State Department Briefing Passports and Presidential Candidates VIDEO PODCAST

Daily Press Briefing. Sean McCormack, Spokesman. FULL STREAMING VIDEO. Washington, DC. March 21, 2008, 12:12 p.m. EDT. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. Before I get to your questions, I wanted to provide a little bit of a recap and a little bit of an update on where we are with respect to the questions surrounding unauthorized access of Senator Obama's passport file.

Just to do a little bit of a recap, in case you missed the Secretary's words upstairs, she reached out to Senator Obama to say that she was sorry that this had happened, that there were these unauthorized accesses to his passport file. She assured the Senator that we took this seriously and that we were going to do a thorough investigation as well as to take steps to do the - try to ensure that this kind of unauthorized access doesn't happen in the future.

Now, a little bit of an update on where we are. We had talked earlier this morning about our doing a search to see whether or not there were any other unauthorized accesses of any of the other remaining presidential candidates, and our searches turned up two: one incident this past summer where there was a trainee in the Passport Office who had an unauthorized access of Senator Clinton's passport file. The context in which this happened was that last summer, when we were training new people to come online to help work through that backlog of passports that we had, we brought somebody online. Usually, in these training circumstances, people are encouraged to enter a family member's name just for training purposes. This person chose to enter Senator Clinton's name. It was immediately recognized. They were immediately admonished, and it didn't happen again.

Now, in the case of Senator McCain, we detected earlier this year - I don't have the exact date for you - one of the same people who accessed Senator Obama's passport file also accessed Senator McCain's passport file. This is the same individual who was disciplined but, at this point in time, still remains working with the contractor. So we are reviewing our options with respect to that person and his employment status.

Currently, Pat Kennedy as well as some other State Department officials are up on the Hill now briefing Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain's staffs on these incidents. Secretary Rice has, as I said, spoken with Senator Obama. She has also spoken with Senator Clinton. And shortly here, she will be speaking with Senator McCain, who is currently in Paris. So that's the update of where we stand and I'd be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Two things, if I may. One, did she apologize to Senator Clinton? Do you expect her to apologize also to Senator McCain? And secondly, have you expanded your investigation to include not merely the remaining presidential candidates, but indeed, all of the other presidential candidates who may have dropped out and whose privacy may also have been violated?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Secretary Rice expressed the same sentiments to Senator Clinton. I would expect that she would say the same thing to Senator McCain. We're sorry that this happened and sorry - and that we take it very seriously. We're going to do a full investigation and that investigation is going to be led by our Inspector General here in the Department of State.

Our Acting Inspector General is going to be supervising the investigation. The direct lead on the investigation is going to be led by our Director of the Investigations Branch. This is somebody who has just recently retired from the Secret - U.S. Secret Service as a special agent who has years and years of experience in investigative work. The Secretary has made it clear, through Pat Kennedy to them, that this is top priority. There's nothing else that's more important than to make sure and go through and do this investigation.

Now, you bring up a good point. They are going to take a look at these particular unauthorized accesses that we have talked about now in the case of these three presidential candidates. But they are also going to take a look at whether or not there are any systemic issues that need to be addressed. And in the course of doing that, if they come across any other incidents, of course, they are going to report those. And if there is any action that needs to be taken as a result of any information that they may uncover in the course of that investigation, absolutely, they are going to act on it.

And one other thing that's important to note. The Secretary has made a commitment that once we're completed with this investigation, the results of the investigation are going to be handed over and made available to all of our oversight committees up on the Hill, and that includes Congressman Waxman's committee. So we are in the mode here of being as transparent and open as we possibly can. I think the Secretary, you know, expressed everybody's sentiments here. Of course, you're mad and irritated if somebody is looking at your personal information. I think any American can relate to that.

And I have to tell you that we take very seriously the trust that is put in us in safeguarding American citizens' personal data. It is -- there's a trust relationship there when somebody hands over a passport application or any other sort of application to the U.S. Government. We take that trust very seriously. And we try to put in place sophisticated and elaborate safeguards to make sure that if people break the rules -- and we don't want to see them break the rules, but if people break the rules, that that's detected and that we can act to punish those people. And that holds not only for notable personalities such as presidential candidates or any other notable people in American society, but for every citizen. The controls may be a little bit different and I'm not going to get into how we monitor the activities and access to these people's files, because to do so would really only be to -- would only serve to tip people off to how we monitor the accesses.

But it's an important point because I know a lot of people are watching this story, they're interested in the story, and I understand why. But people should know that our vigilance applies not just to VIPs, notable personalities. The same kind of vigilance applies to every other passport application that we handle.

QUESTION: Can I follow up? Just - I didn't understand one thing. You said you're going to take a look -- a systemic -- you were going to take a look to see if there is a systemic issue.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I mean, are you going to specifically look at both - all the other presidential candidates and, indeed, all the people that you designate as high-profile people to make sure that this hasn't happened to them?

And then the other thing is this morning you said, and last night in the call you said the system worked. Do you believe that the system worked when the system was not able to prevent the multiple accesses, unauthorized accesses to one presidential candidate and now the access -- unauthorized access to two others? Do you still feel like the system worked?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I do feel like the system worked and we do feel like the system worked, but the system isn't perfect. And what you do in these kinds of circumstances is you learn. And what we have learned here is that for some reason, there was -- people at the working level did the right things. They confronted these employees who had accessed these files in an unauthorized way and they took action. That was the right thing to do and that's by the book.

What didn't happen is that that didn't - the information didn't rise up to senior management levels so that we could be made aware of it. That should have happened. And Pat Kennedy, who is our Under Secretary of Management, has made it clear to everybody involved in this process that he expects that to happen; if there are any future such incidences - and we all hope that there aren't - that he expects, and frankly, the Secretary expects that senior-level management is going to be made aware of these things.

And why is that important? That's important so that people in positions of management responsibility in this Department can take steps that they deem prudent and that they deem right to make sure that you don't have those kinds of multiple incidences. And it's a fair question to ask: Well, if senior management had been notified and you had somebody in a position more senior in the management structure notified of this, could they have taken a decision to perhaps put additional safeguards in place? The answer is yes. And Pat Kennedy is looking at ways in which, in particular, for the three individuals in this case -- Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain -- who have had their files accessed in an unauthorized manner, looking at how we can put in place safeguards so that there is a positive control at a senior management level for anybody who wants to do work on those files.

Now, in doing that, we don't -- we want to make sure that we can do our job and we can do the work that we've been assigned to do. So that's one thing we are going to take a look at system-wide. We have already made it very clear we expect information to flow up, which didn't happen in these cases and we expect it to happen in the future. The Secretary expects it to happen in the future. And the Inspector General will take a look at, you know, any issues -- any other issues that might be identified in the course of their work.

As for your other question about other individuals, let me get back to you. I'm not aware that we have done any other searches, but let me take that question and we'll get back to you.

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why did it take extra time to discover the breaches of Senators Clinton and McCain? Why wasn't that -- why didn't that come up yesterday in the same search?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's worth going back and doing the timeline here. Okay? And it gets -- it plays off the point I just made to Arshad in his question. And that is the information didn't flow up. In fact, we should have known about these unauthorized accesses when they happened -- senior management of the Department. Why? So we could have taken some steps to address it. But it's worth going through the timeline of this particular story.

We first became aware of questions related to these unauthorized accesses yesterday afternoon when a reporter e-mailed me to ask about it. I inquired to Pat Kennedy. He delved into the issue, found the information. As soon as we realized that there were these unauthorized accesses for Senator Obama's passport files, collected the information, we briefed the Secretary, we briefed Senator Obama's staff all before we ever replied to the reporter. Then we replied to the reporter and then we all talked to the rest of you as the questions came in.

While we were doing that yesterday afternoon, we did ask ourselves the question: Were there potentially, since there were these accesses and interest in Senator Obama, presidential candidate, were there any unauthorized accesses of the other remaining presidential candidates? So we immediately took steps to search the records, takes some time. We started that process yesterday. We got the answer this morning. Before I talked about those unauthorized accesses in public with you, we wanted to make sure we briefed the staff. We briefed the staffs and the Secretary also wanted the opportunity to first reach out, as appropriate, to each of the senators.

So that's why it took the time.

QUESTION: Right, but given -

QUESTION: (Inaudible) already knew about McCain and --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I did not.

QUESTION: But given the fact that it involved one staff member in two of the cases, how could that information not -- and who -- we understand there was disciplinary action taken.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: How could that not have come to light last night?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you. You know, I can't tell you. It could be as simple as one of those things, somebody asks you a direct question about one thing, and they gave you the direct answer about the one thing that you wanted to know about. I don't know the answer to it.

The fact of the matter is we did discover it. And with respect to that person, we are -- I can assure you that person's going to be at the top of the list of the Inspector General when they talk to people. And we are currently reviewing our options with respect to that person.

QUESTION: Is that person one of the two people who was dismissed?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. Currently employed by the contractor.

Let's go down -- I'll work this way. Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, there is something I needed to understand. These people, what did they have access to, exactly? Was it only the renewal application for renewal of passport or was it something else, traces of past trips, for example?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. They're passport files. Now, what is in a passport file will vary from individual to individual. And I don't know what is in each of these passport files, and certainly I wouldn't talk about it without the express authorization of any of these individuals. That holds true whether you're a senator or an average American citizen.

People can get a sense, you know, for what is in a passport application. At a minimum, what's in a passport file is your passport application, whether it's your original or your renewal. And you can take a look at -- anybody, any citizen can take a look at it. It's on our website if they go to pptform.state.gov. And you can take a look what's on there just so people can see this is what -- this is what one looks like and it has several parts. The instruction's here. It has a lot of basic data: your name, your date of birth, your mailing address, contact information, information about your parents, emergency contact information, basic biographical data, but - you know, and I'm not going to run through every single thing that's on there. But people can take a look at it. And it's basically the same --

QUESTION: But it could be more.

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that?

QUESTION: It could be more.

MR. MCCORMACK: In the passport file?

QUESTION: No, in the file, yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: In the file, yeah. It could be. I don't know and I'm certainly not going to speculate. And, you know, for our purposes, it actually -- and I know it's important to the individuals, but for our purposes, it doesn't matter what's in the file. It's the fact that the file was accessed in an unauthorized manner that is the problem. And I also would like to take just one step back just to give you a little bit of context here as well. I don't have exact numbers for you, but every single year, there's probably a handful of cases where you have unauthorized access to passport data. And I'll try to - and I'll try and do a little more research and get you some specific numbers, but to provide you a little bit of context as well.

And this is important that the American people understand this, is that last year we issued 18 million passports and the way the system works and part of the actual safeguard system that we have built in, and I'm not going to get into this, but essentially, for those 18 million passports, basically people will have had to, in some way, shape or form, accessed people's information, when you add it all up, tens of millions of times for legitimate purposes. So you have literally tens of millions of these individual, small, legitimate transactions when you're dealing with these passport issues and we have a handful of cases every single year where it's unauthorized access. Now I'll tell you - that's not making excuses. I'll tell you, one's too many.

But, you know, the important thing here is we do have a system in place to catch people who try to access these files in an unauthorized way. And we think we do a pretty good job of catching them and disciplining them.

QUESTION: Sean, can you tell us --

MR. MCCORMACK: It's -- I asked the question of Consular Affairs people - someone to come out here and try to give you a little bit of context. And like I said, I'll try to get you the exact numbers. And they told me and they said -- I said, quantify it for me. They said it's a handful each year that we know about. Now, of course, there's always a possibility that there are some that you don't know about. That always is a possibility. But in terms of the people that are caught, the description was given to me was a handful.

QUESTION: Okay. The reason I asked is that we just learned of five in the last, you know --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: So it makes me wonder when five --

MR. MCCORMACK: Maybe two handfuls.

QUESTION: Maybe there - well, but maybe there are lots that are simply not captured and you just don't know.

MR. MCCORMACK: There is always a case you don't know what you don't know. But again, I'm going on the information that's provided me when I asked the question.

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Let's -- I'll go down from right to left. Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, can you tell us about the system of flagging high-profile cases? Can you talk about that a little more generically, if not specifically, whether you're talking about presidential candidates only? Are you talking about rock star personalities? Are you talking about film stars? I'm not trying to be silly or funny here --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, yeah.

QUESTION: There's an impression out there that people might have gone and accessed -- you gave us one yourself, the person who accessed Hillary Clinton's file.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: So if somebody wanted to see their favorite film star, their favorite recording artist, could they do that?

MR. MCCORMACK: If they have a passport file, theoretically, it's possible, yeah. And there are - you know, people - you know, people every day from, you know, people who are in the news and a variety of different fora whether that's in, you know, on CBS news or People magazine or any other form of media, all the way to people who just applied for a trip to visit their relatives, should have the trust. Now, is it possible that there could be access to those kind of files? Yeah, there could.

And it's the Bureau of Consular Affairs that manages the program of applying, for lack of a better term, these flags to these kinds of files, files where you might reasonably expect that there is some form of temptation, for whatever reason, to look into their files. I don't -- I can look into this for you. I don't have a number, like a percentage of all the files that are flagged.

QUESTION: Well, I'm curious about --

MR. MCCORMACK: But again, it could be -- it's anybody from, you know, politicians to movie stars to novelists to whomever.

QUESTION: Okay. And another question: Can you name the two companies or contractors that these people - that the three people worked for?

MR. MCCORMACK: At this point, we're not prepared to release the name of the contractors. There could be a point here at which we will. There's been a request in from the Hill for that information, along with a lot of other information. So we'll take a look at that. At the moment, I'm not prepared to provide that, but we'll take a look at it.

QUESTION: Why are you not naming the companies? It's a public contract.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, it's a legitimate question. We're taking a look at it. I think, at this point, we've just started an investigation. We want to err on the side of caution and allow investigators to get a start without some of the attention that comes with talking about the names of the contractors. We will see. We'll -- it's something that we're taking under advisement and - but at this point in time, we're not going to talk about.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Could you tell us what's the fate of this third person who accessed both Senator McCain's and Senator Obama's - why he has not been fired at this point and why the other two have? And especially in light of the fact that he has accessed two of them, why you can't say (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, I'm not going to try to play close to the lines in terms of personnel matters, but let me -- I'll just say that we are reviewing our options with respect to that individual's continued employment with the contractor working at the State Department. I can tell you that that individual no longer has access to this kind of information.

QUESTION: Sean, the Clinton incident -- it was a person that was in training.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Do you think it's appropriate that somebody that's in training can go ahead and access the records of somebody as high profile as Senator Clinton? And also, why isn't that person just admonished? Are they still working? I mean, are they still able to continue on with their job or --

MR. MCCORMACK: It was a person -- this was during the past summer when we were bringing in people who don't normally do passport work, a so-called surge to deal with the passport backlog. I don't have the specifics of the individual. But, you know, again, when you're doing training, you need to be able to actually work with the system in order to do a good job and to do the job well.

Again, I can't speak to the specifics of the incident because I don't have them beyond what I've told you, that this was a training environment. It's inexplicable. You know, why, when you're sitting in a classroom and somebody tells you, use the - use your name, use your mother's name, use your father's name as part of this training exercise in order to access and work with a file and they choose to enter Senator Clinton's name? It's inexplicable. Why would somebody do that? I don't know why. But the fact is it was caught immediately, the person was admonished. I believe that they went on to continue their training without any further incident, but I can check into that for you.

QUESTION: And can I ask you about the DOJ part of this? This morning, you said --

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: -- that they were - that the State Department had contacted the DOJ and that you were --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, the IG.

QUESTION: Yeah, I'm sorry, the IG --

MR. MCCORMACK: The IG, correct.

QUESTION: You will be proceeding together?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Now I know some of us were confused about what that actually meant.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: This is not a joint investigation of any kind?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. And I know that people get, rightly so, very particular about terminology. I wouldn't characterize this as a joint investigation. I'll let the DOJ characterize their level and nature of involvement. We have invited them in to participate in the way that they see fit. Again, for the reasons that I talked about, as a hedge against any potential further action that might be required that would require the DOJ to take a look at whether or not they would take any action, again, that's completely their call. It's just a way of ensuring that there is openness and transparency and that if there is any need for further action beyond just the IG investigation, that the Department of Justice would have the option of looking at what it is they would or would not do, having had access to all the information and how we did the investigation from the very beginning.

QUESTION: Sean, was this person --

QUESTION: Can I ask --

MR. MCCORMACK: Nina.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up real quick --

QUESTION: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- on Libby's question about the person from last summer? Was this person a PMF, so in a sense, not a contractor?

MR. MCCORMACK: That person was - is a State Department employee, not a contract employee. I don't know if they were a PMF. I'll try to - I'll see if we can: (a) find that information; and (b) see what we can say in public.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Nina.

QUESTION: Sean, about these contractors, is this common practice to farm out this kind of work to these private companies or is this just because of this recent backlog? Can you tell me how that works?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. We have -- at the Department of State, as many, many other cabinet agencies do, we have contract relationships in order to help do some of our daily tasks. And that's done for a variety of different reasons. Normally, it is done because it is cost-effective, being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar while getting the job done in an effective way. Somebody - you guys asked earlier about how many -- what's the ratio of full-time U.S. Government employees to contractor employees in the Office of Passport Services. As of this month, there are about 1,800 U.S. Government employees working within the Office of Passport Services. As of this month, there are about 2,600 contract employees working within the Office of Passport Services.

Now, these people -- the contract employees will do a range of activities, all the way from system design, working on the actual software systems that people use in order to manipulate this data and to produce passports, to data entry, to customer service. So there's a wide variety of functions that they fulfill. But they are all under the management of State Department full-time employees as well as State Department managers. And you know, they do a really good job for the most part. There are always people who will break the rules, you know, whether they're contractors or full-time employees. But I wouldn't -- you know, having worked with a lot of contract employee folks, whether it's here or elsewhere, they do a good job, they're dedicated to their jobs and, you know, they are no less committed to trying to do a good job just because they're working for a contractor.

QUESTION: Are these contractors -- are they subject to the same kind of security checks or screenings that a State Department formal employee might be?

MR. MCCORMACK: I know Pat Kennedy talked a little bit about this last night. There are rigorous background checks that people go through, personal integrity checks --

QUESTION: For the contractors?

MR. MCCORMACK: For the contractors, right. And there is a -- I can't say with certainty, Nina, that a USG employee and a contractor go through the same security clearance process. There are many, many people in the State Department who are employed by the State Department who don't go through a security clearance process, I believe. So let me try to get you an answer and we'll post that for you.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I just ask one more thing?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: And just to get a sense of the duties that these people were supposed to be doing, were they given a list of names that they were supposed to look up and they veered from that list, or were they -- did they just go beyond their arena completely by putting in names at all?

MR. MCCORMACK: For --

QUESTION: I imagine that they were given a list of just regular citizens that they were meant to be processing and they just veered off and put these well-known names in.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I don't know for certain the specific responsibilities of each of the individuals. All I do know is they didn't have any business accessing those files. They didn't have a need to work on them. They weren't working on them as part of their jobs and they didn't have a need to know.

QUESTION: I'm just asking how far did they go beyond what they were meant to be doing?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't quantify it for - you know, whether they were one inch beyond the line or one foot beyond the line. In a way, it doesn't matter. They were over the line.

Yeah. I'm going to give everybody a chance here. Nicholas.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on this, I'm wondering in terms of defining unauthorized access, so when an employee accesses a file every time, do they need to put in a note of why they're accessing it, or how do you know that -- how does the flag go up? I mean, how do you know that the access was not authorized?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, for these files that are flagged, any time there is an access to those flagged files, a report is generated. And that report goes to a supervisor who can determine either for -- either through their own means that, yes, this person was supposed to be working on that file or they go talk to the person or go talk to their supervisor. In some way, they determine whether or not that person had a legitimate work-related reason to be accessing that file. And if it's found that they don't have a legitimate reason, then we proceed down the line all the way to the point of possible termination of employment.

QUESTION: All right. And also, the Secretary said upstairs that, to her knowledge, senior management had not been notified. Do you know how high did people in the chain know about the incident? Because someone knew, but she said it was at senior management.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. It's at the office director level for all -- for the three incidents with respect to Senator Obama. With respect to the other two, I have to do some research. But again, these are things that just came to light and came to -- and about which senior management only became aware today.

QUESTION: Well, if it was right, that means the Passport Office?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, in the Passport -- the Office of Passport Services. So there are obviously --

QUESTION: Different locations, right.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- numerous offices there and there are numerous locations as well, but at the office director level.

Yeah.

QUESTION: And their officers -- so that was a State Department employee? That was not a contractor person; that was an employee of the State -- the manager -- the supervisor?

MR. MCCORMACK: Ultimately, it did come -- yes, yes.

Glenn.

QUESTION: Yes, I came a little late. So if you already addressed this, I apologize. First of all, have you determined whether or not any laws have been broken by this -- by what they did here in terms of accessing the passports?

MR. MCCORMACK: At this point, we haven't, no.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: But our Office of Legal Counsel is - was - looked into this early on yesterday when we became aware that we -- that there was an issue here. So they're going to work closely with the IG's office on just those questions. I don't know what the potential pool of possible laws that might apply to these kinds of incidents are. I'm happy to do a little bit of research and see if we can find that for you.

QUESTION: Well, I was asking because Pat said last night he hoped to find out this morning whether or not any laws have been broken.

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't - as of this morning, I talked to him very generally about that and he didn't have any information for me.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, if you do find out --

MR. MCCORMACK: If we find out, we'll -- you know, for all of these questions, if we can be efficient in finding the answers and posting them for you, we'll do it, just so everybody is kept up to date here and I know that we're coming into a weekend as well.

QUESTION: And, Sean - and then, just to follow up something else that came up last night, the -- there's a question as to whether or not the Inspector General has any kind of authority or ability to talk to or question people who have been fired.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Is there an update on that? What kind of -- these people have already been terminated.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: What can the State Department do now to talk to them or -

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, certainly, we try to search them out and, on our own accord, try to contact them and to question them. I don't know that we've gotten beyond that point.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you know if anyone has spoken at this point to those people or are you still just relying on what the supervisor said?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know that anybody has spoken with them at this point.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Charley.

QUESTION: How straightforward is it when the employees of contractors of the State Department are hired and trained that they may lose their jobs if they snoop into people's files?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's very clear. And that's a big part of the process here, is you want to make the rules known to people as clearly as they possibly can both in their training period as well as their initial employment period. And frankly, every single time they access a computer, there's a reminder that comes up that says the information you are about to access has Privacy Act restrictions on it and you are acknowledging that you have a need-to-know in order to do your job to access this file and that if you are accessing it in an unauthorized manner, then there are potential penalties.

So not only is this part of the atmosphere in these offices in terms of the rules that are known and made explicit to everybody; there's a reminder every single time you log onto your computer about it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: It's not a matter of signing. The way it works is, basically by logging on, you acknowledge that you have read and understand this and you understand the consequences for breaking the rules.

QUESTION: Can you get a copy of that actual (inaudible) so we know what is --

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me look into it and see.

QUESTION: And once you log on, is it just as easy as a Google search? I mean, it sounds like this person --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don't know, Libby. You know, I honestly don't. I don't know how easy it is. I've never worked on one of these terminals. I've never seen the screens and so forth.

QUESTION: Can I just ask about -- one more thing about the information that's in people's files?

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is it possible that people's travel records are in there, your history of travel overseas?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, Libby, I just don't know what is in individual files. If we can provide an answer to that, we will. I don't know if there's a -- I don't know if there's a one-size-fits-all answer for that. I suspect that everybody's files are probably different just because everybody has individual circumstances. But if there's a general answer we can provide to you, well, I'm happy to do so.

Charley.

QUESTION: In this developing story, has there been any new information about whether information from the snooping was disseminated and spread to other people?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. No, we have nothing new. And that - and, you know, as I said last night, you know, it is still our initial take that this was -- I referred to it as imprudent curiosity. And you can use a lot of other terms for it and - but we are not dismissive of any other possibility and that's the reason why we have an investigation underway. And as the Secretary made very clear, we're going to get to the bottom of it.

QUESTION: At the very minimum, would you at least acknowledge this is very embarrassing for the State Department?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, anytime in public, you have -- you're having a discussion about your employees not doing -- whether they're contract employees or U.S. Government employees -- not doing their job the way they're supposed to and having broken the rules, yeah, that's embarrassing. Of course, you don't want it to happen.

But you know, despite that fact, we are trying to deal with this in as straightforward and transparent a way as we possibly can without in any way compromising our ability to get to the facts and, if need be, to take any further action and also use the opportunity to try to reassure all those people that, you know, have transactions with the Department of State that we take very seriously the trust that they have put in us, and we take very seriously our responsibilities in terms of handling their personal information.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Of the managers and the people who knew before yesterday about these breaches, are any of them, as far as you know, political appointees?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't believe that they are political appointees. I believe that they are full-time government employees, career employees.

Yes, you haven't had a question.

QUESTION: Yes. You mentioned that when someone's report or someone's files are authorized - accessed in an unauthorized manner that a flag signals. So why did it take three months for senior management to catch wind of the incident?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that gets back to, I think, the first question we had here. That should have happened. That information should have been passed up the chain so that people in more senior management roles could make a judgment about whether or not there were any other additional safeguards that were needed or any other additional steps that needed to be taken. So that was a breakdown. You know, like I said last night, Pat said last night, I said it again today: The system worked. Is the system perfect? No, it isn't perfect. And we see this is an example of how the system needs to be improved.

QUESTION: So who's in charge of catching these flags when they signal and shouldn't they have gone to senior management as soon as it happened?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, I think I just answered that question. In terms of who is responsible, it's the working-level managers and supervisors.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: Sean, do you have a broader issue here, a broader problem with privacy in that these issues were - these instances were caught because they were flagged, they were high-profile --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- individuals, but for someone like myself or anybody else in this room, if somebody were trying to access it, is there a broader inherent flaw in your system that people are able to access security - Social Security numbers, photos, contact information for pretty much anybody?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's what I was trying to get at at the very beginning here and I've been trying to emphasize all along the way. There is a system whereby you can flag files and very clearly, that is - you know, if there's an unauthorized access, it's very easy to detect. There's an automatic flag and questions are asked immediately.

For me or for you or for anybody else in this room who doesn't necessarily have a flag, and I mean that in a positive way, on their file, there are other safeguards built into the system. Because of course, we are aware of the potential for people to just look into other files. That's not something that I can describe in public for you and we're not going to talk about it in public, but - because to do so is only to describe to people who might want to abuse the system of ways that they can get around the safeguards that are built in.

But they do exist. They do exist, but it is different than just having a flag raised every time the file is accessed, because as you can imagine, just based on 18 million passports issued last year, if everybody had that kind of flag on their file for every time it was accessed, you would have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these every single year and you basically wouldn't be able to do your job.

QUESTION: Of unauthorized accesses, you mean?

MR. MCCORMACK: Correct, correct.

All the way in the back.

QUESTION: Sean, please forgive me if you've already answered this. I was late. How many managers are there involved who didn't send this up the chain and are they being reprimanded?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you at this point. I mean, clearly, in the cases of Senator Obama's files, there were at least three supervisors who didn't forward this information up the chain and now that we have these two other incidents that we're aware of, there may be more than three. I can't tell you the universe of people who in -- who held some form of supervisory or management responsibility who didn't raise the issue up the chain. Clearly, that's something that we are going to be interested in understanding.

And as for the issue of if there's any further action, disciplinary action that's required, I think we're going to want to understand whether or not this was a, shall I say, lapse in judgment or whether or not there was actually some rule or regulation broken. Now, that also raises the question, if a rule or regulation wasn't broken, do you need a rule or regulation to ensure that in the future you have that kind of information surface?

Yeah, we'll work our way forward again. Glenn.

QUESTION: Yes. Can you say how many flags there are out there? How many political figures or celebrities are flagged in the system?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, as I was standing up there, I was asking myself the same question. We'll try to get that for you, kind of what's the universe.

QUESTION: Right. What's the -- okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And then secondly, within that universe, can you say whether or not there -- how many people have been terminated or disciplined for actually going into flagged files? I mean, how common an occurrence is this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's - and we'll try to get a more refined answer for you beyond the handful of incidents. Now -- you know, clearly, even in the cases that we have, there's a subset there of people that were terminated and people that were disciplined yet --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- still employed. I'll try to get a breakdown of this data for you. I asked for it early this afternoon and, understandably, people are churning on a lot of different things. So we'll try to generate that as quickly as we can. And of course, if - I say that with the caveat that if there are any restrictions on personnel data, then we'll have to abide by those. But it's a good question and we'll try to get you an answer.

QUESTION: Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, I get it. You know, it's a good question.

QUESTION: And just a -- just --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, we will -- for all of these things, too, the open questions, and I know there are numerous questions, and I see some of my staff over here who holding their heads because they are going to be responsible for tracking down the answers to these things. (Laughter.)

That -- to as many of these open questions, we will try to get as much information for you and post it today. We will continue, however, even if we're not able to get it today, to keep working on getting the answers. So we can --

QUESTION: Just to follow up, one thing on the application and on the file, I mean, I'm thinking about my own situation where I have filled out this --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- passport application form. There's not a lot of information on it. And is there anything else in someone's file that you have at the State Department that would be -- is there other information collected that goes into a passport file --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- or is it just this particular --

MR. MCCORMACK: That's what Libby asked. And if I can provide a general answer to that question, if there's a way to describe sort of the range of what might be in a passport file, I'm happy to do it. I can't narrow down the universe for you any more than to say that, at a minimum, you have either your passport application or your renewal application or maybe all your applications along the way if you've had multiple passports.

QUESTION: If you could check the three presidential candidates, (inaudible) too long?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, you can be assured that I'm not going to talk about what is in anybody's file without their express permission. But if I can provide you all a general answer of the kinds of things that might be in passport files, then I'm happy to do that within the confines of maintaining everybody's privacy.

QUESTION: You might want to -- you might not want to for those three for a little while. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Sean, did Pat Kennedy offer any immediate directive to the office managers in the case someone got the bright idea to do this today, tomorrow, in the coming days? Is there any directive to the office managers to report this up the chain?

MR. MCCORMACK: I was pretty -- I think everybody understands --

QUESTION: Well --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, you know, it's a good question. No, Pat very specifically told people that if you have these kinds of unauthorized accesses, these need to be surfaced at least up to the Deputy Assistant Secretary level in the Bureau of Consular Affairs.

Yeah. Lambros, do you have a question on this or something else?

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, it is very important for me, too. From the information you have already, you told us so many stories today, who was the real target of this illegal action -- Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator John McCain?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, each of them - each of them --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) I'm asking.

MR. MCCORMACK: Every single one of them - look, every single one of them suffered in the sense that some - they had somebody looking through their personal information and they weren't authorized to do so. As for the motivations for each of these individuals, I cannot say definitively, and that's part of the investigation. I have said and I'll say again that the initial information, as -- you know, as sketchy as it may be at this point, indicates to us that, I'll repeat it, imprudent curiosity. But that doesn't mean that we're dismissing any other possibility.

QUESTION: Since --

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros -- no, Lambros, that's enough. We've got so many questions here. We're going to -- do you have a question about this or --

QUESTION: This.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. All right, Kirit.

QUESTION: You say that -- you said that you have broadened your search to the other presidential candidates. Is this going to go any broader? Are you looking to see whether President Bush's records were accessed, Secretary Rice? I mean, how wide is this going to go?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you have -- we have an IG investigation. I'm sure that they are going to look at any other incidences of unauthorized access as part of seeing -- determining whether or not there are any systemic issues here. I can't -- you know, it's not a -- at this point, there's not a specific broader search other than the Inspector General investigation. Now, if there is a different answer that comes up either this afternoon or in the coming days to that question, we'll let you know.

Yeah, Nina.

QUESTION: Specifically, Waxman wanted the names of these companies to be brought to the committee on Monday and made public.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right.

QUESTION: Are you going to try and do that?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have a number of congressional inquiries, as you can imagine, on this matter, and we will answer each of them in turn to the best of our ability.

QUESTION: Well, yes, but he's asking for Monday. Will you do it by Monday?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I understand. We will answer all of these inquiries in turn to the best of our ability.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: I want to see if I understand this correctly. Since we have, in the case of Senator Obama, three incidents -- the first one was in January -- and if the question is why did it take so long for this to come out, your answer is still: It came to the supervisor's level, they took action, and the fault lay after that, that it didn't come to -- that it didn't come out -- you know --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, the - yeah, the fact that it didn't rise any higher than that in terms of people being made aware, that's a problem. And we only became, at a senior management level, aware of this yesterday.

QUESTION: And then it happened again in February?

MR. MCCORMACK: January, February, March, with respect to Senator Obama.

QUESTION: And my question is: Has any supervisor been disciplined or let go?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware that they have. But again, that gets back to the question of whether or not this is a lapse in professional judgment in not surfacing this information or whether or not there was a rule or regulation broken. In any case, we have taken steps, immediate steps in the form of Pat Kennedy issuing directives to make sure that that doesn't happen again and that any sort of unauthorized -- similar unauthorized accesses get surfaced to the level of at least Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs.

Yeah.

QUESTION: When a contractor is fired, doesn't Pat Kennedy or anyone else in senior management have to review that case?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not necessarily. I mean, this is - I mean, just for example, you know, in the Office of Passport Services, there are 2,600 contract employees. That's one office in the State Department where you have tens of thousands of full-time employees. Then you also have contract employees. I mean, if you had every single time there were a disciplinary action, even including firing of a contractor, Pat Kennedy probably wouldn't be doing anything else but looking at those things.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Another subject.

MR. MCCORMACK: Another subject? Well, let's exhaust this one.

Libby.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from the Inspector General's office, just because this case is so high profile with three candidates for president, is there any thought being given to taking this investigation away from the State Department, making up some sort of independent person that can look into this?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, not at this point. These are career professionals. The acting head, the acting IG is a career civil service employee and, as I said, the head of the Investigations Division, who's going to have day-to-day supervisory responsibility for the investigation, is a career Secret Service special agent now over at the State Department.

Okay. Other topics? Lambros, yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On the same issue, may I --

MR. MCCORMACK: Be my guest.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, since the whole story looks like a new Watergate scandal -- (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: You know what? You know what? No, Lambros. You know what? That is so outrageous, you just lost your privilege. I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry, that's outrageous.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. This is on Taiwan. Congressman Rohrabacher held a press conference in Taipei on the eve of Taiwan's presidential election to express the U.S. support of Taiwan's referendum to join the UN. Are you concerned that this may confuse Taiwanese voters or even undercut the Administration's message on the very issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think you should look nowhere else but to the statements of the Secretary of State as well as other officials from this podium talking -- what the U.S. policy is on this issue. There should be no confusion.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Duma, the Russian parliament, today called President Putin to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment?

MR. MCCORMACK: We, along with others, support and believe firmly in the territorial integrity of Georgia as well as the right of the government in Tbilisi to exercise sovereignty over all parts of Georgian territory.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Hold on. French President Sarkozy announced a modest cut in France's nuclear arsenal and called on the U.S. and China to commit to no more weapons tests. Is there any comment on --

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen his comments, but the United States has not conducted a weapons test in a couple of decades as far as I know.

QUESTION: Another issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros, you - no, you have had enough.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, what do you think about Usama bin Laden's recent comments about the war to liberate Palestine in Iraq? Do you have the --

MR. MCCORMACK: War of what?

QUESTION: Oh, the holy war to liberate Palestine is in Iraq.

MR. MCCORMACK: It's just more hate being spewed by somebody who is trying to perpetuate a twisted, perverted, depraved ideology.

QUESTION: On Cyprus. Do you have any comment about the resumption of the reunification talks in Cyprus in three months? And they're also opening a new passage in (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've all been very hopeful for a solution to this longstanding problem and there have been many attempts at it. If there is new hope in the process, then that is a good thing. I'll try to -- I haven't looked specifically at what has been in the news and we'll try to -- if there's anything more to add to that answer, we'll get it to you.

QUESTION: There is --

QUESTION: One last --

QUESTION: Cyprus issue --

QUESTION: One last thing. The Russian Prime Minister is telling the U.S. to ease off on Belarus.

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen the comments. We'll take them.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:05 p.m.) DPB # 52

Tags: State Department and video or podcast and Unauthorized Access of Passport Records or Contract Employees

U.S. Encourages Dialogue on Tibet VIDEO

U.S. Encourages Dialogue on Tibet. FULL STREAMING VIDEO - Remarks With Secretary Rice and Thai Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama Before Their Meeting Secretary Condoleezza Rice. Washington, DC. March 20, 2008, PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

QUESTION: Secretary Rice, is China using excessive force against the protestors in Tibet?
SECRETARY RICE: We’re certainly concerned about the situation in Tibet. I spoke last evening with my counterpart, Foreign Minister Yang, urged restraint. And most importantly, we have urged for many years that China engage in a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, who represents an authoritative figure who stands against violence and who also stands for the cultural autonomy of the Tibetan people, but has made very clear that he does not stand for independence. And I believe that this would be a basis on which China could reach out to an authoritative figure for peace. And so we are encouraging that, and I hope that China will exercise restraint. But it is also important that all parties refrain from violence.

Thank you very much.

2008/207 Released on March 20, 2008

Tags: Condoleezza Rice and Tibet or Secretary of State and Dalai Lama

President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror VIDEO

President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror. FULL STREAMING VIDEO The Pentagon Fact Sheet: Five Years Later: New Strategy Improving Security In Iraq 10:04 A.M. EDT.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Deputy Secretary England, thanks for the introduction. One boss may not be here, but the other one is. (Laughter.) I appreciate your kind words. I'm pleased to be back here with the men and women of the Defense Department.

On this day in 2003, the United States began Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the campaign unfolded, tens and thousands of our troops poured across the Iraqi border to liberate the Iraqi people and remove a regime that threatened free nations.

Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it. The answers are clear to me: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision -- and this is a fight America can and must win.

The men and women who crossed into Iraq five years ago removed a tyrant, liberated a country, and rescued millions from unspeakable horrors. Some of those troops are with us today, and you need to know that the American people are proud of your accomplishment -- and so is the Commander in Chief. (Applause.)

I appreciate Admiral Mullen, the Joint Chiefs who are here. Thanks for coming. Secretary Donald Winter of the Navy. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is with us. Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard is with us. Ambassador from Iraq is with us -- Mr. Ambassador, we're proud to have you here. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coastmen -- Coast Guardmen [sic], thanks for coming, thanks for wearing the uniform. Men and women of the Department of State are here as well.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was a remarkable display of military effectiveness. Forces from the UK, Australia, Poland and other allies joined our troops in the initial operations. As they advanced, our troops fought their way through sand storms so intense that they blackened the daytime sky. Our troops engaged in pitched battles with the Fedayeen Saddam -- death squads acting on the orders of Saddam Hussein that obeyed neither the conventions of war nor the dictates of conscience. These death squads hid in schools and they hid in hospitals, hoping to draw fire against Iraqi civilians. They used women and children as human shields. They stopped at nothing in their efforts to prevent us from prevailing -- but they couldn't stop the coalition advance.

Aided by the most effective and precise air campaign in history, coalition forces raced across 350 miles of enemy territory -- destroying Republican Guard Divisions, pushing through the Karbala Gap, capturing Saddam International Airport, and liberating Baghdad in less than one month.

Along the way, our troops added new chapters to the story of American military heroism. During these first weeks of battle, Army Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith and his troops came under a surprise attack by about a hundred Republican Guard forces. Sergeant Smith rallied his men; he led a counterattack -- killing as many as 50 enemy soldiers before being fatally wounded. His actions saved the lives of more than a hundred American troops -- and earned him the Medal of Honor.

Today, in light of the challenges we have faced in Iraq, some look back and call this period the easy part of the war. Yet there was nothing easy about it. The liberation of Iraq took incredible skill and amazing courage. And the speed, precision and brilliant execution of the campaign will be studied by military historians for years to come.

What our troops found in Iraq following Saddam's removal was horrifying. They uncovered children's prisons, and torture chambers, and rape rooms where Iraqi women were violated in front of their families. They found videos showing regime thugs mutilating Iraqis deemed disloyal to Saddam. And across the Iraqi countryside they uncovered mass graves of thousands executed by the regime.

Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. Because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms and children's prisons have been closed for good. Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land. Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations. Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer. (Applause.)

When the Iraqi regime was removed, it did not lay down its arms and surrender. Instead, former regime elements took off their uniforms and faded into the countryside to fight the emergence of a free Iraq. And then they were joined by foreign terrorists who were seeking to stop the advance of liberty in the Middle East and seeking to establish safe havens from which to plot new attacks across the world.

The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated -- but it is a fight we must win. So our troops have engaged these enemies with courage and determination. And as they've battled the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they have helped the Iraqi people reclaim their nation, and helped a young democracy rise from the rubble of Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

Over the past five years, we have seen moments of triumph and moments of tragedy. We have watched in admiration as 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and went to the polls, and chose their leaders in free elections. We have watched in horror as al Qaeda beheaded innocent captives, and sent suicide bombers to blow up mosques and markets. These actions show the brutal nature of the enemy in Iraq. And they serve as a grim reminder: The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad want to murder the innocent in the streets of America. Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely that we'll face the enemy here at home.

A little over a year ago, the fight in Iraq was faltering. Extremist elements were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. They had established safe havens in many parts of the country. They were creating divisions among the Iraqis along sectarian lines. And their strategy of using violence in Iraq to cause divisions in America was working -- as pressures built here in Washington for withdrawal before the job was done.

My administration understood that America could not retreat in the face of terror. And we knew that if we did not act, the violence that had been consuming Iraq would worsen, and spread, and could eventually reach genocidal levels. Baghdad could have disintegrated into a contagion of killing, and Iraq could have descended into full-blown sectarian warfare.

So we reviewed the strategy -- and changed course in Iraq. We sent reinforcements into the country in a dramatic policy shift that is now known as "the surge." General David Petraeus took command with a new mission: Work with Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pressure [sic] the enemy into strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country. And that is precisely what we have done.

In Anbar, Sunni tribal leaders had grown tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising, called the "Anbar Awakening." To take advantage of this opportunity, we sent 4,000 additional Marines to help these brave Iraqis drive al Qaeda from the province. As this effort succeeded, it inspired other Iraqis to take up the fight. Soon similar uprisings began to spread across the country. Today there are more than 90,000 concerned local citizens who are protecting their communities from the terrorists and insurgents and the extremists. The government in Baghdad has stepped forward with a surge of its own -- they've added more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year. These Iraqi troops have fought bravely, and thousands have given their lives in this struggle.

Together, these Americans and Iraqi forces have driven the terrorists from many of the sanctuaries they once held. Now the terrorists have gathered in and around the northern Iraqi city of Mosul -- and Iraqi and American forces are relentlessly pursuing them. There will be tough fighting in Mosul and areas of northern Iraq in the weeks ahead. But there's no doubt in my mind, because of the courage of our troops and the bravery of the Iraqis, the al Qaeda terrorists in this region will suffer the same fate as al Qaeda suffered elsewhere in Iraq.

As we have fought al Qaeda, coalition and Iraqi forces have also taken the fight to Shia extremist groups -- many of them backed and financed and armed by Iran. A year ago these groups were on the rise. Today, they are increasingly isolated, and Iraqis of all faiths are putting their lives on the line to stop these extremists from hijacking their young democracy.

To ensure that military progress in Iraq is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life, we have doubled the number of provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq. These teams of civilian experts are serving all Iraqi -- 18 Iraqi provinces, and they're helping to strengthen responsible leaders, and build up local economies, and bring Iraqis together so that reconciliation can happen from the ground up. They're very effective. They're helping give ordinary Iraqis confidence that by rejecting the extremists and reconciling with one another, they can claim their place in a free Iraq -- and build better lives for their families.

There's still hard work to be done in Iraq. The gains we have made are fragile and reversible. But on this anniversary, the American people should know that since the surge began, the level of violence is significantly down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down, attacks on American forces are down. We have captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives. Our men and women in uniform are performing with characteristic honor and valor. The surge is working. And as a return on our success in Iraq, we've begun bringing some of our troops home.

The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around -- it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al Qaeda rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al Qaeda out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his murderous network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated.

The terrorist movement feeds on a sense of inevitability, and claims to rise on the tide of history. The accomplishments of the surge in Iraq are exposing this myth and discrediting the extremists. When Iraqi and American forces finish the job, the effects will reverberate far beyond Iraq's borders. Osama bin Laden once said: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." By defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we will show the world that al Qaeda is the weak horse. (Applause.) We will show that men and women who love liberty can defeat the terrorists. And we will show that the future of the Middle East does not belong to terror -- the future of the Middle East belongs to freedom.

The challenge in the period ahead is to consolidate the gains we have made and seal the extremists' defeat. We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast -- the terrorists and extremists step in, they fill vacuums, establish safe havens, and use them to spread chaos and carnage. General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in such an unraveling -- with al Qaeda and insurgents and militia extremists regaining lost ground and increasing violence.

Men and women of the Armed Forces: Having come so far, and achieved so much, we're not going to let this to happen.

Next month, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will come to Washington to testify before Congress. I will await their recommendations before making decisions on our troop levels in Iraq. Any further drawdown will be based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders -- and they must not jeopardize the hard-fought gains our troops and civilians have made over the past year.

The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable -- yet some in Washington still call for retreat. War critics can no longer credibly argue that we're losing in Iraq -- so now they argue the war costs too much. In recent months we've heard exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war. No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure -- but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.

If we were to allow our enemies to prevail in Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate -- and Iraq would descend into chaos. Al Qaeda would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones -- fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq's borders, with serious consequences for the world's economy.

Out of such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened -- with new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America. An emboldened al Qaeda with access to Iraq's oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations. Iran would be emboldened as well -- with a renewed determination to develop nuclear weapons and impose its brand of hegemony across the Middle East. Our enemies would see an America -- an American failure in Iraq as evidence of weakness and a lack of resolve.

To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and make it more likely that America would suffer another attack like the one we experienced that day -- a day in which 19 armed men with box cutters killed nearly 3,000 people in our -- on our soil; a day after which in the following of that attack more than one million Americans lost work, lost their jobs. The terrorists intend even greater harm to our country. And we have no greater responsibility than to defeat our enemies across the world so that they cannot carry out such an attack.

As our coalition fights the enemy in Iraq, we've stayed on the offensive on other fronts in the war on terror. Just a few weeks before commencing Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. forces captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September the 11th terrorist attacks; we got him in Pakistan. About the same time as we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces, thousands of -- hundreds of miles away launched an assault on the terrorists in the mountains of southern Afghanistan in an operation called Operation Valiant Strike.

Throughout the war on terror, we have brought the enemy -- we have fought the enemy on every single battlefront. And so long as the terrorist danger remains, the United States of America will continue to fight the enemy wherever it makes its stand. (Applause.) We will stay on the offense.

But in the long run, defeating the terrorists requires an alternative to their murderous ideology. And there we have another advantage -- we've got a singular advantage with our military when it comes to finding the terrorists and bringing them to justice. And we have another advantage in our strong belief in the transformative power of liberty.

So we're helping the people of Iraq establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. A free Iraq will fight terrorists instead of harboring them. A free Iraq will be an example for others of the power of liberty to change the societies and to displace despair with hope. By spreading the hope of liberty in the Middle East, we will help free societies take root -- and when they do, freedom will yield the peace that we all desire.

Our troops on the front lines understand what is at stake. They know that the mission in Iraq has been difficult and has been trying for our nation -- because they're the ones who've carried most of the burdens. They are all volunteers, who have stepped forward to defend America in a time of danger -- and some of them have gone out of their way to return to the fight.

One of these brave Americans is a Marine Gunnery Sergeant named William "Spanky" Gibson. In May of 2006 in Ramadi, a terrorist sniper's bullet ripped through his left knee -- doctors then amputated his leg. After months of difficult rehabilitation, Spanky was not only walking -- he was training for triathlons.

Last year, at the "Escape from Alcatraz" swim near San Francisco, he met Marine General James Mattis, who asked if there's anything he could do for him. Spanky had just one request: He asked to re-deploy to Iraq. Today he's serving in Fallujah -- the first full-leg amputee to return to the front lines. Here's what he says about his decision to return: The Iraqis are where we were 232 years ago as a nation. Now they're starting a new nation, and that's one of my big reasons for coming back here. I wanted to tell the people of this country that I'm back to help wherever I can.

When Americans like Spanky Gibson serve on our side, the enemy in Iraq doesn't got a chance. We're grateful to all the brave men and women of our military who have served the cause of freedom. You've done the hard work, far from home and from your loved ones. We give thanks for all our military families who love you and have supported you in this mission.

We appreciate the fine civilians from many departments who serve alongside you. Many of you served in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and some have been on these fronts several times. You will never forget the people who fought at your side. You will always remember the comrades who served with you in combat [but] did not make the journey home. America remembers them as well. More than 4,400 men and women have given their lives in the war on terror. We'll pray for their families. We'll always honor their memory.

The best way we can honor them is by making sure that their sacrifice was not in vain. Five years ago tonight, I promised the American people that in the struggle ahead "we will accept no outcome but victory." Today, standing before men and women who helped liberate a nation, I reaffirm the commitment. The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory. God bless. (Applause.)

END 10:30 A.M. EDT

Tags: President Bush and White House or Global War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom

John McCain Web Ad, "Man In The Arena" VIDEO

John McCain 2008 Launches New Web Ad, "Man In The Arena"

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today launched a new web ad, entitled "Man In The Arena." The web ad highlights John McCain's vision and leadership in these historic and dangerous times.

Script for "Man In The Arena" (2:00-Web)

CHYRON: The Time Has Come

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!"

JOHN MCCAIN: "Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. ... We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."

CHYRON: For a Man in the Arena

PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT: "With all my heart and soul ... I pledge you my word to do everything I can to put every particle of courage, of common sense, and of strength that I have at your disposal. ... Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one in which we are in."

CHYRON: Ready

JOHN MCCAIN: "I know who I am and what I want to do. I don't seek the office out of a sense of entitlement. I owe America more than she has ever owed me."

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL: "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

CHYRON: More Than Aspiration ... Leadership

JOHN MCCAIN: "I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven't been proud of the privilege. Don't tell me what we can't do. Don't tell me we can't make our country stronger and the world safer. We can. We must. And when I'm President we will. Thank you and God bless you."

CHYRON: McCain -- President 2008

AD FACTS: JOHN MCCAIN 2008, "MAN IN THE ARENA"

Sir Winston Churchill, 1940: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." (Sir Winston Churchill, House of Commons, London, June 4, 1940)

John McCain, 2004: "Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. ... We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will." (John McCain, 2004 Republican National Convention, New York, NY, August, 30, 2004)

President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912: "With all my heart and soul ... I pledge you my word to do everything I can to put every particle of courage, of common sense, and of strength that I have at your disposal. ... Surely there never was a fight better worth making than the one in which we are in." (President Theodore Roosevelt, "A Confession of Faith," Progressive Party National Convention, Chicago, IL, August 6, 1912)

John McCain, 2008: "I know who I am and what I want to do. I don't seek the office out of a sense of entitlement. I owe America more than she has ever owed me." (John McCain, Remarks On Wisconsin Primary Victory, Columbus, OH, February 19, 2008)

Sir Winston Churchill, 1941: "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." (Sir Winston Churchill, Harrow School, London, October 29, 1941)

John McCain, 2008: "I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven't been proud of the privilege. Don't tell me what we can't do. Don't tell me we can't make our country stronger and the world safer. We can. We must. And when I'm President we will. Thank you and God bless you." (John McCain, Remarks On Wisconsin Primary Victory, Columbus, OH, February 19, 2008)

Tags: John McCain and Man In the Arena

District of Columbia v. Heller LIVE VIDEO

On Tuesday, March 18th at @11:30 am (ET), hear the Supreme Court oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, a gun law case. The Court will decide if individual handgun ownership falls within "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

UPDATE: 03/18/08

• Supreme Court Oral Argument: D.C. v. Heller (March 18, 2008), audio in real media format, running time 1:37:50
• Supreme Court Briefs to District of Columbia v. Heller Merits briefs, Amicus briefs.

LIVE C-SPAN VIDEO REAL MEDIA and in WINDOWS MEDIA FORMAT

U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO C-SPAN’S REQUEST FOR SAME-DAY RELEASE OF ORAL ARGUMENT IN UPCOMING FIREARMS CASE Chief Justice Roberts Approves Immediate Release of Oral Argument in PDF Format.

District of Columbia v. Heller From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to strike down a firearm ban for reasons based on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the second to interpret the Second Amendment explicitly as protecting an individual right to firearms for private use. The first federal case that interpreted the Amendment as providing protection of an individual right was United States v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001).

In 2003, six residents of Washington D.C. (Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller) filed a federal court challenge to the District's gun ban. The resulting 2-1 decision in Parker struck down parts of the District of Columbia Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which is a local law enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. The law is controversial because it limited the ability of residents to own side arms (excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975). This law restricted residents, except active and retired law enforcement officers, from owning handguns. The law also requires that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock". The District argues that there is an implicit self-defense exception to the storage provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense.

In April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for a rehearing from the full court of appeals on the grounds that the ruling creates inter- and intra-jurisdictional conflict. On May 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6-4 vote. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and oral argument will take place on March 18, 2008. The case is pending under the name District of Columbia v. Heller.

Supreme Court review

Both the defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The questions posed for review by the petitioner (the District of Columbia) differed significantly from those posed by the respondent (Heller). The District of Columbia's petition stated that the question presented was, "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns." Heller replied that the question was broader, to wit, "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes." As discussed below, the Supreme Court adopted neither question, but came closer to the question posed by Heller in framing the question to include review of the District's prohibitions against possession of all types of firearms, and not just handguns.

On September 4, 2007, the District of Columbia and Mayor Fenty petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a portion of the lower court's ruling. The Washington Post noted that most legal experts believed the Supreme Court would likely accept the case. Now that the Court has granted certiorari, this will likely be the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court has directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.

On September 10, 2007, five of the original plaintiffs in the case cross-petitioned the Supreme Court to reinstate their legal claims against the District. The appellate court ruling held that of the original six plaintiffs, only Heller had the necessary standing to challenge the law. The five plaintiffs other than Heller now ask that the court restore their case against the district.

On November 20, 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The court has rephrased the question to be decided as follows:

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on March 18, 2008, and is expected to publish its decision in the summer of 2008. The audiotapes of the oral argument will be published on the same day as the hearing. Each side will receive 30 minutes to argue its case, and U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement will receive 15 minutes to present the federal government's views.

Summary of the D.C. Circuit's decision

The Court first addresses whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The Court concludes that Heller (who applied for a handgun permit but was denied) has standing.
“ Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms", by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.[9] ”

The Court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III):

“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

The Court concluded:

“Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”

Summary of dissent

In dissent, Judge Henderson wrote:

“To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article, District of Columbia v. Heller

Tags: District of Columbia v. Heller and Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or The Right to Bear Arms and the Supreme Court

Brain-computer link systems on the brink of breakthrough, study finds

Blue-ribbon panel sees commercial uses coming soon not just in medicine but other fields

Construction of a high-density ensemble recording microdrive for mice. (A) is the base foundation for the microdrive; (B) indicates four 36-pin connector arrays positioned at the base of the microdrive in parallel (each bundle of 32 pieces—for stereotetrodes—or 16 pieces (for tetrodes) of polyimide tubing was glued to an independently movable screw nut on the microdrive base); (C) is a microdrive on the assembly stage (the free ends of electrode wires are wrapped around to adjacent connect pins); (D) is a fully assembled, adjustable 128-electrode microdrive; (E) indicates that 128 channels can be formatted with either tetrodes (right inset) or stereotetrodes (left inset) on each bundle. The tip of the two electrode bundles was shaped at a certain angle (10°–20°) to fit the contour of the dorsal CA1 cell layer. Black scale bars in red circles of E are 100 μm. White scale bars in A–D are 3 mm (Lin et al. 2006).

Systems that directly connect silicon circuits with brains are under intensive development all over the world, and are nearing commercial application in many areas, according to a study just placed online.

Neurobiologist Theodore W. Berger of the University of Southern California chaired the eight-member committee which compiled the "International Assessment of Research and Development in Brain-Computer Interfaces," published in October by the World Technology Evaluation Center, Inc., of Baltimore MD

The report is downloadable online at the WTEC website in PDF Format.

Berger, who holds the David Packard Chair at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and is Director of the USC Center for Neural Engineering contributed the introduction and two chapters of the report, which encompassed dozens of research institutes in Europe and Asia.

The other committee members (and chapter authors) included John K. Chapin (SUNY Downstate Medical Center); Greg A. Gerhardt (University of Kentucky); Dennis J. McFarland (Wadsworth Center); José C. Principe (University of Florida); Dawn M. Taylor (Case Western Reserve); and Patrick A. Tresco (University of Utah).

The report contains three overall findings on Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) work worldwide:

• BCI research is extensive and rapidly growing, as is growth in the interfaces between multiple key scientific areas, including biomedical engineering, neuroscience, computer science, electrical and computer engineering, materials science and nanotechnology, and neurology and neurosurgery.
• BCI research is rapidly approaching first-generation medical practice—clinical trials of invasive BCI technologies and significant home use of noninvasive, electroencephalography (EEG-based) BCIs. The panel predicts that BCIs soon will markedly influence the medical device industry, and additionally BCI research will rapidly accelerate in non-medical arenas of commerce as well, particularly in the gaming, automotive, and robotics industries.
• The focus of BCI research throughout the world was decidedly uneven, with invasive BCIs almost exclusively centered in North America, noninvasive BCI systems evolving primarily from European and Asian efforts. BCI research in Asia, and particularly China, is accelerating, with advanced algorithm development for EEG-based systems currently a hallmark of China's BCI program. Future BCI research in China is clearly developing toward invasive BCI systems, so BCI researchers in the US will soon have a strong competitor.

The chapters of the report offer detailed discussion of specific work from around the world, work on Sensor Technology, Biotic-Abiotic Interfaces, BMI/BCI Modeling and Signal Processing, Hardware Implementation, Functional Electrical Stimulation and Rehabilitation Applications of BCIs, Noninvasive Communication Systems, Cognitive and Emotional Neuroprostheses, and BCI issues arising out of research organization-funding, translation-commercialization, and education and training.

With respect to translation and commercialization, the Committee found that BCI research in Europe and Japan was much more tightly tied to industry compared to what is seen in the U.S., with multiple high-level mechanisms for jointly funding academic and industrial partnerships dedicated to BCIs, and mechanisms for translational research that increased the probability of academic prototypes reaching industrial paths for commercialization. ###

A consortium including the National Science Foundation, The United States Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and the Margot Anderson Brain Restoration Foundation commissioned the report.

The World Technology Evaluation Center, Inc. specializes in conducting international technology assessments via expert review, having conducted more than 60 such studies since 1989.

Contact: Eric Mankin mankin@usc.edu 213-821-1887 University of Southern California

Tags: Brain-computer link systems and Brain-Computer Interfaces or computer engineering and Biotic-Abiotic Interfaces

Freedom Calendar 03/15/08 - 03/22/08

March 15, 1842, Birth of African-American Republican Robert De Large, elected to U.S. House from South Carolina in 1870.

March 16, 1868, Death of U.S. Senator David Wilmot (R-PA), anti-slavery champion and author of first Republican Party platform.

March 17, 1825, Birth of Benjamin Turner (R-AL), emancipated slave elected to House from Alabama in 1870; delegate to 1880 Republican National Convention.

March 18, 1877, Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appoints African-American Republican and civil rights leader Frederick Douglass as D.C. Marshal.

March 19, 2003, Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference.

March 20, 1854, Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party.

March 21, 1965, Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace.

March 22, 1871, Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.

“Our destiny is largely in our own hands. If we find, we shall have to seek. If we succeed in the race of life it must be by our own energies, and by our own exertions. Others may clear the road, but we must go forward, or be left behind in the race of life."

Frederick Douglass, Republican Civil Rights Activist

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

Presidential Podcast 03/15/08

Presidential Podcast 03/15/08 . Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned. In Focus: Economy

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or mortgages and Federal Housing Administration

Bush radio address 03/15/08 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 03/15/08 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address In Focus: Economy

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

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Friday, I traveled to New York City to talk about the state of our economy. This is a topic that has been a source of concern for families across America. In the long run, we can be confident that our economy will continue to grow, but in the short run, it is clear that growth has slowed.

Fortunately, we recognized this slowdown early, and took action to give our economy a shot in the arm. My Administration worked with Congress to pass a bipartisan economic growth package that includes tax relief for families and incentives for business investment. I signed this package into law last month -- and its provisions are just starting to kick in. My economic team, along with many outside experts, expects this stimulus package to have a positive effect on our economy in the second quarter. And they expect it to have even a stronger effect in the third quarter, when the full effects of the $152 billion in tax cuts are felt.

A root cause of the economic slowdown has been the downturn in the housing market. I believe the government can take sensible, focused action to help responsible homeowners weather this rough patch. But we must do so with clear purpose and great care, because government actions often have far-reaching and unintended consequences. If we were to pursue some of the sweeping government solutions that we hear about in Washington, we would make a complicated problem even worse -- and end up hurting far more homeowners than we help.

For example, one proposal would give bankruptcy courts the authority to reduce mortgage debts by judicial decree. This would make it harder to afford a home in the future, because banks would charge higher interest rates to cover this risk.

Some in Washington say the government should take action to artificially prop up home prices. It's important to understand that this would hurt millions of Americans. For example, many young couples trying to buy their first home have been priced out of the market because of inflated prices. The market now is in the process of correcting itself, and delaying that correction would only prolong the problem.

My Administration opposes these proposals. Instead, we are focused on helping a targeted group of homeowners -- those who have made responsible buying decisions and could avoid foreclosure with a little help. We've taken three key steps to help these homeowners.

First, we launched a new program that gives the Federal Housing Administration greater flexibility to offer refinancing for struggling homeowners with otherwise good credit histories. Second, we helped bring together the Hope Now Alliance, which is streamlining the process for refinancing and modifying many mortgages. Third, the Federal Government is taking regulatory steps to make the housing market more transparent and fair in the long run.

And now Congress must build on these efforts. Members need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.

Congress also needs to take other steps to help our economy through this period of uncertainty. Members need to make the tax relief we passed permanent, reduce wasteful spending, and open new markets for American goods, services, and investment.

By taking these steps and avoiding bad policy decisions, we will see our economy strengthen as the year progresses. As we take decisive action, we will keep this in mind: When you are steering a car in a rough patch, one of the worst things you can do is overcorrect. That often results in losing control and can end up with the car in a ditch. Steering through a rough patch requires a steady hand on the wheel and your eyes up on the horizon. And that's exactly what we're going to do.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 15, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or mortgages and Federal Housing Administration