Text 4306, 550 rader
Skriven 2007-04-02 23:31:46 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0704024) for Mon, 2007 Apr 2
===================================================

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

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 2, 2007

Press Briefing by Dana Perino White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ Video (Windows) ˙˙Press Briefings


12:45 P.M. EDT

MS. PERINO: One announcement, and then we'll go to questions.

It's been 56 days since the President sent up his request for more money
for the troops, and Democrats in Congress left town last week without
finishing their work. It appears they're still content to work on a bill
that does not have serious plans to fund troops or make Iraq, America and
the world more secure, but, rather, attempt at forcing us into giving up on
Iraq without regard to the consequences of failure.

The authors of these bills clearly do not understand what it means to
mandate and legislate a withdrawal from Iraq. Just yesterday, a Democratic
leader described the debate in Congress as a political dance; while another
said the goal was not great legislation, but rounding up votes and sending
an anti-war message. Well, they've delivered their message; it's time now
for Congress to deliver the money to our troops.

In addition to that, the President has just received from the House
Republicans a letter with proof that the House does not have enough votes
to override the President's veto. So it's time that we believe the Congress
get serious in supporting General Petraeus and the troops and the ground,
and not mandate and legislate failure with the current path that they're on
with this Iraq war spending bill.

Questions. Jennifer.

Q Thanks. The Speaker said in Beirut today that -- first of all, she's
criticizing the White House for what she says is ignoring other Republican
lawmakers who have made trips to Syria in recent days. And, also, she said
she thinks it's a good idea to establish facts and to try to build
confidence with Syria. Why is that not a good idea? And how is that just a
photo op?

MS. PERINO: Let me unpack that a little bit. First of all, last week when I
was asked about her specific trip, I said in my comments that, in general,
we discourage members from going to the region. And that is true. In fact,
I looked back, when Tony Snow was asked at this podium months ago, when
Senator Nelson made a similar trip, he said the same, that this was a
blanket policy -- but I was asked a specific question about Speaker Pelosi,
which is why I said that.

Speaker Pelosi is a high-ranking United States official. Nothing changes --
nothing has changed in Syria's behavior over the years when high-ranking
U.S. officials go to see them. We sent Secretary Powell early on; the
behavior doesn't change. Syria uses these opportunities to flaunt photo
opportunities around its country and around the region and around the
world, to say that they aren't isolated, that they don't need to change
their behavior, and it alleviates the pressure that we are trying to put on
them to change their behavior.

And by changing their behavior I mean as in, stop undermining the
democratically elected government of Lebanon; stop allowing foreign
fighters to flow from Syria into Iraq, in which they are then killing
American soldiers and innocent Iraqis and Iraqi soldiers. They are state
sponsors of terrorism, of both Hezbollah and Hamas, and they support
Palestinian terrorism.

And so that was the reason that we said that we discouraged her from going.
But that policy applies to all. So I think that maybe she wasn't able to
see my exact comments, so I won't judge her on that. But the policy applies
everywhere.

Q With the court's decision today, will the President direct the EPA to
decide whether greenhouse gases contribute to the changing climate?

MS. PERINO: I saw that opinion, that ruling. There were several of them
that came out today. We haven't had a chance to review the opinion in full.
People at EPA and across the government are going to have to do that. I
can't speak to the broader implications of the bill. One thing I can say is
part of this case that was being argued was with respect to vehicles and
regulating CO2 out of the tailpipe. And one of the ways that you do that is
by making cars more efficient, so burning less gas, going more miles. And
that's precisely what we have been working to do with our increases in
mileage standards for both light trucks, SUVs, and we have asked for that
same authority in regards to cars. We don't have that authority now, but
the President asked for it two years ago, and then again in his State of
the Union.

In addition to that, the other way you get there is by mandating
alternative fuels and biofuels. And in the President's State of the Union
address he said that he wanted to get 35 billion gallons of alternative
fuels mandated within 10 years. We call that the 20-in-10 program, which
means reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. The way you
get there for our program is to increase CAFE standards and to increase
these mandatory alternative fuels.

But in regards to this case -- so in that regard, we are regulating the
vehicle sector. As far as the broader implications about the case, we're
going to have to let EPA take a good look at it, and they're going to have
to analyze it and think about what it means for any future policy
decisions.

Q Well, on a broader face, why did the administration and the EPA refuse to
take a position on whether greenhouse gases cause global warming?

MS. PERINO: No, we -- that's actually not what the case was saying. We have
long said that greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming planet, and
that human-generated carbon dioxide is a large contributor to that aspect
of it.

Q Then it wasn't an EPA policy, which is what this case is about.

MS. PERINO: The question was -- it is a legal question of whether or not
the federal government has the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases
as a pollutant. And the prior administration said that they thought they
had that legal authority, but they did not take action. We questioned
whether we did have the legal authority. Now the Supreme Court has settled
that matter for us, and we're going to have to take a look and analyze it
and see where we go from there.

Go ahead, Bob.

Q Back to war funding. As I'm sure you're aware, Senator Reid is now saying
that he's signing on to the more stringent legislation, the Feingold
legislation. Do you have a comment on that?

MS. PERINO: There's just these shifting sands when it comes to the
Democrats and their decisions. It's almost shifting so fast it's like a
sandstorm. Last Thursday the Senate Democrats passed a bill that said that
-- that mandated our troops leaving within 120 days from last Thursday.
Over the weekend, when we said this money is going to run out in April, and
he said, oh, no, no, no, they'll be fine until July -- well, then, what is
it? Are you wanting troops to leave 120 days from last Thursday, or 120
days from July or whenever it is that you get this bill to the President's
desk?

In addition to that, I don't know if there was polling that was run over
the weekend that led them to make -- led Senator Reid to make yet another
decision and take another position on this bill, but I do know is that
standing with the troops means getting them the money that they need now.
The Department of Defense has already said that there are impacts; there
are detrimental impacts if we don't get this money soon.

In addition to that, I saw some people wondering over the weekend why we
had not criticized the Congress last year when the money didn't come by the
mid-April time frame. There were some complaints, but we also knew that we
were getting closer to a bill that the President could sign. What we know
now is that the President has said he's not going to sign the two bills
that are underway. And so we respectfully ask the Congress to come back and
get that work done for the troops.

Toby.

Q Dana, do you know anything about an American missing in Iran? And, also
--

MS. PERINO: I have heard those reports from the State Department. I believe
Sean McCormack -- I don't know if he has spoken about that today at his
briefing, but we have heard that there may be an American citizen in Iran.
It's not completely a unique scenario to have an American citizen go
missing there and possibly need consular support. But the State Department
is working to seek out as much information as possible, ascertain the
facts, find out if he does need any support or help. And I just don't have
any further details, but I can tell you the State Department is looking
into it.

Q And what does the President think about the video showing the British
soldiers in Iran saying that they were actually in Iranian waters?

MS. PERINO: I think you heard from the President on Saturday, he fully
stands behind Tony Blair and the British government in their attempts to
return their sailors and their equipment. I think the President believes
that the Brits have shown that the sailors were in Iraqi waters and that
they need to be returned immediately and unconditionally.

Martha.

Q Dana, did the President use the word "hostage" for a specific reason
yesterday -- changing it from "captives" to "hostage"? That seems to turn
up the heat on this.

MS. PERINO: No. And I saw Tony Blair had used the same word in previous
days.

Q And he considers them hostages, captive --

MS. PERINO: Well, they were taken -- as the President said, they were doing
nothing wrong, they were summarily plucked out of the water and are being
held. So the President believes that's appropriate language. But I stress
to you the President stands behind Tony Blair and we reject any notion that
suggests that we are ratcheting up the language in terms of trying to
prepare to go to war with Iran; that is certainly not the case.

Q And just a little bit more on the American missing in Iran. It said --
the State Department said he had been missing since early March. Do you
know why we're just hearing about this?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't. I just really don't have any more information
about his whereabouts; I don't know when they reached out. So we'll try to
find out more information, but probably that -- just for all of you here, I
think a lot of that information is going to be able to come from the State
Department, not the White House.

Q Dana, on the testifying for Attorney General Gonzales, you've expressed a
wish, the White House has expressed a wish that it be sooner rather than
later. Some critics have said the reason for that push is to take the heat
off Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in the push for testimony under oath. How
do you respond to that?

MS. PERINO: I think that as much as they've tried to rub sticks together to
try to create heat around Harriet Miers and Karl Rove, it's just not
successful. So our offer stands for -- the President said they can go up
and have interviews. I think that there is no credible allegation of any
wrongdoing. The Attorney General would like to go up to Congress, would
like to answer all their questions and be fully responsive and get on with
the business of the people.

Q Another topic, the Supreme Court rejected one of the appeals by the
Guantanamo detainees today. Does the Bush administration see that as some
sort of a victory today?

MS. PERINO: Well, certainly, we're pleased with the decision and, again,
with all the Supreme Court decisions that come out around 10:30 a.m. We
don't have a chance to fully review them and for me to get fully briefed on
them, because it takes me a little while to understand everything. But,
yes, I think on first glance we're very pleased with the decision.

Q But there is a sense that there will be -- this will come to a head in
the Supreme Court again.

MS. PERINO: Well, we'll have to see. I can't forecast that. But I think
we're pleased with today's decision.

Q To follow up on Bill's question, just so I'm clear. Is the administration
going to take a fresh look at the emissions, and are we considering -- are
you saying we're considering regulating greenhouse gases on new cars?

MS. PERINO: No. What I'm saying -- I'm sorry, I have to decouple those two
things. In regards to the broader possible applications -- or implications
of the Supreme Court's decision regarding greenhouse gases, we'll have to
take a look. I would remind you and refer you to EPA's website, CEQ's
website, in terms of all the things the President is doing. The main one,
let me point out, is that the President, in 2001 -- sorry, 2002 --
established a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emission's intensity, which
is the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, by 18 percent by 2012.
We are now in 2007, and we are on track -- well on track to meet the
President's goal. And there are many other programs that we've been
pursuing, both domestically and internationally.

When it comes to this particular case, EPA versus Massachusetts, and the
question was whether or not the EPA should regulate greenhouse gas
emissions coming out of the tailpipe, my point was that we do regulate
emissions coming out of the tailpipe. We do it through the Department of
Transportation's CAFE program. And the way to get cars to be more efficient
is to burn less gas and to go more miles. And that's what we've been
working to do, but we've done that in a way to make sure that the safety of
passengers is taken into account, because the lighter you make the car, the
more -- possibly the more dangerous it can be for passengers who could get
in an accident.

Q But is there an appetite to raise the standard?

MS. PERINO: Well, we already have raised the standard twice for SUVs, and
we're looking at a third one. And then we've asked Congress for the
authority to do the same for cars. So we're already well down that road. I
can't tell you an exact number, because we try to do that based on the
experts at the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration.

John.

Q Back on the Speaker's trip. Is it your view that her trip is,
effectively, endangering U.S. troops in the region?

MS. PERINO: I'm not suggesting that. I think that the people who are
endangering U.S. troops in the region are the people who are perpetrating
the violence, and the Syrians, who are allowing these foreign fighters to
cross the border into Iraq unabated. There's no judgment in regards to her
actions leading to any possible troop being attacked by someone coming from
Syria, no. What I'm saying is that it sends the wrong message; it
alleviates the pressure off of Syria from things that I mentioned before,
which is the human rights situation in Syria, the Palestinian terrorism
situation, the support of Hamas and Hezbollah, undermining Siniora's
government, the democratically-elected government of Lebanon.

These things are real. We want Assad to take action and change his behavior
in regards to those items. But the more U.S. officials go there and try to
talk with him, the less he feels the pressure to change. And so we haven't
seen change in many years, and we think that the best thing to do is to
keep them -- to show that they are isolated and that their behavior is
unacceptable.

Victoria.

Q Last week I asked you about Alberto Gonzales' testimony before the
committee, and why didn't he suggest to them that he would like to testify
earlier. And you said to me that as they had invited him, that they should
be the ones to suggest that he testify earlier. Then suddenly Dan Bartlett
says over the weekend that he wants to testify earlier. So what changed?

MS. PERINO: The Attorney General thinks it's in everyone's best interests,
and we agree with him, that he be able to get up and talk to Congress
sooner than later. I think the American people would like to see us resolve
this so that we can move on and work on other things. So we'd like to see
the hearing moved up to next week.

Q Did Kyle Sampson's testimony change that?

MS. PERINO: No, I think it's been a culmination of factors. It has dragged
on for many weeks. It seems to heat up over the last couple of weeks. And I
think that the Attorney General thinks it's in everyone's best interests if
he testifies earlier.

Q So he doesn't feel that this is starting to get a little bit too hot?

MS. PERINO: No, he just wants to clear the air. They've been fully
responsive in terms of the document requests. And now that that's
completed, I think it now makes sense to try to move that hearing up. If
the senators are going to be here next week, I see no reason why they
couldn't go ahead and have that hearing.

Q This week's Economist, which is a fairly friendly magazine, refers to the
Bush administration --

MS. PERINO: Fairly friendly to who? (Laughter.)

Q Fairly friendly to the Bush administration --

MS. PERINO: Wow.

Q -- refers to the Bush administration as "this most inept of
presidencies." I wondered if you had a comment.

MS. PERINO: No.

Peter, did you have one? Not to stump you.

Q I want to clarify on the -- you're saying it was a bad idea, then, for
Speaker Pelosi to go for all these various reasons to Syria. It's a bad
idea, then, for Jim Baker to have gone, a bad idea for Frank Wolf to go as
well, right?

MS. PERINO: We think that it is not a good idea for U.S. officials to go
and meet with Assad, because it alleviates that pressure, and also because
meetings haven't produced anything. They've been meeting just to meet, and
he doesn't change his behavior. In fact, he uses those meetings as a reason
to say that he doesn't need to do anything.

Q When you don't meet with him, he doesn't change his behavior either.

MS. PERINO: Well, we'll see.

April.

Q Dana, is there a fear -- back on the Pelosi trip -- is there a fear that
Pelosi will go and meet with government officials there and show that there
are two U.S. policies on Syria, versus one policy that the President has
stated?

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't know what she was planning to say in that
meeting. I would believe that she agrees with us, in terms of the aspects
that I've laid out. So I don't know what she's planning to say. We do think
it sends the wrong message for U.S. officials to go and meet with him.

Q To follow up on that, is it a contradiction that the President is
denouncing the trip, but, yet, is ready for a readout when she comes back?

MS. PERINO: I was asked this morning if she had responded -- or if she had
sent back any messages. I said, I don't know, I'm sure that she'd be
willing to. If she wants to share information that she found out from her
trip to the Middle East, I'm sure we'll be willing to hear it.

Q But isn't that a contradiction, though? If you're denouncing it, why do
you want to hear about it?

MS. PERINO: April, that is not a contradiction. What I said is that if she
wanted to share, I'm sure we will listen. Imagine if I had said the
opposite, you'd be asking me much tougher questions. (Laughter.)

Q Just going to seek your comments on the Matthew Dowd interview over the
weekend.

MS. PERINO: I don't know Matthew Dowd. I wish I did. I have heard nothing
but fabulous things about him over the years. I know people are very fond
of him. Obviously, war brings out a lot of emotions in different people,
and possibly changing emotions, as he laid out in the New York Times. And,
obviously, not being a close friend of his, I don't know as well as others
might about the personal journey he's been on over the past couple of
years. But we certainly can respect his views, but respectfully disagree
with some of the assertions that he made in the article. But we certainly
wish him the very best. He's a really good guy.

Q What does that mean, personal journey?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that he's had some personal hardship, and also he
has a son who's volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces and he's going to
be deploying to Iraq. And I can only imagine that that affects a parent's
thinking.

Q And so it's really about him, and not about you, about the President, the
White House, and the things that he's seen go wrong?

MS. PERINO: No, he might very well have those opinions, but we can
respectfully disagree with -- for example, where I think one of the
allegations was that the President is isolated. But I think many of you in
this room have said increasingly, the President has been listening to a lot
of different voices, and dissenting voices and dissenting opinions. And we
certainly did that in the Iraq review on the way towards the President's
new policy that he announced on January 10th.

Q He's raised "personal journey," which was used yesterday, as well, on
television -- it seems to be implying it's really all about him, it has
nothing to do with any legitimate disagreement with the White House.

MS. PERINO: No, I think he has a legitimate disagreement, but I also know
that he has had some personal hardship.

Q Is that related? Is that relevant?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I don't know Matthew and --

Q Then why do you bring it up?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that -- he brought it up in the article, and I
think that it's relevant. And I think that it's true that when you have a
parent who is going to see his or her son or daughter heading off to war,
in a war that is -- where we are fighting a very determined enemy, in which
the Congress is not fully backing the troops, it would be a concern. And
I'm just not going to judge him. I'm going to allow him to have his views
and wish him well.

Les.

Q Yes, thank you, Dana. Two questions on American business. In the --

MS. PERINO: American business for 200. (Laughter.) I've always wanted to be
on that show. Go ahead, Les, I'm sorry.

Q That's all right. In the just released 2007 annual report of The
Washington Post Company, Chairman Donald Graham writes, "The Washington
Post circulation continued to fall, and a sharp drop in classified
advertising raised questions about the future of our business." Question,
since The Washington Post is a leading part of one of this nation's most
important businesses, do you and the President share Don Graham's expressed
questioning about its future?

MS. PERINO: No. I think that the free press is alive and well.

Q By striking contrast, The New York Post is constantly gaining
circulation. And my question, do you and the President believe that The
Washington Post might also gain, rather than lose, if its editorial and
reportorial writing were more like The New York Post rather than like The
New York Times, which is also seriously losing circulation?

MS. PERINO: Maybe they ought to look at the tabloid format, I don't know.

Q But how about the content, not just --

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on that.

Olivier.

Q Just to clear one thing up about the Pelosi visit, are you asking her to
reconsider, or have you spoken your piece now and --

MS. PERINO: We had already discouraged her from going, and other members we
do not encourage them to go to Syria. But at the end of the day, every
American citizen, including members of Congress, get to make their own
decision, and that was a decision they made.

Q Okay, so you're not -- this is not, like, some last appeal to say, please
don't go tomorrow?

MS. PERINO: No, not from me. You can -- there might be others at the State
Department or somebody who would make that.

Go ahead, John.

Q Dana, just to follow on that, you would have preferred that Frank Wolf
had not gone to Syria.

MS. PERINO: Our policy and our feelings apply to everybody.

Paula.

Q You mentioned a few moments ago about the administration's greenhouse gas
emissions goals and timetables. Well, could you explain why you measure
this in intensity as far as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because it's
been said you could do that by production unit but without a cap on
production, you could actually meet that goal and not reduce overall
greenhouse gases.

MS. PERINO: I'm not an economist. I barely know what intensity means. I
have a very tenuous hold on what that means. But I do know that slowing the
rate of growth was important, in regards to the economy. We did not move
forward with a full, mandatory cap because we believe that it would have
been harmful to United States businesses.

But let me point out, it's not just about the business aspect of it. When
you're talking about global emissions, that means -- global means global.
So everyone is emitting up into the air. And if there are no actions taken
by the major developing countries, like China and India -- China, which is,
on average, building one coal-fired power plant a week -- you're going to
put the American economy at a great disadvantage, push American businesses
overseas, and then do nothing for the environment.

And so our approach has been multilateral and aggressive on various,
different aspects of it. But it's the cap that we rejected, and they
decided early on in 2002 -- and I can refer you to Jim Connaughton for the
thinking behind those decisions.

Q But, again, this was set in 2002. There's been mounting evidence since
then about temperatures rising, everything --

MS. PERINO: Absolutely. Climate change is a very real challenge. In fact,
we have scientists this week that are at the U.N. meeting, at the IPCC.
This is the second in a series of reports that they'll be doing, and
they're full participants in the meeting and thinking about it. But I will
point out to you that it is the United States who has had better
performance in terms of reducing greenhouse gases, but with a stronger
growing economy than many of the other countries -- I think most of the
other countries who signed on to the Kyoto agreement.

Q Thank you.

MS. PERINO: Just one more in the back, just for Joanie.

Q Can you give the President's reaction to the FTA agreement in Korea last
night, and also, how he thinks that will affect East Asia and the United
States?

MS. PERINO: Well, the President was very pleased to notify Congress last
night that we had finally, after much wrangling and late-night hours,
reached a deal. America is a Pacific Rim country, and we have a lot of
cultural and trade ties with East Asia. Our relations have never been
better than they are today. And we're very pleased that the agreement was
able to move forward, and looking forward to working with Korea not only on
the trade agreement, but also on the security issues, such as the six-party
talks that we're negotiating with them in regards to North Korea.

Q Thank you.

END 1:11 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070402-4.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)