White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 02/26/08 VIDEO

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Running time is 20:29, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:55 P.M. EDT. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now to your questions.

Q There was some bad economic news today. Consumer confidence plunged, the home prices fell -- had their steepest decline in the 20 years that the Standard & Poor's has been keeping records, and wholesale inflation rose at its fastest pace in a quarter century. What's the White House reaction to this economic -- spate of economic news?

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

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

Helen.

Q We're coming on to the fifth anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, and two years ago the President summed up the number of Iraqis possibly dead as a result of that to 30,000. Do you have any new estimate now for summing up of this war?

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

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

Q A British research organization said about a million Iraqis have died as a result.

MS. PERINO: I don't know if that's accurate.

Q The Iraqi government has called the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq a violation of its sovereignty and have demanded an immediate end to the operation. Now that the administration has called for this to be a short-term operation, has there been any change in the administration position, and what do you think would constitute "short term"? Are we talking days, weeks or beyond that?

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

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

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

Go ahead, Sheryl.

Q Dana, what is the White House position on the visit to North Korea by the New York Philharmonic? Do you believe that this is either helpful, or hurtful, to our diplomatic efforts there? And do you think that future visits should be banned or prevented until the North complies?

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

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

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

Q So, in answer to the question, is it either helpful or hurtful to our efforts?

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

Q Does the White House have any criticism for the Philharmonic for going?

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

Q Following on that -- during the visit the concert itself was carried live on national television in the evening, and the journalists, a lot of foreign journalists were allowed in and were even allowed unfettered Internet access to file their stories. Is there no value in any of that?

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

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

Elaine.

Q On FISA, could you just talk about what's behind this afternoon's background briefing? Is there something specific that prompted that? Because the President has made quite clear his position on retroactive --

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

Q I mean, the President has made quite clear his position on retroactive liability and so on and so forth. What specifically is the point of confusion that you might be trying to address?

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

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

Q Let's put it on the record.

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

Q What's the big mystery here? Don't we know what this is about?

MS. PERINO: From where I stand, and the questions that I get, no, I don't think so.

Q Dana, other than providing more clarification in this background briefing -- or education, what have you, for reporters, can you explain what more can be done to break this stalemate? A 15-day extension was approved; it went away, and now the President got back from his Africa trip, a trip he said he would delay if it would help prod things along -- there's clearly no movement on it. So what more is the President and White House going to do?

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

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

Peter.

Q In your opening statement you said, "as the housing market continues to transition." Given the plunge in housing values and home sales, just what does the administration think it's transitioning to at this point?

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

Q So you think this is just -- what is happening now, what's dramatically happening now is just a part of a normal cycle?

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

Q Beyond the program that you said is on track to help 300,000 by the end of this year --

MS. PERINO: That's FHASecure.

Q -- is there anything else in the pipeline that the administration is going to do to address this?

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

Roger.

Q Dana, on the trade items, what's it going to take to break the stalemate on Colombia, and later on, on South Korea?

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

Q Speaker Pelosi, though, has not indicated any notion of movement at this time, and is holding out for more assurances of protection of labor leaders in Colombia.

MS. PERINO: I'd have to refer you to our office for their scheduling.

Q I was just wondering, what's it going to take to get beyond that?

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

Go ahead, Rich.

Q Just to follow on that, what is the Group of 20 that you're talking about? You said, "thank them for their work." What do they do? Are they working on this issue?

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

Q And you mentioned two of the three trade deals. I don't think you mentioned Panama. That's not coming up today?

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

` Matt. I'm sorry, is that a follow on that?

Q It's a follow-up -- yes.

MS. PERINO: Okay.

Q Does the President agree with the idea to review some chapters of NAFTA that are affecting the states on the border of the U.S.? Like, some governors of the border in the U.S. are saying that NAFTA is not good for their states, in terms of environment and other areas. Does the President agree with that notion that NAFTA has to be reviewed?

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

Go ahead, Les.

Q Thank you, Dana. On another issue, the AP reports from Chicago that 20,000 people attending the Nation of Islam's Savior's Day spent nearly two hours hearing Lewis Farrakhan spend most of his speech praising Senator Obama as "the hope of the entire world who can lift America from her fall." And my question: Does the President believe that any religious organization's tax exemption should allow such endorsement of any political candidate?

MS. PERINO: I think we're just going to steer clear of that one. Move on to your next question; hurry up.

Q Do you want to evade that?

MS. PERINO: I do. So go on to your next one.

Q All right. As the nation's chief law enforcer, the President believes that the 3 million Hillary documents at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock should not continue being concealed from the public, doesn't he?

MS. PERINO: I think that that's a matter for Hillary Clinton to answer.

Q But doesn't the President believe the public should have access to those documents, Dana?

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

We'll go to Paula first.

Q On the housing issue, you mentioned -- or you attributed part of this to an over-supply of housing. But hasn't the administration also said that part of this is a necessary correction to inflated prices of homes?

MS. PERINO: We have said that, too. I didn't say that over-supply was the only reason.

Q And in terms of the FHASecure and the administration's efforts to keep people from losing their homes, why is the administration opposed to bankruptcy judges also trying to do the same thing?

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

Goyal.

Q Two quick questions. One, as far as FISA is concerned, U.S. officials and intelligence officials are saying that al Qaeda are training people in the U.S. to attack on Americans. That means there are al Qaeda in the U.S.?

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

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

Q As far as the sanctions on Burma, yesterday when President employed sanctions -- sanctions has been going on in Burma on and off for the last 20 years and it has not been working. And mostly dictators in Burma, military dictators are benefitting, but people are hurting. So if we don't get full support from China, it's not going to work again. So where do we stand now?

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

Q Thank you.

END 1:14 P.M. EST. For Immediate Release February 26, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and HUD,

White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 02/25/08 VIDEO

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Running time is 24:57, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:31 P.M. EDT.

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

Q Do you mean a written statement?

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

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

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

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

Q Dana, a couple of the governors came out of the meeting with the President today and said that the President had not ruled out the possibility of a second stimulus package, but he did say that it would be premature at this time. Is that how the White House would characterize the President's position?

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

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

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

Q Does the door, in fact, remain open to a possible second stimulus package?

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

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

Q Dana, the President talked again about FISA this morning. Have you seen any movement in the negotiations over that bill?

MS. PERINO: Up on Capitol Hill?

Q Yes.

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

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

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

Q Is the President's position that he would veto it without retroactive immunity?

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

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

Q Dana, critics would say that --

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

Q Who gave them the right to break the law?

MS. PERINO: Nobody broke the law, Helen. That might be your opinion, but nobody broke the law.

Q When these companies -- when no warrant is given, and they didn't break the law?

MS. PERINO: Helen, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

Q Oh, come on, let's --

MS. PERINO: And the facts are that companies were asked to help, and they were helped --

Q Why can't they get --

MS. PERINO: -- and they allowed -- they helped with a legal program that has helped save lives.

Q Who told them they could break the law?

MS. PERINO: That is just -- that's not true, Helen.

Q Is it not the case, as the writers of the op-ed in today's Post claim, that the law protects all of this until August?

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

Q For how long?

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

Q But one of your complaints of prospective. They don't affect anything that's going on right now.

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

But one of the things you have to understand is in the world --

Q They lost information because companies wouldn't cooperate.

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

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

Q So what does the White House think of the op-ed from the Democrats that accuse the President of using scare tactics and playing political games? And they say if the President really believed the expiration of the act created a danger, he should have accepted their offer for an extension.

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

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

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

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

Q But to clarify what you said earlier, did the U.S. actually lose potentially valuable intelligence on Friday, or we had difficulty securing the cooperation of the telecommunications company that eventually came to --

MS. PERINO: I'd refer you to their letter in which they said that there were several days of lost information.

Q Dana, critics would say that if those companies lose those suits, it's because they broke the law -- even if you give them prospective coverage, that there's no need to give retroactive coverage.

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

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

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

Q Dana, to be clear, don't you still -- you can still pursue that information, go after it, as long as you come back within three days and get a warrant under FISA, correct? I mean, it doesn't stop them from getting information.

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

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

Q That really hasn't stopped the collection of intelligence, has it?

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

Q I find it hard to believe that the communications companies involved would have cut them off if this didn't continue, with the belief that it could be made right later.

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

Q If this is such a big deal, why didn't the President accept another extension?

MS. PERINO: Because the House couldn't even pass an extension bill, even if they had wanted to. They couldn't pass it. What they need to pass is a bipartisan bill --

Q The President said he wouldn't accept it, so --

MS. PERINO: Well, that's true, but they wouldn't have been able to pass it anyway.

Q -- isn't it his problem that he lost a couple of days, if in fact he did?

MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. This -- no. The President is not going to accept the blame for House Democrats not taking up a bill that passed 68-29 in the Senate.

Q Yes, but if it's such -- if it's so urgent to protect the nation's security, as you have said --

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

Go ahead.

Q You're still collecting intelligence.

MS. PERINO: Go ahead, Roger.

Q Dana, since the law expired --

Q (Inaudible.)

Q -- on the 16th --

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

Q Since the law expired on the 16th, do you know if any company -- if there have been any companies that have refused cooperation since then?

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

Q These companies have been reluctantly cooperating, and I'm just wondering if there have been any that have been --

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

John.

Q Back on the economy for a second, are you saying that the GDP number later this week has some significance or some particular weight in terms of deciding whether you go to another stimulus package?

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

Go ahead.

Q On that topic, you said going into the meeting with the governors the President was willing to listen to their ideas. Do you know if he heard anything that swayed his view, particularly on the idea of infrastructure projects, or is it still viewed that -- from the White House that those aren't stimulative?

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

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

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

Peter, did you have one? No? Okay, John.

Q When you say he'd be reluctant to support anything that would raise taxes, are you referring to infrastructure projects tied to an increase in transportation fuel taxes or --

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

But there's lots of different ways and Congress is very creative in figuring out ways to increase taxes on the American people.

Q Yes, but you can make an argument that if you just increased the deficit, you, you know, inevitably create a tax burden.

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

Paula.

Q At the stakeout, Governor Rendell said that actually the infrastructure -- investing in that would create up to 47,000 jobs for every billion dollars that's invested, and that that would actually be a greater stimulus to the economy than sending out tax rebates. So is the issue here really whether or not it's stimulus, or how to pay for it?

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

Q You also cited the $24 billion in your proposal this year. But as you know, budgets -- at best, this won't even be agreed to probably by October 1, or even a continuing resolution. So would that really be a realistic way of spending?

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

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

Go ahead, Les.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. Agence France-Presse reports that the USS Nimitz launched four F-18 fighters to intercept a pair of Russian TU-95 bombers off Japan, and escort one of them as it flew over the carrier at an altitude of 2,000 feet. And my question: What was the reaction of the Commander-in-Chief to this?

MS. PERINO: Are you talking about the incident from a couple of weeks ago?

Q Yes.

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

Q The AP reports that at Harvard, Mexico's President Felipe Calder n, on his first trip to the United States, said, "I need to change in Mexico the perception that the Americans are the enemy. And it is important to change the perception that the Mexicans are the enemy." And my question: What evidence does President Bush have that Mexican troops and police are seriously halting Mexican illegal aliens from invading our country?

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

Q Well, I'm just quoting what the President of Mexico said. I didn't say it. Go ahead.

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

Q Does the President think the Mexicans have supported keeping our borders secure?

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

Go ahead.

Q Last week, President Bush said that during his visit to Rwanda he learned the clear lesson that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive. How will the President's newfound insight affect his Iraq policy?

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

Q Does he know what percentage of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces to leave?

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

Goyal.

Q Dana, two quick questions. One, last week people of Pakistan have spoken for democracy. And there is a big call now in the opposition parties, the winning parties and also the people in Pakistan that Mr. Musharraf must step down now and let the democracy to work. How long do you think President -- or what do you think about how long he will continue support?

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

Q And second, as far as the U.S.-India nuclear -- civil nuclear agreement is concerned, there is a call by the U.S. senators, in Delhi they met with the Prime Minister of India and they said that now or never means by July, India must act or this bill will not go through. What President thinks, as far as U.S.-India civil nuclear deal?

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

Q And is President in touch with anybody in Delhi on this issue, now, let's go and do it now?

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

Go ahead.

Q Dana.

MS. PERINO: Can I just do one more back here. Go ahead.

Q The U.S. government has called for a --

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, who?

Q The U.S. government has called for the international community to help Cubans to start a new era of democracy. But in Latin America, the Conference of Latin America has called the U.S. to change their policy toward Cuba, like lifting the U.S. embargo after more than 40 years, that nothing happened with the embargo because Castro -- I mean, stepped out of the government because he was ill, not because of U.S. embargo. What is your response to the call from Latin American Conference to do that?

MS. PERINO: Well, this is certainly a significant time for the people of Cuba. It's their first time in modern history that they've had a change of leadership, and we've urged the Cuban government to allow the people of Cuba to move towards a more peaceful, prosperous and free future.

I would refer you to the President's speech from October 24, 2007, in which he talked about this and specifically about the embargo, and that lifting it would only, at this time, without any change in the process -- system of government in Cuba, enrich the elites and strengthen their grip. And the people who really need the support of a freer system would not benefit from lifting the embargo. So there is not a contemplation here of changing that now.

END 12:56 P.M. EST

(*) Transportation funding is expected to increase by 10 percent in FY 2008 ($52.9 billion) over FY 2007 ($47.9 billion), and will thereby provide a timely boost to the economy this year without additional resources. (**) GDP numbers will be released on Thursday, 2/28/08

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary February 25, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and Burma,