation of FHASecure, which is a program giving HUD's Federal Housing Administration greater flexibility to help Americans by offering more home mortgage financing and also refinancing options for people who need it.

Today the President was pleased to learn that that program has reached a milestone of helping over 100,000 Americans who have turned to FHASecure to refinance their homes and avoid foreclosure since it was launched last fall. And HUD says they are on track to help 300,000 Americans by the end of this calendar year.

In addition, today at 1:45 p.m., President Bush will meet with a bipartisan group of 20 former Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officials, as well as former legislators who have focused their careers on trade and national security issues. The President will discuss the importance of free trade to our economy and our national security, and the need to pass free trade agreements with Colombia and Korea.

Trade liberalization is unquestionably good for America. It creates jobs and improves our standard of living. This isn't just our view, it's the overwhelming view of economists everywhere. The United States has only 5 percent of the world's population; this means that 95 percent of the potential customers for our business, and farmers and service providers, is outside the United States. So we have to continue to open markets for our products.

American exporters are succeeding in the global marketplace because of trade, and exports are at an historic high. It's important to remember that the U.S. is the world's largest exporter. It's not China, not India, not Germany, not Japan, nor any other country. That said, there is no question that certain industries, and even certain regions, are more affected by new competition from overseas. And that is why we have trade adjustment assistance programs, to help workers who lose their jobs because of trade. And the President wants to make sure that those programs continue and that they are effective.

The group the President is meeting with today understands the great benefits that trade brings to this country, and he will thank them for their work and ask them to do more to keep the U.S. economy open, dynamic and competitive.

And again, we're going to be focusing on the Colombia and Korea free trade agreements today.

Now to your questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q There was some bad economic news today. Consumer confidence plunged, the home prices fell -- had

MS. PERINO: The President has been briefed on all these numbers. He gets a regular briefing; he's very interested in making sure that he is kept up to date. There is no doubt, as he has said, that we are in a softening of the economy, we're in a slowdown. What the President has worked to do with bipartisan members of Congress is to pass a short-term stimulus package of $157 billion, checks of which will be headed to taxpayers within the next couple of months; in addition to that, giving small business owners and other businesses tax incentives that they can put into -- that they can start using right now, so that they can get that into their operations and help us -- help the whole economy prevent how deep the cycle will be.

As you know, economies cycle. When the President took office, the economy was in a downturn. Then we had 52 consecutive months of job growth, starting in August of 2003, and now we're in a softening period. And the question is how soft is it going to be, and how steep is the downturn going to be. And the President believes that one of the ways to make sure that it's not as steep as it could be is to do the stimulus package, and to make sure that we have pro-growth policies, including making sure that Congress does not raise taxes on the American people.

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

MS. PERINO: I don't with me, Helen, no. Obviously, it's entirely too many innocent Iraqis who have lost their lives. Remember, most of the people who have been killed in Iraq have been killed by extremists and terrorists. Things have gotten remarkably better, but we still have a ways to go because of the work that we've done, that General Petraeus has done and Ambassador Crocker, both on the military side with an increased number of troops, and then on the political surge, and working with the Iraqis to move forward on their new, fragile government.

That is all taking place at a time when we see that attacks are down across-the-board, but still not down far enough. As long as we keep at it and we keep working at it, we're confident that Iraq will become a country that can sustain, govern, and defend itself. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know if that's accurate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The Iraqi government has called the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq a violation of its sovereignty

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm not going to put a time frame on it. Obviously we support Turkey and we support Iraq. One of the things we have supported is that the two countries have regular contact and coordination during this incursion. We do want it to be short term, and we want it to be very narrowly targeted.

I would point out that there are Turkish officials, I understand, who are in Baghdad today, who are talking to their counterparts. And so we understand that Iraq does not want Turkey to be in their region, but they also don't want the PKK up in their northern region, and they understand what it's like to have terrorists attacking innocent civilians. And we believe that Turkey does have the right to defend itself.

So it's obviously a situation that none of us would choose to have, but it's one that the Turks, we believe, so far have been fairly responsible in moving forward with this operation. It's important that they continue to work with the Iraqis. And you can imagine that there's a lot of consternation on behalf of the Iraqis, but I think that's one of the things that is good about what's come out of this, is that as neighbors, Iraq and Turkey are talking this through.

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

Q Dana, what is the White House position on the visit to North Korea by the New York Philharmonic

MS. PERINO: No to the second question. I think that we, as Americans, have been big proponents of the North Korean people. We have had problems with the regime, which has hidden its nuclear program. And the President, working with his allies, created the six-party talks, of which North Korea is a part. And North Korea made promises that they need to keep in terms of fully denuclearizing the Peninsula and giving us a full and accurate accounting of their proliferation activities, as well.

So they have a ways to go in order to meet those obligations. Once we get to those, we might then be able to see normalized relations begin. And part of normalized relations would include possible cultural exchanges, like the one that you saw today.

But I think at the end of the day, we consider this concert to be a concert, and it was not a diplomatic coup. There's a lot of things that it is not; what it is was a wonderful concert that the New York Philharmonic put on for the North Koreans -- for those who were able to see it. And you have to remember how many people in North Korea who weren't able to come and experience the New York Philharmonic, and we can't help but think about those people and the terrible conditions that they're living under. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I mean, if it spurs North Korea to do what it says it would do in the six-party talks, I guess you could look back and say it was helpful. But today I don't think we can say whether or not it was helpful. I would just say it was probably neutral. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No. I mean, it was a private invitation that was issued to them, and obviously the State Department would have to help with some logistics, which we did do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Following on that -- during the visit the concert itself was carried live on national television

MS. PERINO: How many journalists were able to go out and about in the country and see other parts of -- out of the controlled environment that they were kept in? I just think that everyone needs to keep in mind that this is a regime that has brutally treated its people, there is a lot of starvation and repression, and people are not able to lead free and prosperous lives, like they could.

But the President is going to support the North Korean people, press on the six-party talks, as well as human rights abuses.

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

MS. PERINO: Here's what's prompted it, actually. In my experience, having been following this issue for a long time and quite intensely, I think it is a very complex issue. And I believe that people here think that they would like to learn more about this issue so that they can have more background and understand the complexities of the issue and where we stand, and the positions that the Department of Justice and the Director of National Intelligence have taken. We thought it would be something that we should provide to you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Elaine, I could go back to yesterday's transcript. There's just a lot -- there's a lot of issues, in terms of -- like this law has been in place since 1978. There's a lot of history here with this law. There's a lot that's happened between April of 2007 and August of 2007 when the Protect America Act first passed. There's confusion as to what are the implications and the consequences of not having the Protect America Act.

Now, I am not a lawyer, and this is a highly legal issue. You also have people at Department of Justice and the Director of National Intelligence who are directly working with the general counsels of the telecommunications companies that we need to have working with us. And they're the ones that are in communication with them, and understand their concerns and their needs. So this is an opportunity, if people want to attend, to get more information about that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: These are lawyers who are -- I'm on the record all the time, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence -- who is testifying tomorrow -- will be on the record. This is background for your information and for your education, and if you want to attend, that would be great. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: From where I stand, and the questions that I get, no, I don't think so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, other than providing more clarification in this background briefing -- or education, what

MS. PERINO: That's part of the other reason. Obviously, there's two parts to the story; there's the process story, which people latch onto, in terms of how do you get there, but then there's also the substance story, about what are we talking about, and what do we need to do. So both stories are important.

On the process side of things, I would say that members of Congress are just back in town today after -- well, last night and this morning -- after a 10-day recess. They need to get together and figure out, where do they go from here? And I don't know exactly how they're going to do it either, but we continue to work with them. Our staff -- Dan Meyer, who is our Director of Legislative Affairs, has been there every day trying to work with them to see how we can get it done.

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

MS. PERINO: Well, as I said, as much as I know about economics, prices go up and down, and there are cycles, and it depends on how high and how low they go. And having good policies to make sure that the lows aren't too low is really important. And we don't exactly -- I can't tell you, I don't have a crystal ball to tell you where the housing market is for sure going. But one thing that is for sure is that we had an oversupply of housing, and now we're working our way through that problem. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't know how else to explain it. Obviously, the housing market is a critical part of our economy. We're watching it very closely. We have several different programs, both here with -- that the federal government is running. We're asking Congress to take action on the FHA modernization. We've been asking since I think the spring of 2006 for them to take on a bill, which would allow the FHA to help more people with larger mortgages -- because you can have middle class areas now all across the country that have homes that are valued at over $400,000. If that's the case, then FHA today can't help them. But with the legislation, they could. So we're asking Congress to take some action on that, too. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: That's FHASecure. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, we have -- we're hoping that Congress will move forward and take up this FHA modernization bill, because we think that that will really help a good number of people. In addition to that, remember we are working with HOPE NOW, which is the Treasury Secretary and HUD Secretary's program working with the private sector. And within HOPE NOW, they also have Project Lifeline, which is for those individuals or families who could be at risk of losing their home imminently. I would remind you a number from Treasury that we have today is that 93 percent of homeowners across America are doing okay. They're being -- they're able to make their payments, and they're not in the category of people who need this help. But it's that 7 percent that we really have to focus on.

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

MS. PERINO: Well, part of it would be highlighting the issue, like the President is going to do today, and talking to a bipartisan group of former government officials who have dedicated their lives to trade to put the pressure on. And I think that Congress recognizes that -- especially in regards to Colombia -- this is both in our national security and our economic interests. And so we'll continue to work with them. Obviously the push is going to be on. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'd have to refer you to our office for their scheduling. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know if we know for sure exactly what it's going to take, but one of the things that the President can do is continue to push. And he can do that with events like he's having today, and meetings in which they strategize to figure out how to make sure this free trade agreement becomes a reality.

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

MS. PERINO: Yes, and many of them have written letters and have made phone calls, and made their positions known, and that can be very helpful. And we'll get you a list of the participants. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, he'll be focusing on Colombia and Korea.

` Matt. I'm sorry, is that a follow on that? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Okay. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Does the President agree with the idea to review some chapters of NAFTA that are affecting the

MS. PERINO: I haven't heard that. But I can check into it and get back to you.

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

Q Thank you, Dana. On another issue, the AP reports from Chicago that 20,000 people attending the

MS. PERINO: I think we're just going to steer clear of that one. Move on to your next question; hurry up. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I do. So go on to your next one. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that that's a matter for Hillary Clinton to answer. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: As a journalist, I'll let you continue to pursue that with her office.

We'll go to Paula first. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We have said that, too. I didn't say that over-supply was the only reason. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Are you talking -- this is the Harry Reid bill, Senator Reid's bill up on Capitol Hill? We'll have a -- we will have a statement on administration policy that comes out this afternoon on that, so I will refer you to that. But I think the main concern is that it would lead to a contraction in the amount of mortgages, and flexibility for mortgages, and that's the last thing you need in a housing downturn.

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

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to the intelligence community for that, Goyal. I can't say.

One thing I would point out is the reports today that the Taliban is threatening in Afghanistan to -- threatening telecommunications carriers and mobile phone carriers for providing their services because they think that we might be listening in on their terrorist phone calls. It's the whole point of the program, is to make sure that we are listening in to make sure that we can prevent attacks on American people. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q As far as the sanctions on Burma, yesterday when President employed sanctions -- sanctions has

MS. PERINO: Well, we continue to pressure other countries to support us. And obviously, Secretary Rice is in the region right now and I'll refer you to the State Department, because I'm sure she'll bring it up. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Hello. A couple of announcements. One thing, earlier today the Treasury Department issued sanctions against some elements of the regime in Burma. And the President will have a statement about that after this. I won't read it for you here because it's quite long -- I'll spare you that -- but it will be released soon. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: A written statement, yes; sorry.

Also, tomorrow President Bush will deliver remarks to the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation, which works to promote political, entrepreneurial and intellectual leadership of the African people and to advocate on behalf of Africa. As the President said in his roundtable interview on the flight back from Africa last week, that was one of the most exciting trips he and Mrs. Bush have ever taken. They were touched by the reception and they received a lot of inspiration from the people that they met.

During his remarks tomorrow the President wants to convey what he saw on his trip and he wants to show the American people the striking difference that their generosity is making. And then he will make clear also why he is so optimistic about Africa. The best way to do that is to show Americans what he saw, and so with the help of the White House photographers he's assembled a slide show of images from the trip to go along with the speech that he will present tomorrow. And the President will show -- use these images to show how the African nations are together fighting HIV/AIDS and malaria, improving education, reducing poverty, and strengthening democracy. And he will argue that it's essential for this life-saving work to continue.

After the President's speech, Hope Masters, who is Leon Sullivan's daughter and the foundation president and CEO emeritus of the foundation, will present the President with an award from the foundation for his dedication and commitment to -- and service to the people of Africa. So that's tomorrow's speech. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, a couple of the governors came out of the meeting with the President today and said that

MS. PERINO: I would describe it as the President having a good meeting with the governors and listening with an open mind, not making any promises, being very clear that he's concerned about anything that would raise taxes on the American people. One of the things that they talked about was their desire for more funding for transportation funding.

The President pointed out that our request from FY'08 to just the recent budget that just came out the beginning of February for FY'09 increased transportation spending requests $24 billion(*) this year. So we'll see then if Congress agrees to fund that through the budget process as we go forward.

But the other thing that the President made clear is that we have a problem of earmarks when it comes to transportation funding, and that the Public Works Committee, which is quite large, has a lot of earmarks that they put into these bills. And the President believes, and he told the governors, he thinks that they should have more input as to how transportation money should be spent in their own states. And so he talked a little bit about earmark reform, in addition to saying that he hopes that Congress will look at his request for the budget and try to get that passed sooner than later. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Again, I think that it would be premature to say that one was closed. The President, as I said, had an open mind when he listened to them, but he did say he was very concerned about any proposal that would raise taxes. And he's also looking to make sure that a short-term stimulus package that he just signed will have the desired effect of blunting any possible effect of a slowdown in the economy that we do expect because of the housing and credit issues.

So we'll have another number this week. I think GDP numbers come out later in the week, so we'll see where we are in terms of forecasting at that point. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Up on Capitol Hill? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, the members will be getting back in town later today, and tomorrow, I think both the Senate and the House are in, so we'll have to see at that point. But we are at a point in the debate where we believe that with a Senate bill that was supported by a wide bipartisan majority -- it passed 68-29, which I heard some congressman say that you can't even get a Mother's Day bill passed in the Senate -- but for this bill to garner 68 votes was quite significant.

If that vote was held today in the House of Representatives, if the Democratic leaders would allow it to come to a vote, it would pass, as well, with a majority supporting it. So we have a way to get to a bipartisan bill that is supported by the intelligence community, and gives them, the people who are accountable to the American people for protecting them, the tools that they say they need.

So at this point, I don't know where the members are going to come down, but we hope that they would be able to move forward this week. They have a bill in front of them that they could call up today -- or tomorrow when they're in session. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: That has been his position for a long time, and the reason is because you can't have -- without the cooperation of the companies, we won't have a program. You know, if we had a nationalized telecommunication system, then we -- the government could do it on its own, but in our system of government and the way that we are set up as a capitalist-style country, we have to have the cooperation of the private sector.

They have the technology, they have the means, and they want to cooperate, but they have been burdened with over 40 lawsuits, class-action lawsuits that would -- that, one, already are costing them lots of money to deal with. And if the suits were to go forward, it could cost them possibly billions. And that cost is going to be borne by the consumers of those businesses, the customers of those businesses. But more importantly, the companies at this point are saying that they are growing increasingly reluctant to continue to work with us because, even though they want to, they are concerned about the trial lawyer lawsuits that are pending. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Reluctantly so. And it took a lot of work on behalf of the Justice Department and the office of Director of National Intelligence to work with the companies to work with companies to -- work with them to tell them what we need, and to tell them that we are going to continue to push for prospective and, more importantly, retroactive liability protection. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Nobody broke the law, Helen. That might be your opinion, but nobody broke the law. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Helen, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: And the facts are that companies were asked to help, and they were helped -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: -- and they allowed -- they helped with a legal program that has helped save lives. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: That is just -- that's not true, Helen. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: There are -- it's a little bit more complex than that, but there are certainly directives that were approved last August when the Protect America Act was passed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: For one year. But it's not for -- it's not necessarily -- that does not necessarily apply to all the new targets. And it doesn't apply necessarily to maybe new companies or new providers that we would need to work with in the future, that might not already be under a directive that we're -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: That's not necessarily the case. As you heard in the letter -- you didn't hear from him, but in the letter that Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent on Friday -- that there were several days last week where we lost information. Late Friday night there was a company that agreed reluctantly to continue to cooperate with us.

But one of the things you have to understand is in the world -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Correct. There was -- they are reluctant to cooperate. And during that time frame when they were trying to work with them to get them to cooperate, and to give them the comfort that they needed to be willing partners, it just took a little while. And then once that was given on Saturday morning, that the Justice Department and the Office of Director -- the DNI, put out a statement saying that they had gotten this cooperation.

But this is not the kind -- this is not the way we should be running an intelligence program where you are trying to track terrorists who are calling into or out of America. We don't want to have to be having our lawyers and other professionals in the intelligence community having to coax companies to cooperate. These companies want to cooperate. I mean, all they're saying is that they want the retroactive liability protection which passed the Senate 68-29. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q So what does the White House think of the op-ed from the Democrats that accuse the President of

MS. PERINO: Well, one, the House proved that they couldn't even pass an extension, so that wasn't an option. An extension wasn't an option. But we had a response to the op-ed, that I issued.

I think that fear-mongering and the use of the phrase "scare tactics" is something that the Democrats -- it must be, like, one of their favorite words, or it must poll very well, because they use it almost every time.

What we have done is state facts; that this is what the law said; this is what the intelligence community says that they need; this is what the bill in front of the House says, and it's one that was designed with the intelligence community, in concert with them, so that they would be able to have the buy-in and say that they would get what they need out of that bill. It passed 68-29; we think they should go ahead and pass it.

The issue really right now between the House and the Senate, as far as I can tell, the biggest issue is retroactive liability protection, and in their op-ed they just had a passing glance to that issue. But it is one of the biggest sticking points, because at the end of the day if we don't have the companies helping us, then we won't have a program. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'd refer you to their letter in which they said that there were several days of lost information. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: As we said, the program was lawful, they were asked to help their country. And look, the President's most solemn obligation is to protect the American people. And in some ways it seems that the House Democrats' most solemn obligation is to help protect the trial lawyers -- they're the ones who have brought all these lawsuits. And they're huge class-action lawsuits in which all of us consumers of telecommunications companies would be named. And if at the end of the day, say that these trial lawyers won these lawsuits -- you and I would get a dollar or two back, and they would get 46 percent of the award.

This program was lawful; and we need it. General Hayden and Director McConnell have said that this is a program that helped us save lives. It helped -- they say in their letter from Friday night that they found someone who was planning to be a suicide bomber, someone who was trying to move terrorist financing money around.

And so with the way that terrorists know that they can use technology, we have to keep up with them. We have to stay one step ahead of them. And what counts right now is seconds and minutes. It's not days' worth of time that you can spend to try to track down one of these individuals. There are times when you need to act urgently, and so you need the speed, agility and flexibility that comes from what passed in the Senate, which is a bipartisan bill that passed 68-29. And the House could pass it today if they wanted to. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm not a lawyer; I just know, Kathleen, that it's much more complicated than that, and that the intelligence professionals and the lawyers who are working on this are trying to work with the companies to make sure that they know that we will give them everything that they need in order to be comfortable working with us.

And they have said that until they have that retroactive liability protection -- and right now, with the Protect America Act expired, there is a question from some of them as to whether or not the prospective or current activities that are ongoing, if they are protected from that. So we would just encourage Congress to go ahead and take that -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I refer you to their letter in which they said there were days lost, and that we have companies that are reluctantly working with us. And, Bill, look, take it -- do not take it from me, take it from the intelligence community professionals. These are people who are held -- would be held accountable if there were a terrorist attack. And they are saying this is what they need. They're not making this up. We wouldn't be having this debate if we didn't need this program. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: They don't believe necessarily that it may be made right later because Congress has been unwilling -- the House Democrats have been unwilling to move. They had six months to work on it; they didn't. The President graciously gave them another 14 days to work on it; they didn't do it. They even proved that they couldn't pass an extension in the House. So here we are, waiting for Congress to continue to work on it. And I will tell you, it is a fact that the companies are increasingly reluctant, whether you believe it or not. And you don't have to take it from me, but you could take it from the intelligence professionals who are responsible for making sure that all of us are kept safe. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Because the House couldn't even pass an extension bill, even if they had wanted to. They couldn't pass it. What they need to pass is a bipartisan bill -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, that's true, but they wouldn't have been able to pass it anyway. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. This -- no. The President is not going to accept the blame for House Democrats not taking up a bill that passed 68-29 in the Senate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: But, Bill, it still didn't do what -- the things that I have said repeatedly that it needs to do. Even if they had extended it, it doesn't provide for retroactive liability protection, which is what the companies say that they need.

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

MS. PERINO: Go ahead, Roger. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Look, I can't get into a lot -- this is a classified program, so I would refer you to the letter that Judge Mukasey -- I'm sorry, Attorney General Mukasey and Director McConnell put out Friday night. They said they -- in that letter, on the first page, it says they lost days-worth of information. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I know that there was a certain instance in which they were not able to convince a company up until late Friday night, which is why they put out that statement Saturday morning.

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

MS. PERINO: Not more than any other month. I was just making a point that it's another factor that we'll have to take into account when the numbers come out on Wednesday(**).

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

Q On that topic, you said going into the meeting with the governors the President was willing to

MS. PERINO: Well, it's not -- there's no short-term stimulus to the economy for some of these projects, though I think that the -- the President listened to them with an open mind, and I think that he would encourage them to work with the Department of Transportation to see what might be possible right now, today. He talked about his budget, which would increase transportation funding by $24 billion this year alone.

And so -- and I think it was Governor Rendell who said that they have done a lot of the legwork to get these projects up to where they need to be -- for example, the environmental impact statements having been done already, and a lot of the planning necessary have been done. They're just waiting for the funding.

And so I think the President encouraged them to work with Secretary Peters. I'd just say that the President was very clear he is reluctant to support anything that would raise taxes. So we'll have to see what they come up with.

Peter, did you have one? No? Okay, John. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, the bottom line is the President says he's not going to raise taxes, okay. So I should say it's not just that he's reluctant to; it's that he would not sign a bill that would raise taxes.

But there's lots of different ways and Congress is very creative in figuring out ways to increase taxes on the American people. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, we already -- we have already conceded that. And when we -- when the President signed the $157 billion stimulus package, he conceded that we will have a short-term increase in the deficit because of that. But what we needed in that package, which we thought was the right size, which we think that it is the right size in order to prevent the economy from sliding down into a recession or even a stronger economic downturn -- that's why we have -- that's why the President signed that bill, and we think that that was sufficient. But we don't think, necessarily, that taxpayers should have to pay for any more stimulus if it's not necessary, and if it won't necessarily have the effect that they would like it to have.

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

Q At the stakeout, Governor Rendell said that actually the infrastructure -- investing in that would

MS. PERINO: I think we need to make a distinction -- any time you're pumping money into the economy, that's stimulative. But what we needed for this economy for this -- for right now is a short-term stimulus effect. I don't doubt that Governor Rendell said that, or that he feels that that would be better. The President, working with his Treasury Secretary and members of both the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle, agree that $157 billion in tax rebates and incentives for businesses was the best way to go. But as I said, he has an open mind, but he's not going to do anything that would raise taxes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q You also cited the $24 billion in your proposal this year. But as you know, budgets -- at best

MS. PERINO: You have such little faith in the Congress to actually get something done. But I think -- look, the governors are going to be talking to members of Congress, as well. The governors know that they want this money, and they will be able to lobby members of Congress, as well.

But remember, the President said that you can look at any transportation bill -- the highway bills have been passed -- especially recently, they are filled with earmarks, which takes away from governors being able to make decisions as to where they want to spend that money, and especially if they have a project all ready to go, they would rather put the money towards that, be able to get the project done for their people, create jobs in their state, and not have to spend it on something that they think is a lesser priority. But that's what happens with the transportation bills.

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

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. Agence France-Presse reports that the USS Nimitz launched four

MS. PERINO: Are you talking about the incident from a couple of weeks ago? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The President said that the Department of Defense handled it well, and we didn't think of it as a hostile act. It was nothing that we were really concerned about. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The AP reports that at Harvard, Mexico's President Felipe Calder n, on his first trip to the United

MS. PERINO: Well, look, Les, I don't think anybody here in this administration thinks that anyone from Mexico is an enemy, except for maybe those who are dealing drugs and violence on the border. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We are working with the Calder n government. And President Calder n has said he's committed to working with us, and we actually have a package right now pending before Congress, in which we want to work with them in order to help make the border even more secure from -- preventing illegal immigration, as well as helping stop drug trafficking and violence. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think the President believes President Calder n is making very good efforts in trying to help secure the border.

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

Q Last week, President Bush said that during his visit to Rwanda he learned the clear lesson that

MS. PERINO: The President has been working towards reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia, and it's actually working on a political level in some ways. Especially we saw that last month, when they passed three laws in one day, which was quite a significant achievement for the Iraqis. And he will continue to work with them on it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Look, what we do know is that the -- there might be polls telling -- saying different things about who wants us where. What we know is that the Iraqi government wants us there, neighboring countries want us there. And we also know that if we were to leave too quickly that the possibility for chaos and mass violence is too great, and the President won't risk that.

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

Q Dana, two quick questions. One, last week people of Pakistan have spoken for democracy. And there

MS. PERINO: Well, the President does support President Musharraf for all of the work that he's done to help us in counterterrorism. And if you look at what we asked President Musharraf to do -- which is to take off the uniform, to set free and fair elections, and to lift the emergency order -- he did all of those things. And so now it will be up to the people of Pakistan to see what their new government will look like. But the President does certainly support him, and has continued to. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And second, as far as the U.S.-India nuclear -- civil nuclear agreement is concerned, there is

MS. PERINO: Well, we have a little bit more time, obviously, on the calendar before the end of the President's term. But if there's internal pressure inside India for them to move more quickly, I think that's good. And I saw a report today that said that there are some elements within India that are very supportive of getting the deal done. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We are in touch with different levels of government throughout -- here and at the National Security Council and the State Department.

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

MS. PERINO: Can I just do one more back here. Go ahead. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, who? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Good morning, everyone. I was going to say, for those of you who have been traveling, welcome back -- but I'm not sure if we have anyone -- you're all well rested.

I'll go through the President's schedule today and then take your questions, and I can do the week ahead at the end.

This morning the President had his normal briefings at 8:00 a.m. And at 10:05 a.m. he's recording the radio address, and the radio address is about the urgent need for Congress to pass legislation to provide our intelligence officials all the tools that they need to protect America from terrorist attacks. So it will be focused on the Protect America Act.

Also want to note that the -- on the Northern Illinois University memorial service, last week the President offered condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the tragic campus shootings at Northern Illinois University. The President has asked Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt to serve as his personal representative at the memorial service at Northern Illinois University. And that occurs on Sunday evening, this Sunday, the 24th. So we have that.

Also another announcement, the Medal of Honor ceremony coming up will be honoring Master Sergeant Woodrow Keeble of the U.S. Army. That will be on March 3rd. The President will posthumously award the Medal of Honor to Master Sergeant Woodrow Keeble. He distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism on October 20, 1951, while serving as the acting platoon sergeant for the support platoon in Company G, 19th Infantry, near Sang San-Ni, Korea. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Sang San? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Oh, I'm sorry; yes. Master Sergeant Woodrow Keeble, K-e-e-b-l-e. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I don't know that, we can get that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: You don't have AP archives back to '51? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: You weren't there? (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We will provide you whatever information you need, Terry. So, again, that is March 3rd, that event.

With that, I'm happy to take your questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Well, as you know, there's an ongoing dialogue between Iraqis and leaders in Turkey about how to best confront the threat of the PKK. We've worked cooperatively with both of our allies on these issues, and worked to make sure that there's regular coordination about how to best confront this threat. So this is something that we were aware of in advance. And as you know, the U.S. agrees with Turkey, that the PKK is a terrorist organization, and it is an enemy of Turkey, Iraq, and the United States. And we have demanded that the PKK end their attacks on Turkish soldiers and civilians. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Well, we have been in regular coordination with the Turks and with the Iraqis. The Iraqis and Turks have been in communication about this issue, as well. I think those conversations will continue. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We were notified in advance, and as you know, as a NATO ally, we have a longstanding intelligence sharing relationship with Turkey. That was intensified with respect to the PKK, as indicated during the meetings between Prime Minister Erdogan and President Bush. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Yes, Ann. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We were notified, and we urged the Turkish government to limit their operations to precise targeting of the PKK; to limit the scope and duration of their operations. And we urge them to work directly also with the Iraqis, including Kurdish government officials, in determining how best to address the threat that the PKK -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I understand that Turkish authorities had notified Iraqi authorities simultaneously. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: What we would like to see happen is that Congress take up the House of Representatives, which is currently blocking the bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate; we'd like to see that taken up. That has received a supermajority in the Senate, and would pass the House if it was brought up for a vote. But House Democratic leaders are blocking that. That's what we would like to see. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Well, Congress has been out of town on a 10-day recess, so at this point I can't speak to staff-level discussions. But we think that the path forward on this legislation is very clear, and it's a very simple path; it's one that's supported not only by a majority in the Senate, but also by a majority in the House. So that is what we would like to see happen. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay, and one quick follow up on that. As I understand it, the sticking point is really about

MR. STANZEL: Well, retroactive immunity is something that the DNI has spoken regularly about. He spoke last weekend about it on one of the Sunday programs. And it's important that we provide that retroactive immunity for companies that were alleged to have helped after the 9/11 attacks.

What we have is a situation now where the Protect America Act was let to expire, calls into question prospective retroactive -- or prospective immunity. And the more uncertainty there are on these issues, the less willing these companies are going to be, presumably, to put their shareholders at risk of these multi-billion dollar lawsuits. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We have always been supportive of providing retroactive immunity to the companies that felt a patriotic duty to help their country in the aftermath of the most significant terrorist attack in the history of this nation. We think that's important.

The opposing arguments for that I assume are because they want trial lawyers to be able to sue those companies. We don't think that's right. We think that we should provide that immunity and we think that that's necessary. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Well, on housing -- I think you may be referring to a story that was out there today. We continue to aggressively address the problems in the housing industry, in the housing market. As we've said many times, the problems are diverse and they're different. So there is no one silver bullet to fix those problems.

The response that we have, therefore, takes many different approaches and -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: You know, there are a lot of ideas out there. I'm not going to speak to the specifics of that story. However, we continue administratively to administer -- or to implement reforms and to work with the private sector and to work with homeowners to lessen the impact of this downturn in the housing market. And so while we continue -- the administration continues that work, we also continue to wait for Congress to take action on one of the most significant parts of that, which is FHA reform. A proposal has been before Congress for quite some time, and it's inexplicable that Congress continues to not take action on that.

So there are many different ways in which we can address this problem and we continue to look at ways in which we can do that. But that's what I have for you right now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can I go back to the immunity question. You're saying that without that retroactive immunity,

MR. STANZEL: The DNI has said if we don't have cooperation from the private sector we don't have a program, period. So it's very serious. So that is -- our first and foremost concern is that immunity protection be provided so we have partnerships with the private sector, because without that -- this is not all information that the government, itself, holds. It's information that we need to work with the private sector to receive, and to administer the program. And without that, we don't have a program. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Without going into the broad details of the program, I think those are the types of questions that are best left to the intelligence professionals that do administer the program. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Thank you, Scott. Just a follow-up question. As of today, there is no surveillance bill on the

MR. STANZEL: We can keep you posted on any outreach that he has. I know there is regular communications between the DNI and the Attorney General and members of Congress on this issue. The President is highlighting the need for it in his radio address that he'll be recording today. So it's a very important issue, and he continues to be focused on it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I haven't talked to the President about that, but certainly we've appreciated Mr. Shadegg's service over the years. We think he's been an outstanding member of Congress. We are appreciative and supportive. It's been our policy all along to support Republican incumbents as the best way to retake the majority.

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

MR. STANZEL: This is a gaggle, by the way. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Yes, off camera, not for broadcast. Just noting that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Well, Lester, certainly that's a story that has received a lot of attention. I think a lot of people here in this building with experience in a couple campaigns have grown accustomed to the fact that during the course of a campaign, about -- seemingly on maybe a monthly basis leading up to the convention, maybe a weekly basis after that, The New York Times does try to drop a bombshell on the Republican nominee. And that is something that the Republican nominee has faced in the past, and probably will face in this campaign. And sometimes they make incredible leaps to try to drop those bombshells on the Republican nominees.

So that is something that we're aware of, and that, unfortunately is a fact of life. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland has for years tried to restore this birthday

MR. STANZEL: I don't think that he's had any comments on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We all celebrate the lives of past Presidents. Read more Comment (0), Email this.