===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Dana Perino
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release December 3, 2008

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Dana Perino James S. Brady Press Briefing
Room

˙ /news/releases/2008/12/20081203-6.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


11:07 A.M. EST

MS. PERINO: Hello. Just a couple of announcements, and then we can take
your questions.

The President is currently meeting with the members of the Commission on
Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. This
meeting gives the President the opportunity to talk to the commission about
their findings and to share with them more about what he thinks about
what's happened over the past seven and a half years.

Also, a scheduling announcement for you. On Monday, the President will
visit the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Virginia. The visit
is similar to the ones the President has done at the CIA and at the State
Department and the National Security Agency. It's a chance for the
President to be briefed by officials there and receive updates on work
being done at NCTC. He will also thank them for all of the hard work that
they've done to keep America safe. So that will be on Monday. I don't have
a time for you here, but we'll get it for you on the week ahead.

Anybody have questions? (Laughter.)

Q Of course we do. Now that the automakers have submitted plans for their
futures and are about to talk to Congress, can you talk about what the
administration thinks of those plans, if it -- if they seem to pave the way
toward viable companies that deserve federal help?

MS. PERINO: It's a little too early to say. We just got the summaries of
those plans yesterday, and officials here are poring over them, as they are
at the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department. There's a lot that
goes into this and a lot is at stake, when you're talking about possibly
putting taxpayer dollars towards any of these companies.

Secretaries Gutierrez and Bodman sent a letter last week to Congress that
outlined our position on viability. That is the linchpin of where our
support would lie. And we have put forward a plan, through the section 136
program at the Energy Department, which we think could get bipartisan
support and be able to help the auto industry.

So we're going to be paying very close attention to the testimony that will
take place Thursday and Friday up on Capitol Hill from the automakers, and
then hopefully we'll have more to say after that.

Q So you think that a determination of how serious they are and how good
those plans are sort of depends on what they say tomorrow --

MS. PERINO: No, not necessarily. I think that their testimony is going to
be important, but what's even more important are the plans that they've
provided. But since we just got the summaries yesterday we're starting to
pore through them now.

We had a test that we had laid out, through the 136 program, on what
viability would mean. We can talk about a variety of those things, like the
labor cost, management cost, the legacy cost, the debt structure -- that's
a very important piece of this. We want to make sure that a company is
viable so that if the American taxpayers help the automakers now that they
don't have to again try to help them in six months because the plans didn't
work.

So that's what we'll be looking at. But we just need a little bit more time
to pore through those documents.

Matt.

Q The automakers' funding request, in their just-presented plans, totaled
$34 billion in loans and credit lines, and that would be above and beyond
the $25 billion in the Energy Department technology improvement funds that
were already appropriated by Congress. That's quite a big sum over and
above what the White House has shown a willingness to agree to or to
support.

MS. PERINO: Good point, right.

Q What's your -- what's the White House --

MS. PERINO: Well, that's a good point, and we'll have to -- again, we're
going to have to look at the plans and see what may or may not be able to
be supported by us for those companies as they move forward.

We have said that we want to try to help the automakers, and we've put
forward a plan that we think that can get bipartisan support. But we need
to look at each of them and see if what we would be able to support could
actually be a good investment for the taxpayers, and we just don't know
that yet.

Q But you had said yesterday that $25 billion sounded -- the technology
funds alone sounded pretty generous.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that to the American people, that giving $25
billion in taxpayer dollars to a specific industry is generous. But these
are very serious times, and I'm sure the companies have spent a lot of time
thinking through what they think they will need. And we'll have to wait and
see what their plans say. Give us a chance to look through them. Let's see
what they have to say tomorrow, and let's see what kind of support they can
get on Capitol Hill tomorrow, as well. I think that remains a little bit of
a mystery.

Go ahead.

Q Dana, it sounds to me like you're not ruling out more than $25 billion
for the automakers. Is that correct?

MS. PERINO: I'm saying I'm not ruling anything out. I think that we need to
see their plans --

Q You say you're not ruling anything out.

MS. PERINO: I'm not ruling anything in or out. I think that we just need --
it's too early -- let us have a chance to look at their plans and let them
have their chance to testify, and let's see what support it can get on
Capitol Hill.

Q Isn't that a movement from previously? I mean, you were pretty firm on no
more than $25 billion previously allocated money, that was it. It sounds
like now you're saying you might go over that.

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't recall ever being asked a question if we would
actually do more than $25 billion. The debate that we were having over the
past few weeks as we laid -- put forward our plan was that we thought that
the money that had already been appropriated for the auto industry should
be used for the auto industry, and all that Congress would need to do was
amend the 136 program and allow those funds to be used now rather than just
for the specific costs that they were -- or the specific issues that they
were going to be allowed to use.

I don't remember being asked if we would do more than $25 billion, and I
didn't say.

Q Well, as I remember it, I think you were pretty clear, and I know that
Gutierrez was clear, that the administration opposes more than $25 billion.
Is that still true?

MS. PERINO: I don't remember saying that. We can go back and check the
record --

Q I know Gutierrez said that, and you've certainly suggested that.

MS. PERINO: Well, let us take a look at what these companies are going to
put forward. And I don't remember any of the companies suggesting that they
needed more than $25 billion over the past three weeks.

Q Well, now, if there was money to come from somewhere else, could it come
possibly from the TARP or would there need to be some new allocation?

MS. PERINO: We need to look at their plans. We need to let them testify.
And we think that Congress should take a look at the bipartisan way forward
that we put to them, which was to use the money that they've already
allocated for it. We think that would be the best and appropriate use of
that money.

Q May I ask one final -- I'm sorry. You've emphasized repeatedly that they
need to show a plan for recovery. One way that a lot of economists thinks
this -- that this is achievable is if they go into bankruptcy and they will
be forced to restructure. Does the White House have any sympathy for the
idea of these -- of the automakers going into bankruptcy? Would that be
potentially a good idea?

MS. PERINO: We don't want companies to go insolvent; that has been our
position. But we do know that there are some companies do fail. And that's
the way that our system works. But we also recognize the intricacies of
this industry and how many people it could affect. We have said that we'd
be willing to help the automakers. That's already a step beyond what the
President's instincts naturally would be in a free market economy.

But we are in unprecedented times, and there's really no road map to follow
for the situation that we're in. So we're going to take a look at their
plans. Our experts are looking at them. We're going to let them testify,
and then we'll be able to come back.

But I think it's really important to see what kind of support this can get
on Capitol Hill because if they can't get support on Capitol Hill, that
will put -- that will make the taxpayers think about whether or not it
would be worth giving them money now to try to help them. Because, as I
said, we want them -- these companies to be viable, we want them to be able
to survive over the long term, but in order to do that, they're going to
have to make some very tough decisions. It sounds to me like the companies
have given this a lot of thought and that they are willing to make some
tough decisions.

But until we understand the details of their plans, I don't think I'm going
to be able to give you all the answers to your questions today.

Peter.

Q You don't usually talk about which way the wind is blowing on Capitol
Hill. What leads you to say -- make a comment that support for this is a
mystery?

MS. PERINO: Well, I just, I think that it is. Could anybody here tell me
how Capitol Hill is actually going to react to the plans that they put
forward? I don't think anybody knows.

Q Well, you usually don't talk about the mood up there.

MS. PERINO: Really?

Q What are you telling -- what is the administration telling its -- telling
Republicans about this whole idea of the $34 billion?

MS. PERINO: Well, as I said, we need a chance to look through the plans,
Peter, so I don't think that we can -- I can answer that for you right now.

Q You're not sending any signals on this yet at all?

MS. PERINO: As far as I know, no, but I think that if anybody were to ask
us, our subject matter experts, for their opinion, that they'll provide it,
but I don't know if we would do that in advance of the -- do that
publically in advance of the testimony.

John.

Q Are there particular areas of their proposals where you have more
questions than in other areas, like legacy costs?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. Our experts -- Keith Hennessey, Eddie Lazear and
his team -- they're looking at all of this and they know what to look for
better than I do, but once they have a little bit more I could see if
there's something I can provide.

Anything else on autos?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Jon.

Q I have a quick one. Are you on the same page as the Speaker, who said
that bankruptcy for these companies is not an option?

MS. PERINO: I think what I just said is that we have said that we want to
try to help these companies and we laid -- put forward a path for us to be
able to do so. And -- but we're going to have to -- we would only do so if
the companies can prove viability. And that's the question right now --
whether or not these plans would provide for long-term viability -- and
that's just something I can't answer for you right now today.

Q It does sound like the viability premise would leave room for allowing
them to fail. I mean, logic would sort of --

MS. PERINO: I'm just not going to speculate. Let us take a look at the
plans and let them have their testimony and see if we can help them. We
don't want anybody to be negatively affected by a bankruptcy, but sometimes
companies do fail. That's just the way it is in our system. We've put
forward a path that we think could get bipartisan support. Let's just see
what transpires over the next three days. We're not going to answer this
today.

Q Dana, how extensive is the material the automakers provided you all? I
mean, how long does it take to go through it?

MS. PERINO: I don't know, Ed. I haven't seen them. I've had a few other
things to do, but you wouldn't want me looking at them anyway because I
couldn't tell you.

Q No, but do you know?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't know. I think they're pretty thorough, but that's
just a guess, given the report that I heard this morning.

Olivier.

Q Dana, does the White House support India's call for Pakistan to extradite
Lashkar-e-Taiba leaders (inaudible)?

MS. PERINO: I'm going to let Secretary Rice, who is there in the region,
and Admiral Mullen, who is either headed there or -- well, he's in the
region; I don't know if he's in Delhi yet -- let them report back to the
President before I would comment on that. But they're in the region at the
request of the President to express solidarity and our condolences.
Obviously six American citizens were killed and many others were negatively
affected. So this feels a little bit different to us and we expect that
Pakistan would cooperate fully, transparently, and follow this to its
conclusion. But I don't think that I can presuppose what they're going to
come back and tell the President.

Q Okay. Then I've got a bunch of Pakistan for you. The WMD Commission came
back and said basically that Pakistan sits closest to the intersection of
nuclear weapons and Islamist terrorism. Do you agree with that
characterization?

MS. PERINO: I have no reason to disagree with it.

Q Okay. And finally, one of the striking things about the report is how
many times it says that actually the U.S. margin of safety from WMD
terrorism is shrinking, and has shrunk, over the past eight years -- not
increased. Do you share that view, as well?

MS. PERINO: Well, the President is meeting with them right now. I think
that one of the things that he will be able to talk to them about is -- and
the report affirms this -- which is that we have done a lot in the past
seven and a half years, and we've built a really strong foundation for the
next team to be able to come onboard and continue that.

We think that there is more to do. Our highest priority is to prevent an
attack on American citizens, to prevent weapons of mass destruction from
being used here in our country and around the world. That's why we have the
proliferation initiatives that we have -- the nonproliferation initiatives
that we have been working on with many other countries -- PSI, as it's
called.

We recognize that there is more to do, but what we have done is provided a
really good foundation for the next team to be able to take that on and
continue to try to keep us safe.

Q Any plans for any legislative proposals, administrative restructuring,
anything like that in response to the WMD Commission report?

MS. PERINO: Oh, not that I'm aware of -- at least certainly not under our
administration. I think that we would make sure that the President-elect's
team is fully briefed and then if they decide they want to move forward
when they have their team together, I think that they could do that. But I
don't even know if in the report they suggest that, so I'll have to defer.

Kathleen.

Q Has the President received and is he considering the request from Senator
Dick Durbin to commute the sentence of the 74-year-old former Governor of
Illinois George Ryan as an act of compassion and mercy? And also, can you
share with us the President's thought process on this kind of thing, what
types of criteria he uses when deciding whether to grant a pardon,
commutation, or clemency? And where does the process stand? Is he
considering any more of those?

MS. PERINO: Well, I can tell you that we have received the request from
Senator Durbin, but I would not comment on the pardon process -- except for
to say that anyone who is eligible for a pardon can apply for one, and
those requests go through our pardon attorney, which is at the Justice
Department. And the President just pardoned I think 14 people right before
Thanksgiving. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more before he leaves
office, but I couldn't tell you how many and I certainly couldn't tell you
who.

Q Dana.

MS. PERINO: I'm going to go back here just real quick.

Q Dana, the GAO, as you know, issued its latest -- its first audit,
actually, on the financial recovery plan and it's very concerned about what
appears to be a lack of oversight -- that banks are taking money and not
tracking what they're using the money for, or may not in the future. And
there doesn't seem to be any wheels on this thing or any oversight. What is
the White House position on that?

MS. PERINO: Well, the report summarizes Treasury's progress in implementing
the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and I think it's important to remember
that that report was drafted before 60 days had even passed since the
legislation actually made it through Congress and was signed by the
President. So the Treasury Department actually agreed with most of the
recommendations in that report and have been implementing them, and they
will continue to do so. They've made significant progress on building the
infrastructure to safeguard the taxpayers and make sure that the
institutions are doing what they committed to do. And we will just make
sure that we continue to build out that infrastructure, take those
recommendations on board, and do what we can.

Les -- actually, let me go to Mike real fast and then I'll come back. Go
ahead.

Q On Mumbai, about Admiral Mullen and Secretary Rice's visits, are they
basically trying to manage this combustible relationship between Pakistan
and India and trying to make sure that this thing does not escalate out of
hand?

MS. PERINO: Well, we certainly have over the past seven years -- if you
remember in 2001, we had a similar situation where India and Pakistan
tensions had increased dramatically. We have something called a composite
dialogue which we have tried to use to help the two countries establish
open lines of communication, which they have been using over the past week,
which is something that they didn't have just a few years ago.

So we're continuing to try to help them have open lines of communication.
The Pakistanis have said to the Indians that they will cooperate and that
they will participate in the investigation. We think that that's positive.

One of the reasons that the President wanted Secretary Rice and Admiral
Mullen to go to the region was of course to help reduce tensions, which is
our goal, but to also thank our Ambassador and our Consul General, who have
done amazing work to try to help the American citizens negatively affected
by these attacks, and also to express our condolences to the Indians and
our solidarity with the Indians. We have really worked hard on both
relationships, bilaterally and then multilaterally in the region, to try to
help everyone realize that the common enemy is the terrorists, and it's an
enemy not just for India and not just for Pakistan, not just for the United
States, but for all of civilization. And that's the message that they're
taking today. I expect when they get back they'll be able to provide an
update to the President. And then we'll update you from there.

Okay, Les.

Q Thank you, Dana.

MS. PERINO: And then I'll go Helen.

Q Two questions. Two hundred of Israel's rabbis and other Israeli leaders,
including generals, petitioned the President concerning the very serious
health condition, in his 23rd year in prison, of Jonathan Pollard. And they
asked the President to give him clemency. I'm wondering, does the President
-- he is aware of this, and what is the reaction?

MS. PERINO: The President is well aware of the request to pardon -- or
commute the sentence of Jonathan Pollard, but as I said to Kathleen, I'm
not able to comment on where those things stand. I just -- it's a private
matter for the President and if and when there would be an action that the
President would take, then we would let you know.

Q Thank you. Bloomberg reports that Professor Igor Panarin of Russia's
Ministry of Foreign Affairs has forecast that because of the financial
crisis, the United States will break into six parts. What is the White
House reaction to this? (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Ed Chen is as puzzled as I am, so I think I'll have to decline
to comment.

Q I had a poker face. (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Helen, did you have a question?

Q Yes. Is the President going to sign the anti-cluster bomb treaty?
Apparently this is --

MS. PERINO: Right, this is a treaty that was passed out of the U.N.
Security Council several months ago. We said then that, no, we would not be
signing on to it. And so I think that the signing is actually -- we did not
participate in the passage of it, and therefore we're not going to sign it
either.

Q Why not?

MS. PERINO: What I have forgotten is all the reasons why, and so I'll get
it for you. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. One other question.

MS. PERINO: Oh, okay.

Q Do you have any -- do you see any linkage between the Pakistani
government and the so-called terrorists?

MS. PERINO: Secretary Rice today in the region said that she would decline
to comment before the investigation has some time to reach more
conclusions. What we -- some of the things that we do know about
individuals coming from Pakistan are more well known, but I don't think
that anybody is making a direct link to state sponsor. But she said that we
should decline to comment until the investigation has some more time to
play itself out.

Okay, thank you.

END 11:25 A.M. EST
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081203-6.html