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

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary July 16, 2008

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

˙ /news/releases/2008/07/20080716-4.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


12:39 P.M. EDT

MS. PERINO: I just realized I have nothing to start with. (Laughter.)

Q We could start with Iran, the U.S. meeting with the Iranian envoy. You
said today that was a one-time U.S. participation. You're ruling out any
further contacts like this?

MS. PERINO: At this point, I don't know of any others. And the State
Department certainly described it as a one-time meeting. This is a -- Mr.
Solana from the European Union has an already scheduled meeting with the
Iranians to get their response to the incentives package that we provided
to them about a month ago. And Under Secretary Burns from the State
Department will attend that meeting, along with the P5-plus-1, which are
our allies in the international community who remain united in the position
that Iran must halt its -- I should say suspend its nuclear uranium
enrichment. And so, in that regard, our strategy and our goal has remained
unchanged.

This is different that we have not participated in one of these meetings
beforehand, but we believe it's a smart step to underscore the seriousness
that we want to solve this issue diplomatically.

Q Let me follow up on what you just said, that you haven't done this
before. Why haven't you? If it's all right now, why haven't you been
willing to do it before?

MS. PERINO: We have been working with the international community, the
P5-plus-1, the permanent Security Council members plus Germany, on a series
of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the third of which we just released
about a month ago. And we also got that resolution out -- I'm sorry, not
just the resolution, but the incentives package out far and wide for all of
the public to see, including the people of Iran, for whom we want to have a
better relationship with.

Our beef is with the regime itself. We haven't done so before because the
timing wasn't right to do so. We believe the timing is right now to go and
underscore the unity of the international community that Iran must suspend
its nuclear uranium enrichment, and then we can talk about negotiations
from there.

The incentives package is quite generous, but it's only able to be realized
if they meet the conditions that we have long held not just here in the
United States, but with our partners as well.

Q So it's just a question of the timing wasn't right, but now it is?

MS. PERINO: Now we have a new incentives package where we will go and be
able to sharpen the contrast between what the Iranian people could expect
from a more open Iran if they were to suspend its enrichment, but also to
clarify the consequences for the Iranians if they don't take us up on the
incentives package. There are -- there's two tracks. There is an incentives
package, or there's a disincentives package. And the Iranians have a choice
to make, and that's why we're going to go and press the issue.

Q What's the disincentive?

MS. PERINO: The disincentives are the sanctions if they don't accept the
offer.

Q But you're saying this isn't negotiated? Is this negotiating with the
Iranians?

MS. PERINO: Our principle remains the same, and the strategy and the goal
remain the same, that they must halt the enrichment of uranium in order for
there to be negotiations. And Secretary Rice has long said that that is her
position, that if they were to suspend, that Secretary Rice would meet her
counterpart anyplace, any time, and start to have negotiations, once it was
verified by the IAEA that they had suspended. Nothing has changed in that
regard.

Q Well, how can you say nothing has changed if you're sending over Bill
Burns to even sit there? I mean, that certainly gives the Iranians --

MS. PERINO: -- different tactic. I said that the substance remains the
same, but this is a new tactic. And we believe that -- this follows up on
another new tactic that we used with Iran this summer when we sent over the
incentives package, which is that Secretary Rice signed the letter, along
with the P5-plus-1. The next step is for the political directors, of which
Under Secretary Burns is one, representing Secretary Rice, will join in
attendance with his partners at this meeting to receive the response from
the Iranians.

Q Why is this different from what Senator Obama has suggested, sitting down
and negotiating?

MS. PERINO: Well, our condition remains the same that there will not be any
negotiation unless they suspend their uranium enrichment.

Q And you just flat out say this is not negotiating, even though there's
someone sitting there in the room with the Iranians?

MS. PERINO: The underlying -- absolutely, because he's going there as a
part of the international community showing their unity when it comes to
the underlying fundamental principle, which is that there will not be any
negotiations unless Iran suspends its nuclear -- uranium enrichment.

Q Can you understand why people might look at what's happening now and go
back and think about what the President said in the Mideast about those who
negotiate with terrorists or talk to terrorists --

MS. PERINO: As I just said --

Q -- as an appeaser?

MS. PERINO: As I said, there is no negotiation here. We are going there.
Under Secretary Burns will be there as a part of the international
community showing our unison that we are going to provide two paths for the
Iranians from which to choose -- one, that they could accept the incentives
package, and then if it's verified that they have halted their uranium
enrichment, then there will be negotiations. And that's what I would seek
to explain to the American people.

Q Just one last one -- I won't hog it here -- but you don't see that for
the Iranian regime, this has got to be a pretty big deal, finally getting
someone from the U.S. even sitting down there.

MS. PERINO: I think it shows the seriousness from which we've been trying
to tell all of you for many months, which is that we want to solve this
issue diplomatically. We seek to do so. We are going to continue to work
with our international partners in unison, which is what we are going to do
on Saturday. But the fundamental, underlying principle is that there will
not be any negotiations unless Iran suspends its enrichment of uranium.

Elaine.

Q I know this morning you said that the ballistic missile tests that were
done by Iran last week did not play a part in this decision to send Under
Secretary Burns to Switzerland, but surely there must be some effect on
what's happening on the diplomatic side, when Iran decides to flex its
military muscle in that way. Are you saying that there's no link at all?

MS. PERINO: I'll have to refer you to the State Department in terms of all
the decision-making that went into it. The President does support Secretary
Rice's decision here to continue to show the unity. But in regards to
specific tests that they did, obviously we said that those weren't helpful.
They were against the U.N. Security Council resolutions and their
international obligations. But that underscores again why it's important
for the international community to show unity and say that there is a path
of incentives in which we recognize your right for peaceful nuclear power;
we've provided a path for you to get that. We've also provided paths
throughout the incentives package for further discussions in international
community integration.

But there's also a different path, which is, if they don't accept this
offer, one, there will not be negotiations; and two, there will be
additional sanctions.

Q How concerned is the U.S. -- obviously the President has only got a
limited time left in office, there's going to be a period of transition --
that, in the interim, there will be time for Iran to essentially move
forward on its nuclear program --

MS. PERINO: We've been concerned about that for a long time, but it doesn't
-- Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon -- the question of their pursuit of a
nuclear weapon goes back a long ways. And we're not certainly watching the
clock in that regard. This President has been working with his
international partners on a multilateral basis to come together, in unison,
to call on the Iranians to suspend their enrichment of uranium, and if they
were to do so and it could be verified, then we will start to have
discussions with them. But up and until then, we will not.

So this meeting on Saturday is a chance for us to receive their response
and for us to underscore the contrast between what the Iranians could
expect from accepting the incentives package and what could be the
consequences if they don't, which would be additional sanctions and no
negotiations.

Yes, Jeremy.

Q The Iranians are already signaling that they are not planning to make any
major concessions at this meeting. How quickly is the U.S. and the other
members of the P5-plus-1 to move forward on sanctions?

MS. PERINO: On sanctions? I think we need to let the meeting on Saturday
take place. And obviously the political directors, when they get together,
will have a chance to communicate with one another about the next steps.
And I think they're already sort of planning that, but they want to hear
from them. And I think that even though you get signals from the Iranians,
it isn't always -- you often get mixed messages. And so let's wait and hear
from Mr. Jalili on Saturday and then we will provide our response after
that. But I don't expect it immediately following that meeting, Jeremy.

Sheryl.

Q Dana, you said the President does support Secretary Rice's decision. Is
it Secretary Rice's decision to send Mr. Burns, or is it the President's
decision?

MS. PERINO: Well, she came forward with the recommendation that the
President agreed with, Sheryl. I would not try to separate them. But she
has been the lead negotiator with the P5-plus-1 on this issue, so that's
why I said it that way.

Q You talk, Dana, about mixed messages from the Iranians. Is there some
light at the end of the tunnel that the administration sees that has
prompted sitting down with the Iranians when you haven't done it before? Is
there something that you're seeing privately that the world is not seeing
publicly, after ballistic missile tests, Iranian leaders saying they're
going to continue their uranium enrichment and essentially thumb their nose
at the U.N.?

MS. PERINO: Well, there are some things that we know that we wouldn't
comment on in public, certainly, but we believe that now is the right time
for us to press them on the incentives package that we have provided. And
so I think I would have to leave it at that.

Q So you have the Obama campaign on one side welcoming this, saying that
the administration is moving toward their point of view. You have -- and
former Ambassador John Bolton saying that this is a major flop for the
administration and that essentially the administration is rolling over to
the Iranians.

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to respond to either one, but I'm going to
restate our view, which is that our longstanding, fundamental principle has
been that Iran has to suspend its uranium enrichment, or else we will not
negotiate. That remains the same. There's nothing changed in that regard.

Q I'm going to change the subject whenever we're ready.

MS. PERINO: Any more on Iran? Okay.

Q Yes, just one last thing. The one-shot deal supposedly gives some sort of
wink or some sort of hint of progress without doing as much as you want, is
there -- are you ruling out a second time around with Burns or somebody
else? Or is this just one --

MS. PERINO: It's hard to predict the future, Roger. I think that the way we
see it now, that this meeting, in terms of receiving a response from the
Iranians on this incentive package, is going to be a one-time meeting. And
then we'll cross other bridges when we come to it, but the underlying
principle remains the same, that they have to suspend their uranium
enrichment or else we won't negotiate, and that there are disincentives if
they don't accept the package.

Q Understood, but there's a door you leave open to a second meeting --

MS. PERINO: I think it's impossible to predict the future, but in terms of
this meeting, they're calling it a one-time meeting.

Olivier. Still on Iran?

Q Yes. Did any of the other P5-plus-1 countries appeal to the United States
to join this meeting, or was this entirely a decision made by Secretary
Rice?

MS. PERINO: I haven't been a part of the -- I haven't been a part of any of
those discussions, but I think that they would welcome the fact that the
United States, one, signed the letter -- had Secretary Rice sign the letter
with them back about a month ago, and that we continue to walk in lockstep
with them when it comes to this issue.

Q And tensions between the United States and Iran are blamed partly for
high oil prices. Did that factor in the decision at all?

MS. PERINO: No.

Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, Bill. Ann.

Q Will Ambassador Burns make public -- make to the Iranians a list of
sanctions that they have not seen before, or consequences that are strictly
American consequences, or are they on behalf of the EU and the other --

MS. PERINO: I'm going to refer you to the State Department. Sean McCormack,
my counterpart over at the State Department, already had a lengthy briefing
in which -- I didn't get the chance to see the whole thing, but he may have
been asked that question. I don't know specifically. But he laid out what
the role of Under Secretary Burns is. And I don't think -- the way you
describe it, I don't think that at all is something that he's going to be
doing.

Q This morning you said that the United States would have -- would clarify
the consequences of Iran not --

MS. PERINO: All I mean by that is that we will make sure that it's
understood that if they do not accept this very generous incentives package
that there are consequences, and those consequences would be sanctions --
additional sanctions.

Q And would those be United States sanctions or would they be on behalf of
--

MS. PERINO: It could be a mix, I don't know. I'm not going to prejudge
them.

Anyone else on Iran? Bill.

Q On Friday you put out a statement outlining your objections to the
housing bill as currently constituted. Has there been a discussion between
the White House and either House of Congress about modifying it? Is there
movement? What can you tell us?

MS. PERINO: Yes, Secretary Paulson and Secretary Preston at HUD continue to
work with members of Congress, as do members of our team here from
Legislative Affairs, in keeping -- and they are keeping the President
informed as to the state of negotiations over the housing bill. We have a
lot of hope that we'll be able to get this done -- get this bill to the
President's desk in a form that he could sign before the end of the month.

Q Before the end of --

MS. PERINO: Well, before the end of the month -- next week. I've been a
little bit messed up on my time frame ever since Japan, I keep thinking
it's the third week of July -- or the fourth week of July -- it's the
third.

So the -- Secretary Paulson, I believe, met with them yesterday, members of
the Congress, talking not only about this urgency he feels he needs in
terms of the Fannie and Freddie package that he asked for on Sunday night,
but also the importance of the provisions that are in the bill, including
some of the objections that we have, which is the CDBG money, community
development block grant money.

Q What are the objections? Can you spell those out? Why would the President
veto this?

MS. PERINO: Well, I would look -- I don't know -- I don't have all of them
at my fingertips. The large one, and the main one, is that the bill as
passed by the -- either the House or the Senate has $4 billion in it that
would go to states to buy already foreclosed properties, which we believe
does not help homeowners, but helps banks. And we actually think that it's
unnecessary to have in the bill.

So we're hopeful that they would be able to strip out that provision and
then pass it, because it has very good pieces that we've been asking for
for a long time, like the GSE regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and
also the modernization of the Federal Housing Administration; plus, we have
the vehicle now to get the Secretary Paulson requests attached to it. So
we're hopeful that we'll be able to get that done next week.

Q What Secretary Paulson requests are you referring to?

MS. PERINO: On Sunday night, Secretary Paulson, in his announcement, said
there are three things that he needed in terms of authorities to be able to
address the problems that are -- the potential problems with the GSEs.

Q Would the President veto the bill if it didn't include the Paulson
requests?

MS. PERINO: I've heard of no change in terms of the -- oh, you mean, this
is in terms -- I thought you were talking about --

Q If it doesn't include Paulson's requests for --

MS. PERINO: I can't imagine that Congress is going to go forward and finish
a housing bill that doesn't include the urgent requests of Secretary
Paulson, because I believe that we're all equally concerned about the
economy and so I think they understand the urgency of it. I just can't
imagine that they would pass it without it.

Q And you expressed optimism this morning that you'd be able to get it next
week.

MS. PERINO: Sure.

Q Can you be more specific about why you're optimistic?

MS. PERINO: I would just say that the feedback that we're getting from
Capitol Hill from members of Congress is that they do believe that they'll
be able to get something done and to the President. And we are hopeful that
they get it to us in a form that he can sign, which would include stripping
out that CDBG money.

Peter.

Q Same issue, and another follow-up, too, Dana. Following up on something
the President said yesterday -- he said the administration always moves
quickly when it sees economic weaknesses. Why didn't it move more quickly
on this Fannie and Freddie thing? These bad loans and their impact on these
two mortgage heavyweights has been well known for a long, long time.

MS. PERINO: I would say that what we have done in terms of what we are able
to do through the executive branch has been done in terms of some of these
pieces. But we have been asking for a GSE regulator since 2003, and
Congress hasn't moved forward on it. We increased the urgency and turned up
the concern on August 31st of 2007 -- nearly a year ago -- asking Congress
to take action on this problem.

So we have been leading on this issue. We've been trying to get Congress to
agree to do it. And now we're in an urgent situation, and that's why I say
I can't imagine that they would go home for the August recess without
getting this done.

Q Well, the urgent situation emerged before last Saturday, before last
weekend. Why did it take that long to come up with --

MS. PERINO: Secretary Paulson took action in regards to those urgent
authorities that he said he needed when he thought it was appropriate and
needed them. I don't think it would have been appropriate for him to have
acted sooner. But I also would point you back to the fact that we've been
waiting for Congress to pass a housing bill that everybody seemed to think,
from both sides of the aisle, needed to be done as of last August when the
President first asked them to pass it. But now we're nearly a year to the
day when the President asked for it, and the housing situation has not
improved.

We do think we'll be able to pull out of this towards the end of the year,
but it's going to take a while, and we think that the legislation would
certainly help, especially in sending a signal to the market.

Q Pull out of what by the end of the year?

MS. PERINO: I would say just the housing crisis or the downturn that we've
had in the housing market.

Q And then one other follow-up on something I asked you about earlier this
week. What were you able to find out about White House guidelines for
fundraising for the Bush library?

MS. PERINO: I know that nobody -- yes, I did follow up on that. I did find
out there's no connection between the library and actions in the
administration. Officials are not allowed to be a part of it. And President
Bush has asked that members of his foundation do not inform him about
anyone who has written a check, or decided not to write a check, until
after he's no longer President.

Q And what's the word for people who are either officially soliciting for
the foundation or freelancing because they're friends of the President, in
terms of linking any donations to any official actions --

MS. PERINO: If you're referring to the Steve Payne situation, obviously --

Q Payne or anyone else.

MS. PERINO: -- we would say that that was inappropriate, and only people
who are authorized to be a part of -- that are a part of the foundation and
are acting on behalf of the President are allowed to do that. But no one is
allowed to try to say that there would be official action done under this
administration in connection to any contribution that they may or may not
make to the library.

Q Dana, follow on that. Does the President know Steve Payne?

MS. PERINO: I think -- yes, he believes that he would have met him before.
I don't think that he knows him all that well, but he has met him before.
Certainly he's been -- Steve Payne has been somebody who's been involved in
Texas politics for a long time and been a supporter of the Republican
Party. So he knows who he is. I would repeat that he was never a employee
of the White House, but he had been a part of advance trips in the past. We
use a lot of volunteers when it comes to advance.

Q Does Mr. Payne have any ability to facilitate people getting in contact
with this White House? Does he have access to access?

MS. PERINO: Access to access? I would -- possibly. I don't know, in terms
of -- I've never met him so I don't know in particular.

Q You don't know if he could carry through on promises to help people get
in touch with people at the White House?

MS. PERINO: In terms of -- look, I'm sure that he probably knows a lot of
people throughout the administration, given his history. But it would be
inappropriate to say that he could -- for anybody to say that they could
get anything done or any meeting done in exchange for a contribution to the
library, or to the party, or anything else.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. Georgia has a new law allowing residents
who pass criminal background checks to carry concealed weapons onto mass
transit and into state parks and other locations. But Atlanta Airport
officials say they are exempt from that law. And my question: Does the
President agree with the state, or the airport authorities?

MS. PERINO: I haven't talked to him about a specific Georgia -- Atlanta,
Georgia issue, so I don't have anything for you on it.

Q Okay. A spokesman at the Democratic National Convention office in Denver
yesterday said that he could not confirm that convention speakers will
include President Clinton. And my question: Since I presume that President
Bush believes that such national conventions of both parties should so
welcome his fellow President, we can conclude that he believes President
Clinton should be welcomed as a national convention speaker with no attempt
by anyone to direct what President Clinton should and should not say,
right?

MS. PERINO: I really believe it's none of our business, so I wouldn't
comment.

Q It's none of your -- but he's --

MS. PERINO: It's clearly none of our business.

Q It's a President of the United States. He's certainly concerned about all
other Presidents, isn't he, Dana?

MS. PERINO: I don't think he really is thinking a lot about the Democrat
Convention.

Go ahead, Jeremy.

Q The World Court is urging the U.S. to do all it can to halt the
executions of five Mexicans -- that came out this morning. Do you all have
any reaction at this stage on that?

MS. PERINO: Only that I know that the ICJ issued a preliminary decision.
And it's something that we're reviewing now, so I don't have anything more
for you on it.

Sheryl.

Q Dana, I have with me today my colleague, Umar Cheema. He's a prominent
journalist in Pakistan; he's a Daniel Perle Fellow. He has a question,
which I can ask on his behalf, or we can let him speak for himself --

MS. PERINO: If he'd like to, I'd be delighted.

Q Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. My question is about
the introduction of bill that Senate Foreign Relations Committee introduced
yesterday, seeking to triple non-military aid to Pakistan in the next five
years.

MS. PERINO: Seeking to end?

Q To triple non-military aid to Pakistan.

MS. PERINO: To triple -- oh, okay.

Q And conditioning military aid with the certification of Secretary of
State. I just wanted to ask whether it's a major shift in administration
policy to rely more on civilian government instead of Musharraf --

MS. PERINO: I wish you would have been here yesterday, because President
Bush talked a little bit about Pakistan in his press conference, in which
he said Pakistan is a friend and an ally and someone that we rely on to
work together on issues of counterterrorism. I'm not familiar with the
legislation that was introduced yesterday, but President Bush has been very
supportive of aid for Pakistan in the past -- and not just in regards to
military-to-military aid, but we really think it's extremely important,
especially in the FATA region, to help improve the economic condition for
people in that area. I know that it's very challenging terrain -- there's
not a lot of roads and there's not a lot of electricity, and therefore not
a lot of commerce. But those are issues that we are trying to work together
on along with the Pakistanis. So we will take a look at the legislation. I
know that in the President's budget there is already aid money for those
types of aid packages for Pakistan.

Q Thank you.

END 1:02 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080716-4.html