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

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 18, 2008

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

˙ /news/releases/2008/11/20081118-6.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


11:33 A.M. EST

MS. PERINO: Hello, everybody. A couple of announcements for you. As you
just saw, the President spoke today about efforts to improve travel for all
Americans during this busy holiday season. He announced an expansion of the
Thanksgiving Express Lanes, which were utilized on the East Coast during
last year's Thanksgiving season.

This year we have expanded the use of military airspace to areas of the
Midwest, Southwest, and the West Coast. In addition to that, the FAA and
then the TSA, working with the airlines, will have more staff available
during the holiday season in order to speed up the check-in process and
boarding and to help address passenger concerns. And in addition, new
regulations that we talked about have -- a while ago have just been
completed that will provide increased protections and compensation for
things like lost baggage, cancellation, and other travel hassles that we
all have to deal with from time to time.

In addition to that, I have two scheduling announcements for you. On
Friday, December 5th, President Bush will make keynote remarks at the
opening session of the Saban Forum here in Washington, which is an annual
meeting of policymakers here in the United States, and U.S. and Israeli
officials, for a dialogue on issues facing the two countries and the larger
Middle East region.

In addition, on Saturday December 6th, there will be two events. The
President will travel to Philadelphia to view the commissioning of his
portrait at the Union League's Presidential Portrait Collection. The
League's tradition for collecting presidential portraits started in 1862.
And then later that day he will attend the Army-Navy football game at
Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia.

So that's all I have for you. Deb.

Q Why is the Interior Department shifting political appointees into
civilian jobs? And is this something that is being done to give the Bush
administration a lasting imprint on environmental policy? And secondly, is
this being done at other agencies, as well?

MS. PERINO: No -- well, let me back up. First of all, The Washington Post
didn't bother to call the White House on this story, so we have a little
bit of a beef there. And I think that if they would have, they would have
had better information. As a matter of policy, the White House has not
encouraged non-career appointees to seek career positions in order to
further the President's policies. The White House doesn't play a role in
that career hiring process. There's a very specific process that OPM had
put forward, the Office of Personnel Management, that gives guidelines for
people who are eligible to apply for career positions. Once they do that,
they are handled on a case-by-case basis by OPM, and the review is
conducted by career employees.

There are -- I think that conversions in our administration in the past
year have been numbering around 20. That compares to 47 in the Clinton
administration. And these jobs are also advertised for -- everybody can
apply for them. And they win -- if they win the -- go through the process
and they actually get the job, it is because they do so on their merits.

And there's a lot of detail from the OPM staff that were provided to us,
and we'll try to get more facts and figures that maybe I can attach them to
the end of this briefing. I don't have all of them at my fingertips. But we
did look into it, and I mean, we think that it was a little bit
overwritten, that story this morning.*

Q I have something on a different topic. In a Washington Post interview,
Paulson said that he's going to be urging the Obama administration to endow
the federal government with broad new powers to take over not only banks,
but other private enterprises, as well. Is this being -- is this something
that the White House is --

MS. PERINO: I read that article quickly. I'm not exactly sure what he's
referring to. Unless this is the same issue that he talked about last week
in his press conference that he gave at the Treasury Department, when he
talked about possibly expanding -- to help with consumer credit and the
like. So I'll refer you to Treasury for more specifics, but I think that's
what they're talking about.

Kathleen.

Q A couple questions. First of all, just to follow up on the last question.
So as far as these appointees, I mean these political figures being slotted
into government jobs, so you don't feel that that is any way obstructionist
at all, depriving the Obama --

MS. PERINO: Absolutely not.

Q -- the incoming administration of --

MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. First of all, if somebody wants to come -- if
the next administration decides that somebody shouldn't be in a particular
job, they can make a decision to not have them in that job anymore. But in
addition to that, I think there's a real difference here. When you have
people who -- you have a certain amount of slots, of political slots. We're
not taking those away from anybody. The Obama administration will still be
able to have -- to fulfill their slots as they see fit. So we're not
suggesting that; we're not trying to dictate the process.

But there are people in the federal government who -- and you should want
people who have worked in the administration who think that they might want
to make their careers in government. We have a lot of smart people all
across the government with a lot of expertise -- in the financial sector,
in the energy sector, in the environmental sector, the Labor Department, et
cetera.

What we have done is follow the OPM guidelines -- just like the Clinton
administration supposedly did -- and our conversions, as I said, are about
20 this year, compared to 47 in the last year of the Clinton
administration.*

Q The other question -- according to two Obama advisors, apparently his
incoming administration is unlikely to bring any criminal charges against
any government officials who either authorized or engaged in some of these
harsh interrogations that some allege may have been torture. Any thoughts
on that? Is the administration reassured about that?

MS. PERINO: I think I'll just decline to comment on it.

Q And just one other thing on that. He's also -- apparently Obama is going
to be reviewing interrogations, the whole policy practice of what
constitutes a valid interrogation, what isn't waterboarding, et cetera.
They're going to have a panel on this. Does it concern the Bush
administration at all that this is in any way going to be tipping our hands
to terrorists in the future?

MS. PERINO: I'm sure that the next Commander-in-Chief will be very discreet
and discerning in looking at information and making sure that he
understands the full capabilities of tools that we have available to
protect the country.

This President has said that we did interrogate terrorists, and we did so
to protect the country from possible imminent terrorist attack. We did not
torture. And the laws that we have on the books are ones that we follow.
And I am sure that when the national security teams that stay on through
the transition process, that they will be as forthcoming as possible with
all information, and that they'll have the information that they need to do
their job.

Matt.

Q Congressman Hoyer says he is hopeful that the Democrats can reach a
compromise with the White House on aid to automakers. Does the White House
believe that such a compromise can be achieved this week, or are you
beginning to see this as something that's going to have to be left for --
to be worked out with the Obama administration?

MS. PERINO: Well, of course we remain hopeful that we can find a bipartisan
solution. We think that we already have a bipartisan solution, because we
have legislation that's already on the books, where money has already been
appropriated to help automakers through the DOE loan program, 136 loan
program. We've already put forward regulations that would guide how that
would work. What we're simply saying is that maybe we can work together to
amend that process so that companies that can prove viability could take
advantage and have that money sooner if they need it during this rough
patch.

The House and Senate are in today, but they're having hearings. I think
tomorrow you'll probably see a little bit more action once they're able to
bring something to the floor. We still don't know exactly what they would
bring to the floor. But we think that we have a solution here that is very
logical and very reasonable. Perhaps it's so logical and so reasonable that
people really just can't get their arms around it, because it's Washington,
D.C. But we think that we have a path forward. And we'll let you know as we
continue to work with members of Congress whether or not we can forge an
agreement. We hope to do so this week.

Q When you say "amended," do you mean amended so that it is not required to
be used for fuel efficiency?

MS. PERINO: Right, that those funds would be freed up and that they could
use those funds for other things. That does not mean that we are relaxing
any standards when it comes to fuel efficiency. President Bush proposed the
changes that we are starting to implement now; Congress finally passed
them. And we have a chance now to really improve the fuel efficiency of
these vehicles.

What we're saying is that the Congress already passed $25 billion for the
auto industry so that they could retool their factories and meet those
standards. They're still going to have to meet those standards, but if they
need that money sooner and need it for other purposes, we're saying simply
amend that bill and allow that money to be used for other things.

And if in the future they decide -- the next administration and the
Congress decides to add additional funds to help the automakers to meet
those standards, that will be up to them. We just don't think that we
should provide the $25 billion that was already on the table, plus an
additional $25 billion, unless companies can show us that they have a
long-term path for viability.

Q So, Dana, is the primary sticking point, then, just the source of the
money? If it comes from TARP, you don't like it; but if it comes from the
Department of Energy, you do like it? I mean, does the White House
completely agree that automakers do need and deserve this money?

MS. PERINO: We want the automakers to succeed. There is a pot of money that
exists, it's there for the taking, it's on the table. And we think that a
simple amendment to the law that has already been passed to allow them to
be able to use these funds is the best way for us to be able to help the
automakers right now. And so we're going to try and help them do that.

We don't think that these funds should be taken from the TARP. That was
never the intent of Congress. That money is specifically for the financial
industry, to help prevent collapse in our financial system. And that's what
Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke are talking about this morning on
Capitol Hill.

Q So that's the only difference is that you don't like one source and they
like a different source? I mean, I don't really see -- it seems like that
is very close to an agreement.

MS. PERINO: It's a significant difference. Well, it's a significant
difference when you're talking about which pot of money to use, because we
want the money that has already been appropriated, that we have rules that
govern how it would be used. We also went through the process of rushing
through, but doing it in a proper way, the rules of the road to prove
viability that's defined in our legislation. What the Democrats put forward
yesterday is a proposal that fails to require automakers to prove
viability.

We don't think that taxpayers should be asked to throw money at a company
that can't prove that it has a long-term path for success. That's a key
difference between us and them.

Bret.

Q Isn't it true that they want both? They don't one or the other, they want
both.

MS. PERINO: Right, they want the money that's already been appropriated and
they want an additional $25 billion, which we think is unnecessary and
unreasonable at this point.

Q On the hearing today, House Financial Services Committee hearing,
Secretary Paulson has repeated his opposition to using some of the bailout
money to help guarantee home loans, to prevent foreclosures. Understanding
what the administration is already doing on that front with those various
programs, there is a clear split here with FDIC Chair Bair and her proposal
for $25 billion to be used. Where does the President stand on this, and
why?

MS. PERINO: There are several proposals that came forward to the President,
not just from FDIC, but from HUD, as well as Treasury and other places,
that we are considering in order to try to provide more help to homeowners
if we can do so. As you said, we already have several programs that are
underway -- HOPE NOW, which is a private sector initiative that has helped
over 2 million homeowners, and they've just announced a way to help even
more. And the private sector has stepped forward to try to help homeowners
be able to stay in their homes, and HUD has several programs, as well. The
help that we've provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should help in that
regard, as well. So we have several programs underway.

There have been a lot of proposals that have come forward that really
required a lot of weighing of the pros and cons of the cost-benefit
analysis, the fairness issue of which homeowner do you decide to help. If
my neighbor decides to get help and I don't get help, I think that there
are really serious issues that we have to consider about the fairness of
all of this. We are working through the challenges in those questions on
that.

One thing in regard to the TARP is that when that money was passed it was
intended for financial institutions and to help prevent the collapse of our
banking industry. And the rules of the road for that program is that
Treasury has to look at an investment and decide, is this the best way to
provide taxpayers a good return on investment? Can they be made whole, and
can they even possibly make money on this deal? What the FDIC proposal puts
forward is a suggestion that we should give direct subsidies to lenders. We
don't know if that's the appropriate use for that money. And so I'm sure
Secretary Paulson will talk more about it today, but that's where the rub
is.

Q Shouldn't we stop calling it TARP, since it's not really any more a
troubled asset relief program?

MS. PERINO: Yes, I have thought the same myself. I don't know --

Q It's no longer that.

MS. PERINO: I don't know what we could call it. I also call it the rescue
package. It's not a bad point.

Go ahead, Roger.

Q Just to make sure I'm clear on something. The Democrats want the $25
billion from DOE, plus the $25 billion from TARP financial rescue. The
administration's support stops at the $25 billion that exists from DOE, and
nothing more?

MS. PERINO: At this point, right. But our money is tied to one key point,
which is can these companies make the tough decisions necessary to
restructure and be viable. And that's what the taxpayer should be asking.

Q Right. But there's nothing beyond $25 billion?

MS. PERINO: In our proposal, no. But I would be surprised if the car
companies were actually asking for anything more than that $25 billion
right now. But they'll have a chance to testify on Capitol Hill this
afternoon and you'll hear more from them.

Q Given the unpredictable nature of economy as it impacts the automakers --
everything from consumer attitudes to fluctuation in gas prices -- what are
the benchmarks for them to predict their viability? What is the
administration looking for?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'd refer you to one of the things that we've already
done, which is the technical experts and the financial experts worked on
those regulations to implement the 136 loan program out of DOE and they've
defined viability there.

The proposal that Senator Reid produced yesterday does not require
viability. They talk around the edges of it, there's a lot of rhetoric, but
it doesn't require it. And that is going to be a test for us to be able to
actually reach a compromise.

Q Viability --

MS. PERINO: Viability issue.

Go ahead.

Q Dana, beyond the DOE loan program for the automakers, what the automakers
really want to do is get a lot of their pension obligations off their
books. And there's talk that some of that would actually be pushed over to
the pension benefit guarantee -- government entity. So isn't it true that
the true cost ultimately to the taxpayers could be far more than these DOE
-- these energy figures that are being talked about?

MS. PERINO: I think it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on what
the companies may or may not do in the future with their pension
obligations. But, obviously, the PGBC exists for a reason. And I'm sure
people are thinking about that and are mindful of it as they move forward.

One of the things that we've talked about is that if we were to provide
this money, it will be tied to viability. And part of that means companies
that will be willing to make the hard decisions necessary to restructure
their firms so that they can be competitive in the long term, compete in
the global marketplace like we want them to do.

Q But would you concede then that ultimately the long-term cost could be
far more than the DOE figures that are now being talked about?

MS. PERINO: It's hard to say. What we want is for these companies to be
able to succeed. We think that we can provide them access to the money
that's been -- already been appropriated for the purpose of helping the
automakers modernize themselves, that that would be an appropriate thing to
do. But we are not in favor of even an additional $25 billion in taxpayer
money on top of that.

Q But are you saying that you would be -- you wouldn't be in favor of the
additional $25 billion, even if they could prove future viability?

MS. PERINO: No, I think we're going to just draw the line at $25 billion
that has already been appropriated through the DOE program.

Q Dana.

MS. PERINO: Goyal, and then I'll come to you, Les.

Q Two quick questions, Dana, thank you. One, as far as this U.S.-India
civil nuclear agreement is concerned, you think the President is going to
leave this up to the next President-Elect Obama, as far as final
bureaucratic things are still on his table?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that the next administration will be able to
decide for itself whether or not they want to continue that relationship
that we've established with India. But I would see no reason why they
shouldn't.

Q And second, I hope President saw last night on ABC Nightline, as far as,
I think many people said there may be a concern to national security, KKK
are dangerous -- maybe they are. What President think about those, their
views and their determination, maybe --

MS. PERINO: The President's views about that organization is well known,
but I don't think he saw the Nightline program last night.

Les.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions.

MS. PERINO: Okay, and then I'll go to Ann.

Q Thank you. Sunday's lead editorial in The New York Times had this
statement: "We believe the military needs 65,000 additional Army troops,
and the 27,000 additional Marines that Congress finally pushed President
Bush into seeking." What is the White House reaction to that statement?

MS. PERINO: Was that in Afghanistan, or in general?

Q I'm just saying that --

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I didn't read The New York Times editorial this
weekend, so I don't know.

Q Okay. Does the White House believe there is no question at all about the
birthplace, and thus the required U.S. citizenship of the President-elect?

MS. PERINO: I think we're in good shape on that. (Laughter.)

Q You are in good shape?

Q Dana, in July the President held a full news conference. It's now
November. Is that a format that he just doesn't think useful to him
anymore? (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Everyone did dress up. We made it clear during the campaign
season that we would not be doing press conferences. Right now, the
campaign season is over. Are you eager to have them back?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Okay. One yes from Les. (Laughter.) Do you think that's -- do
you think that's going to help my case? (Laughter.)

Q We all want them --

Q In the last weeks of his presidency, does he think it's just not
something that he needs to --

MS. PERINO: I don't know. We never announce press conferences before we
actually are going to have one. I wouldn't be surprised if there's one
before we leave. But it's just as possible that there might not be any.

Q Is he going to have a Christmas party?

Q We'd like to see him in this room.

MS. PERINO: Paula.

Q You mentioned a moment ago about foreclosures and limiting that. But if
you do that, won't that end up having more homeowners go into bankruptcy?
And if they're in bankruptcy and file bankruptcy, then they're not going to
be able to do anything and merit credit, they won't have credit cards.

MS. PERINO: I'm not sure I follow your logic. If we're helping homeowners
avoid foreclosure, then more of them are going to go into bankruptcy?
That's your suggestion?

Q I mean, the proposals that are out there are to expand that, to prevent
more foreclosures. And if the administration wants to basically put a cap
on that, won't those people go into bankruptcy if they are not able to
avoid foreclosures?

MS. PERINO: Paula, I don't think I'm following you. But we'll follow up
with you later. We're trying to help as many people as we possibly can. I
went through all the programs that we have.

April.

Q Dana, is there any kind of support around this White House for someone, a
"car czar" to oversee any monies that will be given or could be given to
the auto industry to prevent any kinds of mishandling of those funds, as
we've seen with AIG --

MS. PERINO: Well the program that we're talking about would be administered
through the Department of Energy. And so, those funds would be overseen by
their officials and the inspector general at the Department of Energy. So I
don't know if you need anybody in addition. But I'm -- if the
President-elect thinks that that is something that he would want to have,
then I'm sure we would work with him to consider it. But I haven't heard
any more further talk on that.

Q Because there's some talk -- Nancy Pelosi is bringing that up to allow --

MS. PERINO: It could be that they want to move forward with that, but I
think the most -- before we start talking about establishing a czar to
oversee the money, we actually need to pass a bill that would provide funds
for the auto industry.

Deb.

Q Just a point of clarification. When you talk about compromise on -- from
the White House perspective -- on the automakers, your compromise would be
on using the retooling money for this more immediate thing. That -- when
you say "compromise" --

MS. PERINO: Right.

Q -- that would be the compromise, not any kind -- you don't see room for
any kind of compromise on this additional $25 billion they're requesting?

MS. PERINO: I don't see that right now. And in addition, Deb, there's just
no appetite for it in the Senate, as well. I don't think they could
actually even get that bill through the process. And we are in a situation
where we need to move very quickly. So it seems prudent to me, and
reasonable and sensible, to move forward to amend the bill that's already
in place. And we could try to get that $25 billion that's right there for
the taking into play to help these companies for the next little while,
until they can get on a better path to prosperity.

Q I just want to ask regarding the two border agents -- that was in the
news again last week. Now that the President is ending his term -- calls
are renewed for a pardon or a commutation. Is there anything on that you --

MS. PERINO: We never comment on pardons. People who are eligible to apply
for a pardon can do so through the pardon attorney at the Department of
Justice. And we don't comment on the deliberations that are underway.

Thank you.

END 11:54 A.M. EST

* The White House has not encouraged non-career appointees to seek career
positions as a way to advance the President's policies. The White House
does not play any role in the career employee hiring process.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) outlines a specific hiring process
for political employees who seek career positions. Requests are handled on
a case-by-case basis by the agency and OPM, and the entire process is
conducted by career OPM employees. If a non-career appointee is judged to
be the best qualified for the career position in question, a separate merit
staffing review is conducted by OPM before the agency is permitted to
appoint the individual to the career position. These positions are open to
anyone and are listed on USAjobs.gov.

An Agency's management can convert a particular position from non-career to
career. This was done when the Solicitor of the Department of Interior
decided to fill previously non-career positions with career SES civil
servants in an effort to improve performance. This action does not remove
non-career positions from an agency's congressional allotment, which are
used based on the direction of the White House Chief of Staff. Furthermore,
the action could be reversed by the new management of the Department after
January 20.
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081118-6.html