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

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 17, 2008

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

˙ /news/releases/2008/11/20081117.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


10:39 A.M. EST

MS. PERINO: A few announcements for you, if you can bear with me on this
Monday morning. The President will be home soon, and so I'm sure you'll all
go out to welcome him back. This afternoon in the East Room, the President
and Mrs. Bush will present the 2008 National Medals of Arts and National
Humanities Awards. And we'll get a list of names for you later on that.

At 2:00 p.m., he will have the photo opportunity with the United States
Ryder Cup team. I'm not sure if I have the timing on that right. Do you
have the time? Sorry, but it's this afternoon after the Medals of Arts and
National Humanities Medals -- 2:30 p.m., just so nobody panics.

A couple of announcements for you. One thing just to make sure that you're
aware of, from the Department of Commerce: Today we are now just three
months from the transition to digital television, which will take place on
February 17th. Households watching TV over the air on analog sets will need
to take action soon to ensure their sets don't go dark. The Department of
Commerce has been working very hard to get word out to people, and they
encourage Americans who will be impacted to go to a website that is
www.dtv2009.gov before the end of the year, where they can get a coupon to
get a converter box, buy a box and test it out and make sure that they're
all set to watch their favorite programs on February 17th.

The White House and officials throughout the administration have been
closely monitoring the situation in California for the last several days.
Although the reports appear to look more favorable today, this is still a
very dangerous situation and a lot of people are impacted. We ask that
people remain vigilant and heed evacuation orders and other directions from
their local authorities.

FEMA has granted three fire management assistance grants to help the state
in their firefighting efforts. The grants have been for the Tea Fire, Sayre
Fire, and a Triangle Complex fire. FEMA regional personnel are working hand
in hand with the state to see if we need to help them meet any of their
needs.

And finally, a preview for you for tomorrow. In his remarks tomorrow at the
Department of Transportation, the President will discuss new and continuing
efforts to make holiday travel as safe and hassle-free as possible for all
Americans. Additionally, he will discuss the administration's record of
improving safety and utilizing new ideas and advanced technology to have a
more efficient and environmentally friendly transportation system.

As a reminder, last year the military opened its East Coast airspace to
civilian flights to help alleviate delays and congestion during the holiday
season, and he'll have more to say about that issue and other
transportation initiatives tomorrow at the Department of Transportation.

With that, I'll take your questions.

Q On the auto industry money, you all have talked about how what you want
to do is pursue changes to the DOE loan program. What are you all doing to
push that forward in terms of talks on the Hill or actively out lobbying?

MS. PERINO: We are talking with members of the Hill. Remember, a lot of
them haven't been in town, but they're back today and I think that they
will be having a lot of meetings both on the Republican side and Democratic
side today. Hopefully they're talking to one another, as well. We have yet
to see any proposal put forward by the Democrats and they will be back in
session in just a couple of hours. So we are waiting to see that.

We want the automakers to succeed and we support using an existing program
to help them do so. It's an important part of our manufacturing base. These
are great, historical companies in the United States and they have a way to
get back on a path to be better companies, more successful companies in the
future. So what we have asked Congress to do is to look at the money that
has already been provided through the DOE loan program -- it's $25 billion
-- and to simply amend that bill so that they can get that money sooner,
rather than wait for an application process just to go forward with the
retooling.

But we only think taxpayer dollars should go to companies that can show
viability and a willingness to make tough decisions to restructure
themselves so that they can be successful for the long term. So we'll be
continuing to work with members of Congress on this. It will be a short
week but a very important week, so we can try to get a lot done in just a
few days.

Q Are you guys putting your own legislative proposal forward?

MS. PERINO: I think we'll wait and see on that. We've been talking with
Leader McConnell's office and they have some ideas of their own. And so
we're trying to work with them on it.

Q Who determines viability?

MS. PERINO: There is a definition currently in the section 136 bill that
had been put forward. Whether or not there would be any changes that
Congress would make to that would remain to be seen.

Q You've repeated over the last 10 days your opposition to funding anything
for the auto industry out of the TARP program. Are you opposed to Congress
amending that so that monies in that program could go to the auto industry?

MS. PERINO: I don't think we think it would be necessary to do so when we
already have a program with monies, $25 billion, appropriated specifically
for the auto industry. The TARP funding is there for financial
institutions. It was -- Congress never intended for individual industries
to be able to come forward to --

Q And what if they change their mind?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that what they should be able to do is -- look,
there's not an appetite in Congress, or in the administration, to open up
the TARP funding for individual industries, because once you start down
that road, it's a slippery slope to other industries that might say that
they need help. But we do have an entire pot of money, $25 billion, that
the auto -- that is specifically for the automakers. And we also know that
opening up the TARP will not get through the Senate. Therefore, to avoid
partisan gridlock, what we are recommending is to work hand in hand on a
program that would simply amend the 136 program and help companies that can
show long-term viability and a willingness to restructure.

Q Would you guys veto?

MS. PERINO: I think it's too early to say since we haven't even seen their
legislation. It's too early to say.

Q Dana, on that viability point, regardless of where the money comes from,
whether it's TARP or the Department of Energy, it's still taxpayer money.
Is that a good investment? Are the automakers a good investment?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that's another thing to remember, which is that
the TARP program was specifically designed to help taxpayers get a return
on their investment. This is monies that we are investing into companies.
We are providing capital. And it has to be paid back. There is no direct
subsidy that we are suggesting in the TARP.

The Treasury Department has been making decisions based on what they think
will at least make the taxpayers whole, if not help us get a return on that
investment. When we're talking about the auto industry, and while we
haven't seen the Democrats' proposal yet, it doesn't seem that would be the
case, that the taxpayers would actually be paid back.

But when we're talking about viability, what we mean is that a company
needs to be able to show that they have long-term plans, so that they will
be on -- have sound financing, and not have a vicious cycle of getting back
into this situation again. One of the reasons that we agreed to go forward
with the 136 program was to allow the companies to have access to a stream
of funds to help them retool their factories so that they could build more
fuel-efficient cars, which is what consumers of today are looking for. But
in addition to that, the automakers have over time made some decisions
based on their needs for their employees, and some of those decisions might
have to be reworked, going forward.

So they're going to have to be able to show how they can survive. If you
look at their ability to compete worldwide -- we think that our companies
can compete, but they're not going to be able to do so unless they make
some of these really tough decisions.

Q So are you saying they should get rid of pensions or health care
provisions?

MS. PERINO: It's going to be up to the companies to decide how best to --
how they can best compete in the world and show viability. We're not going
to get into dictating that.

Q But are you willing to let one or all of these three big automakers go
under?

MS. PERINO: Our position is that we want these companies to succeed. We
have figured out a way to provide them funds so that they are able to do
that. And we think that there is a bipartisan path that we could get this
done very quickly this week and avoid that.

Q But at the same time that you say that, you also are saying that they
don't measure up to the viability standard, which --

MS. PERINO: But they might, and they might -- and if they can show that
they can have a long-term -- that they have a long-term plan so that they
are viable, then that would be taken into consideration.

Q And so what is the next move for the administration to, you know, close
the gap between you guys and the Democrats?

MS. PERINO: Well, we're waiting for them to get back in town. We're waiting
-- we haven't even seen their proposal. They've talked sort of around a
proposal this week, but until we see it, it's really hard to react to it.
And then we'll continue to work with our Republican colleagues as well to
see if we can forge an agreement and get something done early this week.

I'm going to go to Helen here. Go ahead.

Q What are the President's plans for the next 60 days as he eases out of
the presidency? And what is his mood?

MS. PERINO: Well, I haven't seen him today, but he's usually in a mood -- a
good mood. We're going to focus on the economy; that's our most important
thing. Right now the priority is implementing the TARP program to make sure
we can continue to loosen up the credit markets so that we can get people
the credit that they need to be able to run their businesses so that they
can be the consumers that they want to be, so they can go to get their
college loans if they want to.

Then also we have to work on this lame-duck session to see if there's
something that we can do to try to help the automakers since we put forward
a proposal. We're going to follow through on that.

The President also next week will be going -- at the end of this week will
be going to the APEC meeting. And just on Friday and Saturday he had 20
world leaders here.

So he remains pretty busy, and of course he'll have the holiday season. But
I don't think that we'll let up at all in working to implement what we've
tried to put forward to help the economy.

Q Does he have any final goals for --

MS. PERINO: Well, we have this lame duck session that we're focused on
right now and trying to see if we can get legislation passed to help the
automakers in the way that we have defined. So that's going to be one goal.

We have also asked Congress if they really want to help the economy and
jumpstart jobs in our country to pass the free trade agreements that are in
front of them -- Colombia free trade, in particular, is one that is ripe
for the taking. But they also have South Korea and Panama that they're able
to vote on, as well.

And hopefully -- maybe by the middle of -- maybe the beginning of December
I'll be able to provide you some more about what the President is thinking
towards the rest of the term. Right now we've been so focused on getting
that G20 summit finished, and this lame duck finished, and the APEC
meeting, and then of course there's Thanksgiving -- then after that I think
we'll be able to work on closing it out.

John.

Q Back on the autos for a second. Is there any room for negotiation over
what constitutes viability for the auto companies?

MS. PERINO: Well, as I said, in the 136 program it's defined in that
program. But if Congress were to move forward and try to change that, we
would have to take a look at what they would propose. We just don't -- we
haven't seen anything, so it's hard for me to react to what they might
propose.

Q I think that there's a -- I could be wrong about this, but I think
there's, like, a 10-year horizon for them to pay back those loans. Would
you maybe consider extending that horizon?

MS. PERINO: That could be something that they could consider as we -- what
we would like to do is allow for those funds to be able to be used not just
for retooling the factories, but for actually helping them get through this
rough patch that they're in. And then in the future, if Congress wants to
appropriate more money to the auto industry to replace those funds, then
that would be their prerogative. What we're trying to do is staunch the
bleeding, and we need Congress's help to be able to do that.

Holly.

Q Are there any plans being pursued by the administration for a kind of
Bear Stearns-type solution to the auto situation, where kind of a
government-sponsored combination kind of absorbs Chrysler or GM, or just
some kind of government takeover?

MS. PERINO: Not that I've heard of, no; not at all.

Ken.

Q Has the administration done the math on what bankruptcy or collapse of an
automaker or automakers would mean to the economy? And is that an
acceptable path?

MS. PERINO: What we have -- sure, we've done a lot of analysis and
research, and you hear from a lot of different -- from the automakers; you
hear from the environmentalists; you hear from members of Congress, and a
lot of people are looking at this situation. What the President has said is
that we want to try to help these companies, we want them to succeed, and
that's why we've provided a bipartisan way to do it -- to get there.

There is not going to be a path for them to be able to reopen up the TARP
fund. There are not the votes in the Senate to be able to do that.
Therefore, if they only have three or four days in session, why not choose
the path that we can all agree on, which is that the 136 loans have already
been agreed to. We have $25 billion for the -- specifically for the
automakers; it's there for the taking. And we hope that they would take us
up on our offer to be able to work with us.

Q If that doesn't happen, is bankruptcy an acceptable alternative?

MS. PERINO: We're not going to say what -- that will be a company's
decision. If they decide to move forward in that -- on that path, that will
be their decision. We're not going to dictate it.

Q What does the administration's math say that would mean in terms of job
losses?

MS. PERINO: I don't have it off the top of my head, I don't know.

Mike, did you have one?

Q A couple days after the economic summit, I'm wondering if you feel like
or the President feels like it was a productive session, that it really
helped the economic crisis that we're in, and does he wish that perhaps the
next meeting could be sooner?

MS. PERINO: Well, we put this G20 meeting together in 23 days. I think it
was quite remarkable to get 20 leaders here. We think that it was the first
time that many leaders had all gathered in the White House at one time for
that -- when we had them here for the dinner on Friday night.

We think it was a very successful summit. We accomplished a lot in a short
period of time. The declaration addresses President Bush's priorities and
it has 47 specific concrete actions that the countries agreed to take
together. I think that having the meeting on March 31st of 2009* is
actually very ambitious and it will require people to work very hard to dot
the I's and cross the T's and work out how they will address these measures
on accounting and transparency, on the college of supervisors, et cetera.

So we are very pleased with the summit. We believe that there was a common
understanding that all of us shared there, that the free market is the best
way to lift people out of poverty, to provide for a path of prosperity. And
there was a strong commitment to capitalism in the room, as well, sometimes
from people that you wouldn't necessarily think would have that type of
feeling. So we think it was a successful summit, but we have a long way to
go. Now that that part is over, implementation is even more important.

I'm going to go to John.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. On the G20 summit, President Sarkozy
seemed almost ubiquitous in his comments about the measures that he was
pushing, notably that there would be more oversight over excessive
executive pay. And I wondered, he himself commented this is the first time
in the history of Anglo-Saxon capitalism that there would be such oversight
on what individual private businesses do that have international markets.
Did the U.S. object to that in any terms?

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't actually think that that's in the declaration,
but we can go back and look for you.** I think there's -- there's 47
points, and I'm not remembering off the top of my head what the result was.
But a lot of countries came forward and have individual ideas for how they
think they would like to move forward. But not every country was expected
to adopt every path. And so I think I'll just have to get back to you on
the other piece.

Q Okay. And just on a matter on domestic politics, the President's
appointed Republican National Chairman, Mike Duncan, has now filed a
lawsuit against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation that
President Bush signed at the White House in '01. Does he have an opinion on
that?

MS. PERINO: No. We're going to let the RNC go forward with their lawsuit
and not comment on it.

April.

Q Dana, back on the automakers situation, it seems definitions seem to be a
big thing as far as trying to negotiate this deal -- you talked about
viable, but there's also definitions that lingering, the word "fail." You
say that, you know, the President doesn't want the automakers to fail. What
is your definition of "fail" when many in the auto industry are saying they
are failing right now, especially when their stocks are so low, too? Ford
last week, a dollar and some change; GM, three dollars and some change.

MS. PERINO: I don't think any of the companies themselves have yet said
that they have failed. They might feel like they are failing. And one of
the reasons that we're trying to help them is so that we can reverse those
trends.

Q But what is the definition of failure? You say the President doesn't want
them to fail. I mean, that not wanting them to fail, when would he step in?
When --

MS. PERINO: We are stepping in, April. We are trying to help them. We have
provided a path forward, a bipartisan path to provide $25 billion to the
automakers, so that they can put themselves -- get themselves through this
rough patch and provide for long-term viability, so that they can be on
sound financial footing and be the productive companies that they've been
in the past. That's what we're trying to help them to do. And we're going
to try to get this legislation done in the next couple of days.

Go ahead, Laurent.

Q Dana, I would like to ask about Iraq. The President has said for months
that he opposed any timetable and that any decision should be based on
conditions on the ground. How much is the latest agreement a departure --

MS. PERINO: As we've been saying since July, when we said that we would
work with the Iraqis to establish a date that we would aspire to -- we just
keep getting success after success on the security front in Iraq. And when
you work with a partner on a negotiation, you have to concede some points.
One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these
aspirational dates. We're only able to do this because of the progress
that's been made by the great work of our forces, and by the Iraqi security
forces as well. They, every day, gain in number, confidence and competence.
And we are going to continue to work with the Iraqis, because while we did
have a good step with the council of ministers approving the agreement, and
then our ambassador and their foreign minister signing it today, there are
still several steps left to go.

The council of representatives has to take it up. There will be a reading
of the agreement. Then there will be debate about it. And then a vote after
that. So we have about another week or so to go. So I don't think I'll say
any more here, except to say that we have been able to reach this point
because of the vision that the President had in sending more troops to
Iraq, which was one of the most unpopular decisions that any President
could have made if you think about what we were going through at the time
in Iraq.

But it has worked. And the Iraqis are now able to see a path where they can
govern, sustain and defend themselves, which is -- which was our test for
them. Going back a couple of years ago, we said that that's what we wanted
Iraq to be able to do: to govern, sustain and defend itself. And now, they
are almost ready to do that on their own. They're not quite there yet,
which is why we think we need to be there for a while.

This doesn't mean -- this agreement doesn't mean that a future President,
the President-elect, would not be able to change this agreement later on if
he saw fit or if the Iraqis saw fit. But right now we are very comfortable
knowing that we are able to bring -- already announced that we are going
from 20 brigades down to 14 brigades. This is sooner than we thought we
would be able to bring troops home, and we're going to continue to bring
them home. And then we'll have more to say once it passes that final
hurdle.

Q There is no doubt in your mind that this agreement will be adopted by the
Iraqi government?

MS. PERINO: No, I didn't say that. I think that we're nearly there, but
there are a couple more hurdles that we have to get through, and that is
through the council of representatives. There is a reading of it, there's
then a debate of it, and then a vote. And so I think we have yet another
seven days, a process that they need to go through before we could say that
we are final.

Go ahead, Victoria.

Q Do you support Hamid Karzai's move to negotiate with Mullah Omar?

MS. PERINO: We support Hamid Karzai. We think that he is a leader that has
only the best interests of his country in mind. What we have seen from the
Taliban, however, and from Mullah Omar, who we haven't heard from in some
time, is an unwillingness to renounce violence. Just last week, little
girls who were on their way to school were disfigured when acid was thrown
in their faces, and this was done by the Taliban.

So we are skeptical about what the Taliban's ultimate intentions are, which
is why we are working with our NATO partners to continue to put the
pressure on them. But we recognize that at some point there might be some
Taliban that are willing to reconcile and to renounce violence and to be
productive members of the Afghanistan society. But right now, we just don't
think that that's in the cards.

Paula.

Q On the automaker's idea, Barney Frank says that he has a proposal that
would protect taxpayers. It would put a ban on compensation -- highly paid
compensation, have a strong oversight board, and also a ban on dividends.
If there's a proposal out there to protect taxpayers, would the White House
be willing to support it?

MS. PERINO: Well, one, we haven't seen the proposal, Paula, so I think the
best thing for you all to do is to go back and ask the Democrats for their
proposal so we actually have something to react to, because right now we're
just basically thinking -- responding to what has been said in the press
and we really need to see it on paper. And I think that when they meet
today that they'll probably be able to come forward with something sooner
than later.

But one point about protecting taxpayers. Those provisions may be something
that they decide to put forward in their proposal. We think one of the best
ways to protect taxpayers is to require that any of these changes have the
companies putting forward a plan that shows long-term viability, a
willingness to restructure, and a path that puts them on a road to success
-- sustainable success over the long term. We don't think that putting
taxpayer money into a company that isn't willing to make those changes is
smart, no matter how many other protections they might put forward.

Q So if there's taxpayer protections, though, and a way of having a
long-term plan included in this, then the White House might be willing to
--

MS. PERINO: I'm just not going to speculate.

Q Thank you.

END 11:01 A.M. EST

* The next Summit meeting has not yet been scheduled, but leaders agreed
that it will occur before the end of April 2009.

** The Summit declaration calls on the IMF, expanded FSF, and other
regulators and bodies to develop recommendations to mitigate
pro-cyclicality, including the review of how valuation and leverage, bank
capital, executive compensation, and provisioning practices may exacerbate
cyclical trends.
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081117.html