From the White House Press Secretary to Reporters:

Q Okay, and one quick follow up on that. As I understand it, the sticking point is really about retroactive immunity for the telecoms, not prospective immunity. So help me understand the administration’s argument that without this retroactive immunity, the telecoms would be reluctant in the future to cooperate with a surveillance request. If prospective immunity is already assured, I don’t understand how retroactive immunity has any effect.

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

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

Q But let’s assume it was passed with prospective immunity — which is had, you know, six months ago — but retroactive immunity wasn’t there. Wouldn’t that solve the concerns?

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

The opposing arguments for that I assume are because they want trial lawyers to be able to sue those companies. We don’t think that’s right. We think that we should provide that immunity and we think that that’s necessary.

And they returned to the topic:

Q Can I go back to the immunity question. You’re saying that without that retroactive immunity, you know, companies may not be willing to put their shareholders at risk and cooperate. So we’re talking about voluntary cooperation, and it’s not just the telecom, is it? I mean, how serious is that concern? I mean, what kind of — what is the extent of the cooperation that — and what other, outside of telecom context — are you talking about, like, car rentals and hotels?

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

Q But when you talk about the private sector, what kind of — I mean, what kind of –

MR. STANZEL: Without going into the broad details of the program, I think those are the types of questions that are best left to the intelligence professionals that do administer the program.

Q Thank you, Scott. Just a follow-up question. As of today, there is no surveillance bill on the books, no surveillance laws. What is the President doing specifically, in terms of lobbying the House of Representatives, to get the package from the Senate through? Will he call members, will he bring member –

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

But their prospective or future cooperation is not voluntary at all. They are required to comply with legal orders to wiretap. They’d actually be subject to prosecution by refusing a legal order. Not only that, imagine their PR problem trying to explain a refusal to comply with alegal effort to pursue data about dangerous enemies.

The White House keeps defining the illegal telecom wiretapping as a patriotic thing to do. So does that make Qwest - which refused to do it - an unpatriotic company? Bush can’t have it both ways, though he tries to.

And the White House press corps, while seeming to be concerned, can’t seem to ask the right questions. Are they afraid they’re being tapped, too?