Press Briefing by Dana PerinoJames S. Brady Press Briefing Room Video Press Briefings Audio 12:31 P.M. ESTMS. PERINO: Hello. A couple of announcements. One thing, earlier todaythe Treasury Department issued sanctions against some elements of theregime in Burma. And the President will have a statement about that afterthis. I won't read it for you here because it's quite long -- I'll spareyou 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. SullivanFoundation, which works to promote political, entrepreneurial andintellectual leadership of the African people and to advocate on behalf ofAfrica. As the President said in his roundtable interview on the flightback from Africa last week, that was one of the most exciting trips he andMrs. Bush have ever taken. They were touched by the reception and theyreceived a lot of inspiration from the people that they met.During his remarks tomorrow the President wants to convey what he saw onhis trip and he wants to show the American people the striking differencethat their generosity is making. And then he will make clear also why heis so optimistic about Africa.The best way to do that is to showAmericans what he saw, and so with the help of the White Housephotographers he's assembled a slide show of images from the trip to goalong with the speech that he will present tomorrow. And the Presidentwill show -- use these images to show how the African nations are togetherfighting HIV/AIDS and malaria, improving education, reducing poverty, andstrengthening democracy. And he will argue that it's essential for thislife-saving work to continue.After the President's speech, Hope Masters, who is Leon Sullivan's daughterand the foundation president and CEO emeritus of the foundation, willpresent the President with an award from the foundation for his dedicationand commitment to -- and service to the people of Africa. So that'stomorrow's speech.Q Dana, a couple of the governors came out of the meeting with thePresident today and said that the President had not ruled out thepossibility of a second stimulus package, but he did say that it would bepremature at this time. Is that how the White House would characterize thePresident's position?MS. PERINO: I would describe it as the President having a good meetingwith the governors and listening with an open mind, not making anypromises, being very clear that he's concerned about anything that wouldraise taxes on the American people. One of the things that they talkedabout was their desire for more funding for transportation funding.The President pointed out that our request from FY'08 to just the recentbudget that just came out the beginning of February for FY'09 increasedtransportation spending requests $24 billion(*) this year. So we'll seethen if Congress agrees to fund that through the budget process as we goforward.But the other thing that the President made clear is that we have a problemof earmarks when it comes to transportation funding, and that the PublicWorks Committee, which is quite large, has a lot of earmarks that they putinto these bills. And the President believes, and he told the governors,he thinks that they should have more input as to how transportation moneyshould be spent in their own states. And so he talked a little bit aboutearmark reform, in addition to saying that he hopes that Congress will lookat 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 stimuluspackage?MS. PERINO: Again, I think that it would be premature to say that one wasclosed. The President, as I said, had an open mind when he listened tothem, but he did say he was very concerned about any proposal that wouldraise taxes. And he's also looking to make sure that a short-term stimuluspackage that he just signed will have the desired effect of blunting anypossible effect of a slowdown in the economy that we do expect because ofthe housing and credit issues.So we'll have another number this week. I think GDP numbers come out laterin the week, so we'll see where we are in terms of forecasting at thatpoint.Q Dana, the President talked again about FISA this morning.Have youseen 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 haveto see at that point. But we are at a point in the debate where we believethat 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 geta Mother's Day bill passed in the Senate -- but for this bill to garner 68votes was quite significant.If that vote was held today in the House of Representatives, if theDemocratic leaders would allow it to come to a vote, it would pass, aswell, with a majority supporting it. So we have a way to get to abipartisan bill that is supported by the intelligence community, and givesthem, the people who are accountable to the American people for protectingthem, 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 abill in front of them that they could call up today -- or tomorrow whenthey're in session.Q Is the President's position that he would veto it without retroactiveimmunity?MS. PERINO: That has been his position for a long time, and the reason isbecause you can't have -- without the cooperation of the companies, wewon't have a program. You know, if we had a nationalized telecommunicationsystem, then we -- the government could do it on its own, but in our systemof 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 lawsuitsthat would -- that, one, already are costing them lots of money to dealwith. And if the suits were to go forward, it could cost them possiblybillions. And that cost is going to be borne by the consumers of thosebusinesses, the customers of those businesses.But more importantly, thecompanies at this point are saying that they are growing increasinglyreluctant 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 theJustice Department and the office of Director of National Intelligence towork with the companies to work with companies to -- work with them to tellthem what we need, and to tell them that we are going to continue to pushfor 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, butnobody broke the law.Q When these companies -- when no warrant is given, and they didn'tbreak the law?MS. PERINO: Helen, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're notentitled 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 theywere helped --Q Why can't they get --MS. PERINO: -- and they allowed -- they helped with a legal program thathas 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, butthere are certainly directives that were approved last August when theProtect 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'tapply necessarily to maybe new companies or new providers that we wouldneed to work with in the future, that might not already be under adirective that we're --Q But one of your complaints of prospective. They don't affect anythingthat'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 GeneralMukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent on Friday --that there were several days last week where we lost information. LateFriday night there was a company that agreed reluctantly to continue tocooperate 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. Andduring that time frame when they were trying to work with them to get themto cooperate, and to give them the comfort that they needed to be willingpartners, it just took a little while.And then once that was given onSaturday 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 anintelligence program where you are trying to track terrorists who arecalling into or out of America. We don't want to have to be having ourlawyers and other professionals in the intelligence community having tocoax companies to cooperate. These companies want to cooperate. I mean,all they're saying is that they want the retroactive liability protectionwhich passed the Senate 68-29.Q So what does the White House think of the op-ed from the Democratsthat accuse the President of using scare tactics and playing politicalgames?And they say if the President really believed the expiration of theact 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 anextension, so that wasn't an option. An extension wasn't an option. Butwe had a response to the op-ed, that I issued.I think that fear-mongering and the use of the phrase "scare tactics" issomething that the Democrats -- it must be, like, one of their favoritewords, 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 iswhat the intelligence community says that they need; this is what the billin front of the House says, and it's one that was designed with theintelligence community, in concert with them, so that they would be able tohave the buy-in and say that they would get what they need out of thatbill. 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 Ican tell, the biggest issue is retroactive liability protection, and intheir op-ed they just had a passing glance to that issue. But it is one ofthe biggest sticking points, because at the end of the day if we don't havethe companies helping us, then we won't have a program.Q But to clarify what you said earlier, did the U.S. actually losepotentially valuable intelligence on Friday, or we had difficulty securingthe cooperation of the telecommunications company that eventually came to--MS. PERINO: I'd refer you to their letter in which they said that therewere several days of lost information.Q Dana, critics would say that if those companies lose those suits, it'sbecause 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 helptheir country.And look, the President's most solemn obligation is toprotect the American people. And in some ways it seems that the HouseDemocrats' most solemn obligation is to help protect the trial lawyers --they're the ones who have brought all these lawsuits. And they're hugeclass-action lawsuits in which all of us consumers of telecommunicationscompanies would be named. And if at the end of the day, say that thesetrial lawyers won these lawsuits -- you and I would get a dollar or twoback, and they would get 46 percent of the award.This program was lawful; and we need it. General Hayden and DirectorMcConnell have said that this is a program that helped us save lives. Ithelped -- they say in their letter from Friday night that they foundsomeone who was planning to be a suicide bomber, someone who was trying tomove terrorist financing money around.And so with the way that terrorists know that they can use technology, wehave to keep up with them. We have to stay one step ahead of them. Andwhat counts right now is seconds and minutes. It's not days' worth of timethat you can spend to try to track down one of these individuals. Thereare times when you need to act urgently, and so you need the speed, agilityand flexibility that comes from what passed in the Senate, which is abipartisan bill that passed 68-29. And the House could pass it today ifthey wanted to.Q Dana, to be clear, don't you still -- you can still pursue thatinformation, go after it, as long as you come back within three days andget a warrant under FISA, correct? I mean, it doesn't stop them fromgetting information.MS. PERINO: I'm not a lawyer; I just know, Kathleen, that it's much morecomplicated than that, and that the intelligence professionals and thelawyers who are working on this are trying to work with the companies tomake sure that they know that we will give them everything that they needin order to be comfortable working with us.And they have said that until they have that retroactive liabilityprotection -- and right now, with the Protect America Act expired, there isa question from some of them as to whether or not the prospective orcurrent activities that are ongoing, if they are protected from that. Sowe 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 dayslost, 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 theintelligence community professionals. These are people who are held --would be held accountable if there were a terrorist attack. And they aresaying this is what they need.They're not making this up. We wouldn't behaving this debate if we didn't need this program.Q I find it hard to believe that the communications companies involvedwould have cut them off if this didn't continue, with the belief that itcould be made right later.MS. PERINO: They don't believe necessarily that it may be made right laterbecause Congress has been unwilling -- the House Democrats have beenunwilling to move. They had six months to work on it; they didn't. ThePresident graciously gave them another 14 days to work on it; they didn'tdo 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 Iwill 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, butyou could take it from the intelligence professionals who are responsiblefor making sure that all of us are kept safe.Q If this is such a big deal, why didn't the President accept anotherextension?MS. PERINO: Because the House couldn't even pass an extension bill, evenif they had wanted to.They couldn't pass it.What they need to pass is abipartisan 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 itanyway.Q -- isn't it his problem that he lost a couple of days, if in fact hedid?MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. This -- no. The President is not going toaccept the blame for House Democrats not taking up a bill that passed 68-29in the Senate.Q Yes, but if it's such -- if it's so urgent to protect the nation'ssecurity, as you have said --MS. PERINO: But, Bill, it still didn't do what -- the things that I havesaid repeatedly that it needs to do. Even if they had extended it, itdoesn't provide for retroactive liability protection, which is what thecompanies 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 -- ifthere 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. Theysaid they -- in that letter, on the first page, it says they lostdays-worth of information.Q These companies have been reluctantly cooperating, and I'm justwondering if there have been any that have been --MS. PERINO: I know that there was a certain instance in which they werenot able to convince a company up until late Friday night, which is whythey put out that statement Saturday morning.John.Q Back on the economy for a second, are you saying that the GDP numberlater this week has some significance or some particular weight in terms ofdeciding whether you go to another stimulus package?MS. PERINO: Not more than any other month. I was just making a point thatit's another factor that we'll have to take into account when the numberscome out on Wednesday(**).Go ahead.Q On that topic, you said going into the meeting with the governors thePresident was willing to listen to their ideas. Do you know if he heardanything that swayed his view, particularly on the idea of infrastructureprojects, or is it still viewed that -- from the White House that thosearen't stimulative?MS. PERINO: Well, it's not -- there's no short-term stimulus to theeconomy for some of these projects, though I think that the -- thePresident listened to them with an open mind, and I think that he wouldencourage them to work with the Department of Transportation to see whatmight be possible right now, today. He talked about his budget, whichwould increase transportation funding by $24 billion this year alone.And so -- and I think it was Governor Rendell who said that they have donea 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 waitingfor 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 supportanything that would raise taxes. So we'll have to see what they come upwith.Peter, did you have one? No? Okay, John.Q When you say he'd be reluctant to support anything that would raisetaxes, are you referring to infrastructure projects tied to an increase intransportation fuel taxes or --MS. PERINO: Well, the bottom line is the President says he's not going toraise 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 infiguring out ways to increase taxes on the American people.Q Yes, but you can make an argument that if you just increased thedeficit, you, you know, inevitably create a tax burden.MS. PERINO: Well, we already -- we have already conceded that. And whenwe -- when the President signed the $157 billion stimulus package, heconceded that we will have a short-term increase in the deficit because ofthat. But what we needed in that package, which we thought was the rightsize, which we think that it is the right size in order to prevent theeconomy from sliding down into a recession or even a stronger economicdownturn -- that's why we have -- that's why the President signed thatbill, and we think that that was sufficient. But we don't think,necessarily, that taxpayers should have to pay for any more stimulus ifit's not necessary, and if it won't necessarily have the effect that theywould like it to have.Paula.Q At the stakeout, Governor Rendell said that actually theinfrastructure -- investing in that would create up to 47,000 jobs forevery billion dollars that's invested, and that that would actually be agreater stimulus to the economy than sending out tax rebates. So is theissue 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'repumping money into the economy, that's stimulative. But what we needed forthis economy for this -- for right now is a short-term stimulus effect. Idon't doubt that Governor Rendell said that, or that he feels that thatwould be better. The President, working with his Treasury Secretary andmembers of both the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle, agreethat $157 billion in tax rebates and incentives for businesses was the bestway to go. But as I said, he has an open mind, but he's not going to doanything that would raise taxes.Q You also cited the $24 billion in your proposal this year. But as youknow, budgets -- at best, this won't even be agreed to probably by October1, or even a continuing resolution. So would that really be a realistic wayof spending?MS. PERINO: You have such little faith in the Congress to actually getsomething done. But I think -- look, the governors are going to be talkingto members of Congress, as well. The governors know that they want thismoney, and they will be able to lobby members of Congress, as well.But remember, the President said that you can look at any transportationbill -- the highway bills have been passed -- especially recently, they arefilled with earmarks, which takes away from governors being able to makedecisions as to where they want to spend that money, and especially if theyhave a project all ready to go, they would rather put the money towardsthat, be able to get the project done for their people, create jobs intheir state, and not have to spend it on something that they think is alesser priority. But that's what happens with the transportation bills.Go ahead, Les.Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. Agence France-Presse reports thatthe USS Nimitz launched four F-18 fighters to intercept a pair of RussianTU-95 bombers off Japan, and escort one of them as it flew over the carrierat an altitude of 2,000 feet. And my question: What was the reaction ofthe 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 itwell, and we didn't think of it as a hostile act. It was nothing that wewere really concerned about.Q The AP reports that at Harvard, Mexico's President Felipe Calder n, onhis first trip to the United States, said, "I need to change in Mexico theperception that the Americans are the enemy. And it is important to changethe perception that the Mexicans are the enemy." And my question: Whatevidence does President Bush have that Mexican troops and police areseriously halting Mexican illegal aliens from invading our country?MS. PERINO: Well, look, Les, I don't think anybody here in thisadministration thinks that anyone from Mexico is an enemy, except for maybethose who are dealing drugs and violence on the border.Q Well, I'm just quoting what the President of Mexico said.I didn'tsay it. Go ahead.MS. PERINO: We are working with the Calder n government. And PresidentCalder n has said he's committed to working with us, and we actually have apackage right now pending before Congress, in which we want to work withthem in order to help make the border even more secure from -- preventingillegal immigration, as well as helping stop drug trafficking and violence.Q Does the President think the Mexicans have supported keeping ourborders secure?MS. PERINO: I think the President believes President Calder n is makingvery good efforts in trying to help secure the border.Go ahead.Q Last week, President Bush said that during his visit to Rwanda helearned the clear lesson that outside forces that tend to divide people upinside their country are unbelievably counterproductive. How will thePresident's newfound insight affect his Iraq policy?MS. PERINO: The President has been working towards reconciliation betweenthe Sunnis and the Shia, and it's actually working on a political level insome ways. Especially we saw that last month, when they passed three lawsin one day, which was quite a significant achievement for the Iraqis. Andhe will continue to work with them on it.Q Does he know what percentage of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces toleave?MS. PERINO: Look, what we do know is that the -- there might be pollstelling -- saying different things about who wants us where. What we knowis that the Iraqi government wants us there, neighboring countries want usthere.And we also know that if we were to leave too quickly that thepossibility for chaos and mass violence is too great, and the Presidentwon't risk that.Goyal.Q Dana, two quick questions. One, last week people of Pakistan havespoken for democracy. And there is a big call now in the oppositionparties, the winning parties and also the people in Pakistan that Mr.Musharraf must step down now and let the democracy to work. How long doyou think President -- or what do you think about how long he will continuesupport?MS. PERINO: Well, the President does support President Musharraf for allof the work that he's done to help us in counterterrorism. And if you lookat what we asked President Musharraf to do -- which is to take off theuniform, 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 ofPakistan to see what their new government will look like. But thePresident does certainly support him, and has continued to.Q And second, as far as the U.S.-India nuclear -- civil nuclearagreement is concerned, there is a call by the U.S. senators, in Delhi theymet with the Prime Minister of India and they said that now or never meansby July, India must act or this bill will not go through. What Presidentthinks, as far as U.S.-India civil nuclear deal?MS. PERINO: Well, we have a little bit more time, obviously, on thecalendar before the end of the President's term. But if there's internalpressure 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 withinIndia 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 helpCubans to start a new era of democracy. But in Latin America, theConference of Latin America has called the U.S. to change their policytoward Cuba, like lifting the U.S. embargo after more than 40 years, thatnothing happened with the embargo because Castro -- I mean, stepped out ofthe government because he was ill, not because of U.S. embargo. What isyour response to the call from Latin American Conference to do that?MS. PERINO: Well, this is certainly a significant time for the people ofCuba. It's their first time in modern history that they've had a change ofleadership, and we've urged the Cuban government to allow the people ofCuba to move towards a more peaceful, prosperous and free future.I would refer you to the President's speech from October 24, 2007, in whichhe talked about this and specifically about the embargo, and that liftingit would only, at this time, without any change in the process -- system ofgovernment in Cuba, enrich the elites and strengthen their grip. And thepeople who really need the support of a freer system would not benefit fromlifting the embargo. So there is not a contemplation here of changing thatnow.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 atimely boost to the economy this year without additional resources.(**) GDP numbers will be released on Thursday, 2/28/08 Printer-Friendly Version Email this page to a friend Afghanistan
Africa
Budget Management
Defense
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Global Diplomacy
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
International Trade
Iraq
Judicial Nominations
Middle East
National Security
Veterans
more issues NewsCurrent News
Press Briefings
Proclamations
Executive Orders
Radio
Setting the Record Straight
more news January 2008 December 2007 October 2007 September 2007 July 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 News by Date February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
AppointmentsNominations
Federal Facts Federal Statistics
West Wing History
African governments told to stop messing with telecoms
Download: https://tweeat.com/2vEMpx
2ff7e9595c
Comments