President Bush Discusses Financial Markets and World Economy 11/13/08 VIDEO

President Bush Discusses Financial Markets and World Economy FULL STREAMING VIDEO Federal Hall National Memorial 11/13/08 New York, New York In Focus: Economy 1:58 P.M. EST.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Please be seated. Thank you. Larry, thank you for the introduction. Thank you for giving Laura and me a chance to come to this historic hall to talk about a big issue facing the world. And today I appreciate you giving me a chance to come and for me to outline the steps that America and our partners are taking and are going to take to overcome this financial crisis.

And I thank the Manhattan Institute for all you have done. I appreciate the fact that I am here in a fabulous city to give this speech. (Applause.) People say, are you confident about our future? And the answer is, absolutely. And it's easy to be confident when you're a city like New York City. After all, there's an unbelievable spirit in this city. This is a city whose skyline has offered immigrants their first glimpse of freedom. This is a city where people rallied when that freedom came under attack. This is a city whose capital markets have attracted investments from around the world and financed the dreams of entrepreneurs all across America. This is a city that has been and will always be the financial capital of the world. (Applause.)

And I am grateful to be in the presence of two men who serve ably and nobly New York City -- Mayor Koch and Mayor Giuliani. Thank you all for coming. Glad you're here. (Applause.) I thank the Manhattan Institute Board of Trustees and its Chairman Paul Singer for doing good work, being a good policy center. (Applause.) And before I begin, I must say, I would hope that Ray Kelly would tell New York's finest how much I appreciate the incredible hospitality that we are always shown here in New York City. You're the head of a fabulous police force, and we thank you very much, sir. (Applause.)

We live in a world in which our economies are interconnected. Prosperity and progress have reached farther than any time in our history. Unfortunately, as we have seen in recent months, financial turmoil anywhere in the world affects economies everywhere in the world. And so this weekend I'm going to host a Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy with leaders from developed and developing nations that account for nearly 90 percent of the world economy. Leaders of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the Financial Stability Forum are going to be there, as well. We'll have dinner at the White House tomorrow night, and we'll meet most of the day on Saturday.

The leaders attending this weekend's meeting agree on a clear purpose -- to address the current crisis, and to lay the foundation for reforms that will help prevent a similar crisis in the future. We also agree that this undertaking is too large to be accomplished in a single session. The issues are too complex, the problem is too significant to try to solve, or to come up with reasonable recommendations in just one meeting. So this summit will be the first of a series of meetings.

It will focus on five key objectives: understanding the causes of the global crisis, reviewing the effectiveness of our responses thus far, developing principles for reforming our financial and regulatory systems, launching a specific action plan to implement those principles, and reaffirming our conviction that free market principles offer the surest path to lasting prosperity. (Applause.)

First, we're working toward a common understanding of the causes behind the global crisis. Different countries will naturally bring different perspectives, but there are some points on which we can all agree:

Over the past decade, the world experienced a period of strong economic growth. Nations accumulated huge amounts of savings, and looked for safe places to invest them. Because of our attractive political, legal, and entrepreneurial climates, the United States and other developed nations received a large share of that money.

The massive inflow of foreign capital, combined with low interest rates, produced a period of easy credit. And that easy credit especially affected the housing market. Flush with cash, many lenders issued mortgages and many borrowers could not afford them. Financial institutions then purchased these loans, packaged them together, and converted them into complex securities designed to yield large returns. These securities were then purchased by investors and financial institutions in the United States and Europe and elsewhere -- often with little analysis of their true underlying value.

The financial crisis was ignited when booming housing markets began to decline. As home values dropped, many borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and institutions holding securities backed by those mortgages suffered serious losses. Because of outdated regulatory structures and poor risk management practices, many financial institutions in America and Europe were too highly leveraged. When capital ran short, many faced severe financial jeopardy. This led to high-profile failures of financial institutions in America and Europe, led to contractions and widespread anxiety -- all of which contributed to sharp declines in the equity markets.

These developments have placed a heavy burden on hardworking people around the world. Stock market drops have eroded the value of retirement accounts and pension funds. The tightening of credit has made it harder for families to borrow money for cars or home improvements or education of the children. Businesses have found it harder to get loans to expand their operations and create jobs. Many nations have suffered job losses, and have serious concerns about the worsening economy. Developing nations have been hit hard as nervous investors have withdrawn their capital.

We are faced with the prospect of a global meltdown. And so we've responded with bold measures. I'm a market-oriented guy, but not when I'm faced with the prospect of a global meltdown. At Saturday's summit, we're going to review the effectiveness of our actions.

Here in the United States, we have taken unprecedented steps to boost liquidity, recapitalize financial institutions, guarantee most new debt issued by insured banks, and prevent the disorderly collapse of large, interconnected enterprises. These were historic actions taken necessary to make -- necessary so that the economy would not melt down and affect millions of our fellow citizens.

In Europe, governments are also purchasing equity in banks and providing government guarantees for loans. In Asia, nations like China and Japan and South Korea have lowered interest rates and have launched significant economic stimulus plans. In the Middle East, nations like Kuwait and the UAE have guaranteed deposits and opened up new government lending to banks.

In addition, nations around the world have taken unprecedented joint measures. Last month, a number of central banks carried out a coordinated interest rate cut. The Federal Reserve is extending needed liquidity to central banks around the world. The IMF and World Bank are working to ensure that developing nations can weather this crisis.

This crisis did not develop overnight, and it's not going to be solved overnight. But our actions are having an impact. Credit markets are beginning to thaw. Businesses are gaining access to essential short-term financing. A measure of stability is returning to financial systems here at home and around the world. It's going to require more time for these improvements to fully take hold, and there's going to be difficult days ahead. But the United States and our partner are taking the right steps to get through this crisis.

In addition to addressing the current crisis, we will also need to make broader reforms to strengthen the global economy over the long term. This weekend, leaders will establish principles for adapting our financial systems to the realities of the 21st century marketplace. We will discuss specific actions we can take to implement these principles. We will direct our finance ministers to work with other experts and report back to us with detailed recommendations on further reasonable actions.

One vital principle of reform is that our nations must make our financial markets more transparent. For example, we should consider improving accounting rules for securities, so that investors around the world can understand the true value of the assets they purchase.

Secondly, we must ensure that markets, firms, and financial products are properly regulated. For example, credit default swaps -- financial products that insure against potential losses -- should be processed through centralized clearinghouses instead of through unregulated, "over the counter" markets. By bringing greater stability to this large and important financial sector, we reduce the risk to our overall financial systems.

Third, we must enhance the integrity of our financial markets. For example, authorities in every nation should take a fresh look at the rules governing market manipulation and fraud -- and ensure that investors are properly protected.

Fourth, we must strengthen cooperation among the world's financial authorities. For example, leading nations should better coordinate national laws and regulations. We should also reform international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are based largely on the economic order of 1944. To better reflect the realities of today's global economy, both the IMF and World Bank should modernize their governance structures. They should consider extending greater voter -- voting power to dynamic developing nations, especially as they increase their contributions to these institutions. They should consider ways to streamline their executive boards, and make them more representative.

In addition to these important -- to these management changes, we should move forward with other reforms to make the IMF and World Bank more transparent, accountable, and effective. For example, the IMF should agree to work more closely with member countries to ensure that their exchange rate policies are market-oriented and fair. And the World Bank should ensure its development programs reflect the priorities of the people they are designed to serve -- and focus on measurable results.

All these steps require decisive actions from governments around the world. At the same time, we must recognize that government intervention is not a cure-all. For example, some blame the crisis on insufficient regulation of the American mortgage market. But many European countries had much more extensive regulations, and still experienced problems almost identical to our own.

History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market. (Applause.) We saw this in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these firms were chartered by the United States Congress, many believed they were backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Investors put huge amounts of money into Fannie and Freddie, which they used to build up irresponsibly large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities. And when the housing market declined, these securities, of course, plummeted in value. It took a taxpayer-funded rescue to keep Fannie and Freddie from collapsing in a way that would have devastated the global financial system. And there is a clear lesson: Our aim should not be more government -- it should be smarter government.

All this leads to the most important principle that should guide our work: While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today's problems is sustained economic growth. And the surest path to that growth is free markets and free people. (Applause.)

This is a decisive moment for the global economy. In the wake of the financial crisis, voices from the left and right are equating the free enterprise system with greed and exploitation and failure. It's true this crisis included failures -- by lenders and borrowers and by financial firms and by governments and independent regulators. But the crisis was not a failure of the free market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people all across the globe.

Like any other system designed by man, capitalism is not perfect. It can be subject to excesses and abuse. But it is by far the most efficient and just way of structuring an economy. At its most basic level, capitalism offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do, the opportunity to buy or sell products they want, and the dignity that comes with profiting from their talent and hard work. The free market system provides the incentives that lead to prosperity -- the incentive to work, to innovate, to save, to invest wisely, and to create jobs for others. And as millions of people pursue these incentives together, whole societies benefit.

Free market capitalism is far more than economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility -- the highway to the American Dream. It's what makes it possible for a husband and wife to start their own business, or a new immigrant to open a restaurant, or a single mom to go back to college and to build a better career. It is what allowed entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley to change the way the world sells products and searches for information. It's what transformed America from a rugged frontier to the greatest economic power in history -- a nation that gave the world the steamboat and the airplane, the computer and the CAT scan, the Internet and the iPod.

Ultimately, the best evidence for free market capitalism is its performance compared to other economic systems. Free markets allowed Japan, an island with few natural resources, to recover from war and grow into the world's second-largest economy. Free markets allowed South Korea to make itself into one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world. Free markets turned small areas like Singapore and Hong Kong and Taiwan into global economic players. Today, the success of the world's largest economies comes from their embrace of free markets.

Meanwhile, nations that have pursued other models have experienced devastating results. Soviet communism starved millions, bankrupted an empire, and collapsed as decisively as the Berlin Wall. Cuba, once known for its vast fields of cane, is now forced to ration sugar. And while Iran sits atop giant oil reserves, its people cannot put enough gasoline in its -- in their cars.

The record is unmistakable: If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go. (Applause.) And it would be a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success.

Just as important as maintaining free markets within countries is maintaining the free movement of goods and services between countries. When nations open their markets to trade and investment, their businesses and farmers and workers find new buyers for their products. Consumers benefit from more choices and better prices. Entrepreneurs can get their ideas off the ground with funding from anywhere in the world. Thanks in large part to open markets, the volume of global trade today is nearly 30 times greater than it was six decades ago -- and some of the most dramatic gains have come in the developing world.

As President, I have seen the transformative power of trade up close. I've been to a Caterpillar factory in East Peoria, Illinois, where thousands of good-paying American jobs are supported by exports. I've walked the grounds of a trade fair in Ghana, where I met women who support their families by exporting handmade dresses and jewelry. I've spoken with a farmer in Guatemala who decided to grow high-value crops he could sell overseas -- and helped create more than 1,000 jobs.

Stories like these show why it is so important to keep markets open to trade and investment. This openness is especially urgent during times of economic strain. Shortly after the stock market crash in 1929, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff -- a protectionist measure designed to wall off America's economy from global competition. The result was not economic security. It was economic ruin. And leaders around the world must keep this example in mind, and reject the temptation of protectionism. (Applause.)

There are clear-cut ways for nations to demonstrate the commitment to open markets. The United States Congress has an immediate opportunity by approving free trade agreements with Colombia, Peru*, and South Korea. America and other wealthy nations must also ensure this crisis does not become an excuse to reverse our engagement with the developing world. And developing nations should continue policies that foster enterprise and investment. As well, all nations should pledge to conclude a framework this year that leads to a successful Doha agreement.

We're facing this challenge together and we're going to get through it together. The United States is determined to show the way back to economic growth and prosperity. I know some may question whether America's leadership in the global economy will continue. The world can be confident that it will, because our markets are flexible and we can rebound from setbacks. We saw that resilience in the 1940s, when America pulled itself out of Depression, marshaled a powerful army, and helped save the world from tyranny. We saw that resilience in the 1980s, when Americans overcame gas lines, turned stagflation into strong economic growth, and won the Cold War. We saw that resilience after September the 11th, 2001, when our nation recovered from a brutal attack, revitalized our shaken economy, and rallied the forces of freedom in the great ideological struggle of the 21st century.

The world will see the resilience of America once again. We will work with our partners to correct the problems in the global financial system. We will rebuild our economic strength. And we will continue to lead the world toward prosperity and peace.

Thanks for coming and God bless. (Applause.)

END 2:22 P.M. EST

*Panama

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 13, 2008

Tags: President Bush and Financial Markets and World Economy

White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/12/08 VIDEO, PODCAST

Briefing by Dana Perino FULL STREAMING VIDEO, running time 22:47 min, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:08 P.M. EDT. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

MS. PERINO: Okay, hello. Before I begin, I would like to welcome two people to the briefing room. One, we're happy to welcome back Helen Thomas. We're glad to have you here. We missed you a great deal, and we'll let the sparring begin here in just an instant. (Laughter.)

And we are also honored to have Zina Bhaia with us today. Where is she? There she is. Hi. Zina is a 2002 graduate from Baghdad University. She came to the United States in December of 2007 to continue her education, and is currently pursuing a graduate degree in broadcast journalism at the University of Illinois, which happens to be my alma mater where I got my graduate degree, as well. So, welcome to you. We're glad you're here.

A couple of things today. One thing the President and Mrs. Bush did this morning that you might be interested in is they taped an interview with StoryCorps, which some of you may have heard -- their programs air on NPR quite regularly. This is an oral history project, and the President and Mrs. Bush decided to participate. StoryCorps will be launching what they're going to call a "National Day of Listening" campaign. So the President and Mrs. Bush will launch that. The interview was conducted by the President's sister, Doro. And it's expected that the audio from this morning's interview will be made available also to visitors to the President's library when that's up and running in a few years from now.

This afternoon, at 1:40 p.m., the President will make remarks to the 2008 NCAA sports champions. Nine men and women's teams will be in attendance. Also, this evening, the President will make remarks at the 2008 Bishop John T. Walker Memorial Dinner and receive the 2008 Bishop John T. Walker Distinguished Humanitarian Service Award. Mrs. Bush will also attend the event. The Africare Bishop John T. Walker Memorial Dinner is one of the largest annual events for Africa in the United States, and the proceeds from the event support Africare's mission to improve the quality of life in Africa. The President will be presented with the award, which recognizes outstanding dedication to improving the quality of life for the people of Africa.

One final note. This afternoon, the White House Transition Coordinating Council will have its third meeting. They will continue to talk about the administration's activities to ensure a smooth transition of power. Just a reminder that we established the council in October, and we've been obviously talking about that a lot lately, and we've been working the President-elect's team on a range of issues. So I'm sure that we might have a little bit of update for you after that. But they're going to be meeting regularly, and we'll try to get you in at some point for some b-roll that you've asked about.

Questions. Jennifer.

Q I want to talk about automakers.

MS. PERINO: Okay.

Q We keep asking you either questions in the weeds of what will you or not do for the automakers, and also the broader question of will the administration let any one of the automakers fail, And I want to go to the broader question, which is, will you allow one of the automakers to fail, or will you step in? You keep saying they're important to the economy, but they have problems with their business model. But what is the bottom line position?

MS. PERINO: We want these companies to succeed. We want all companies in America to succeed. There are questions regarding some of the automakers right now in regards to their earnings. You have seen them, and they've been transparent. We have said for a while that we've been talking with the automakers. You've known that the President has been meeting with them.

The President also championed through CAFE increases, which the companies were trying to deal with. One of the ways to help deal with that was a law that was passed in December of 2007 through the energy bill that would allow for those companies to apply for loans. It would help them retool their companies. That was authorized in December of 2007, but no money was appropriated for it by the Congress until August of 2008. As soon as that money was appropriated, we started working on the legislation -- I'm sorry, on the regulation that would govern how we would appropriate the money. We set a land speed record to try to get that done. It was done last week and they've started taking applications.

It won't necessarily be an immediate fix. And what we've said we would do is we would look to Congress and ask them if they are willing to amend that legislation or figure out some way to accelerate those funds so that there would be a loan to a company.

Now, one thing that's very important, in that authorization language Congress very wisely said that the companies would need to be viable in order to receive taxpayer dollars. I think everyone can agree that you wouldn't want taxpayer dollars going to something that would not be a longtime concern or something that could actually succeed in the future. I know that those companies are working hard on that.

And we are going to work with Congress. We're open to their ideas. We've seen -- we have a letter from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid asking us to look at the feasibility and whether or not we would be able to use TARP funding for that. We don't think that that was Congress's intent. So we feel that we have done what we could with the statutes that have been authorized. But we are studying that letter, and Secretary Paulson -- I don't think he's responded yet.

Q So does that mean, bottom line, that what you would like to see is that either the tools that have been passed already or maybe something that Congress might do in the next week, that that could work? But what if it doesn't? Are you -- is the administration willing to be more aggressive, to ask Congress for more, to do more on its own and not allow one of the automakers to go under?

MS. PERINO: What I know and what I can tell you is that we're working with what we have. And we've done that to the extent that we are able to under the authorization provided by Congress. If they are going to amend or accelerate those funds, we will certainly listen to their ideas and work with them. But I'm just not able to say hypothetically what will happen. Hopefully the companies will be able to figure out a way to survive and it won't ever come to that. But it's just too early to say, and I shouldn't speculate on it.

Jon.

Q What does Congress need to do to accelerate the loan program under the DOE --

MS. PERINO: I don't know. It would be up to people who write legislation and think about how it would work out. I'd have to refer you to Speaker Pelosi's office and Leader Reid's office. And hopefully they're talking to their Republican counterparts about if they do want to move forward, how they would do that.

Q Do you think it would be helpful if they removed the language referring to the viability, to the need for viability --

MS. PERINO: We think the Congress was very wise in setting some limits on these loans because a viable company is something that you think that you would want to be able to help; a non-viable company is probably not something that you would want to help, because in the long run the taxpayers wouldn't get their money's worth.

Q You say that you don't think it was Congress's intention to use TARP funding for this, and yet, the administration has interpreted the use of the TARP funds in a very different way than the original stated purpose. If you're concerned about the auto industry, why not allow some creative thinking to make additional room for them?

MS. PERINO: I disagree with that just a little bit, because while we were discussing the rescue package, the TARP funds, that was very much solely focused on financial institutions and making sure that we did not allow our financial system to collapse. And the actions that we've taken so far are working. So that's one side of it.

At the same time, Congress was talking about the 136 loans, as they're called, from the Department of Energy, and they asked us to accelerate those and we did that. While the Secretary of the Treasury has a range of tools under this umbrella called TARP, of which he just spent about an hour talking about, there are a lot of different things that fall under that umbrella. But helping specific companies or specific industries outside of the financial sector were not -- was not included in that discussion.

Q Dana, are you saying that the automakers are a bad investment?

MS. PERINO: I didn't say that. I said that that determination about getting a loan from the Department of Energy through that program means that the company has to be viable. And I'm not the judge of what is a viable company or not. That would be made -- that would be a determination made by the Department of Energy and the Treasury.

Q Dana, can I follow up on Jennifer's question and phrase it in a different way? When the government stepped in with Fannie and Freddie and AIG, the definition of the bottom line was that they were deemed too big to fail. Does that not apply to the auto industry, specifically to the Big Three? Does the administration believe they do not fit that criteria that they're too big to fail?

MS. PERINO: I'm not saying that. What I will focus on is the systemic problems that we felt we had with Fannie and Freddie and AIG and others because of the way that they're interconnected through the whole system, and that our capitalistic system is fueled by money moving through the system and it had ground to a halt. And we've got those credit markets open again so that money is starting to flow. And that's how our system works. And so that -- those discussions and those efforts were focused on financial firms. It wasn't focused specifically on any one industry or any one company.

Matt.

Q The administration, the President in particular, did allow some airlines, major airlines to go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after 9/11. Is there any reason to believe that there's been a red line established that would not allow automakers to go in that direction?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to rule anything in or out. It's just -- that's not appropriate for me to do. You know the facts. Certainly there are -- Chapter 11 exists, and some companies choose to go that route. But I'm not here to speak for the automakers as to what they may or may not do.

Q Dana, what do you say to some lawmakers -- Senator Levin did an interview over the weekend with CNN and he said, "These problems have been blossoming under the Bush administration. If the domestic auto industry falls apart, it's going to be part of his legacy, so he has not only a responsibility, but a necessity to act." Is there anything -- again, if what you're suggesting, that Congress could do -- if that doesn't happen, is there anything unilaterally the President can do? And is he concerned that this could become the capstone of his legacy -- companies like GM failing?

MS. PERINO: People can blame the President of the United States for a lot of things, a lot of things land on his desk. But the state of the automakers right now is not the President of the United States' fault. And so I would encourage the media to go back and look at the history of these companies, decisions they've made over time that got them to where we are today.

Now, what they've had to deal with are a lot of changing consumer preferences. That's one of the reasons that we accelerated the rulemaking after the Congress passed the appropriations to allow us to provide for loans so that they could retool their companies and their factories so that they could produce more energy-efficient cars, which is what consumers have been wanting. We believe that American manufacturers can compete on a global level and they can produce some of the best products in the world. That's one of the reasons we're such a great country today, because of the manufacturing sector.

But the state of these companies is not the fault of the President of the United States. We are trying to help them in a variety of ways. I have told you that the Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of Energy, and others -- Department of Commerce -- have been trying to work with those companies, in regular contact with them, to make sure that we are doing all that we could given what Congress has allowed us to do.

And one thing that you should go back and look at are some of the restrictions that they have tried to place on companies over the years there in Congress. So I think that a little bit of self reflection is needed here and not finger-pointing at the administration, when we have been trying to help them.

I'm going to go over here. Mark, did you have one?

Q I did. I was wondering if your remarks reflect the President's view that industrial companies ought to survive or fail on their own, without government intervention?

MS. PERINO: Well, one of the things that the President has said when he -- when we started down this road of government intervention was that that was not his natural instinct. He has always been a free market guy. But when you have -- when you're the President of the United States and you have your top advisors telling you that if we don't take this action, and that they thought that was the best course of action, that we could conceivably be facing something worse than the Great Depression, then you have an obligation to act. And he trusted his advisors. It was the right thing to do, because now we've got those credit markets moving again.

That doesn't necessarily mean that every individual company or every individual industry is going to be helped with taxpayer dollars. What we tried to do was prevent the complete and total financial collapse of our system. And that's what we're trying to do, we're trying to implement that. Secretary Paulson just spent an hour discussing how they're moving forward. They're trying to be very transparent with the taxpayers' money, and they're trying to make the best investments, because we want to make sure the taxpayers either are made whole or that they can actually make some money on this deal over time. But it's going to take us a while to get through this. Secretary Paulson said that we're still in a very fragile situation. It's going to take some more strengthening.

One of the things that we'll do this weekend, when the 20 leaders are here for the summit, is talk about what we can do to help prevent this from happening, or happening in the future, to such a severe degree. And I should have mentioned, at 3:00 p.m. today, Dave McCormick and Dan Price will be here and they'll provide a briefing for you to give you an update on that meeting.

Q Dana, same topic. Will the administration then accept an amendment from Congress to modify the part to include automakers?

MS. PERINO: I would really want to see what they would put forward and how they would design it and how they would think about moving forward. A lot of information -- or a lot of deal-making in Washington is made, but you can't really make any deals until you see what the other side is proposing. And so far, we don't even know if they're actually coming back for a lame-duck session. So I would refer you to the Speaker's office for more information about that.

Q Same topic. Does it enter into the President's thinking that the President-elect would be more amenable, apparently, to opening up the TARP? And in light of the President's thoughts that there should be sort of a smooth, seamless transition, does what the next President would do on this same subject enter into his thinking in terms of --

MS. PERINO: Well, we're certainly talking to them, and as we said, we want to see what the Democrats would put forward. And I would assume that Pelosi and Reid are talking to Senator -- I'm sorry, the President-elect's team. I could only assume that; we certainly are. And we are mindful of the fact that they're going to have to keep this baton and keep running with it, and they're going to have to implement programs. But we also know that we're not going to move forward with something that Congress hasn't authorized us to do. And so we're looking to see if Congress is going to make any changes.

April.

Q Dana, on this issue but somewhat in another angle. As this whole industry issue is being worked out, is it a simple -- is the situation just a simple -- for words to come from this house to say for the American public to buy domestic cars? Even with the bad economy and people not buying cars right now as they were months ago, is one of the situations, one of the solutions, to just say, look, let's start buying more American cars?

MS. PERINO: President Bush doesn't dictate what people should buy. They can make their own decisions. And one of the things that we talked about yesterday and will continue to talk about is that we believe that we can compete on a global scale. There are three free trade agreements currently in front of Congress that they could take up and they could pass easily. It's the best way to open up markets and create jobs here in America.

We have big manufacturers, like Caterpillar, that try to sell into Colombia. They do so, and their products are taxed. When Colombian imports come into our country, they're not taxed. We simply want to level the playing field. That's something that if they do decide to come back for a lame-duck session next week that we would strongly encourage them to do, because if you're serious about opening new markets and creating jobs, we have the best way to do that right here in front of us, which are the free trade agreements.

Another point, though, is that the President thinks that consumers should be able to buy anything that they want to buy. I mean, that's one of the reasons we're trying to improve the economy, get us back on a path to prosperity so that you have all the choice in the world. The President of the United States has chosen down at his ranch a domestic vehicle, but that doesn't mean that he would dictate to anybody else what they should buy.

Q Choice is also some of the reason why the auto industry -- you're seeing stock prices way down, three, four and five dollars for many of these auto -- domestic auto companies. And also you're seeing more foreign cars being sold in America, and that is some of the reason why we're in this -- we're seeing this auto industry problem.

MS. PERINO: Well, we need to be a country that is open to foreign investment and that is open to trade. And that's one of the President's key messages that you'll hear from him tomorrow in his speech in New York and then at the summit this weekend, that we are a country that should be open for investment and that he encourages it. We went through this on a whole -- another topic in February of 2006, when we talked about Dubai Ports, and you know what the President's position has been. We should be open for trade, we should be open for investment, and we should have the confidence to believe that we can compete on a global scale, because we can.

Connie.

Q Does the President believe any of the foreign policy situations we've had in the past few years -- Iraq, Afghanistan and so forth -- had anything to do with this economic crisis?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of, no.

Sam.

Q On a different topic, the President-elect just announced that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Congressman Jim Leach will serve as his representatives to the G20. Has there been discussion about what role they might play?

MS. PERINO: I just saw the report myself, although I don't know if, in the discussions with the President-elect's team, there had been some discussion. We think that that's a -- it's a good idea to make sure that there's good, fluid communication between his team and leaders who want to establish relationships with the new President and his representatives. So we welcome it.

Go ahead, Les.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. Since you are the President's chief media officer, you are no doubt aware of the news that the Ombudsman of The Washington Post admitted in print that that newspaper showed extensive favoritism towards candidate Obama. And my question: Have you wondered why she waited until after the election to admit this, while blaming no one at the Post by name for this biased reporting and editing?

MS. PERINO: I won't comment on it, except to say that I read the Ombudsman column every weekend.

Q Okay. The President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, which is Obama's hometown -- (laughter) -- noted, in his express opposition to Roe v. Wade: "If the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision were still settled constitutional law, Mr. Obama would not be President." And my question: Does the President agree or disagree with Cardinal George?

MS. PERINO: All I would say is that the President has said that he thinks it was a wonderful and inspiring moment when President-Elect Obama won on Tuesday night, a week ago.

Paula.

Q Earlier in the administration, the President opposed stricter CAFE standards on lighter fuel -- lighter vehicles --

MS. PERINO: Oh, really? When?

Q It was I believe about four or five years ago.

MS. PERINO: I believe not, because I was here, I worked as the communications director for the Council on Environmental Quality, and he has long championed -- and he was the first to increase CAFE standards for SUVs and light trucks for the first time in a decade.

Q Well, wasn't the basis on less, smaller fuel-efficient cars weren't as safe as SUVs and --

MS. PERINO: There was a National Academy of Sciences report that said that, yes. And when you are working on CAFE standards, one of the things that you take into account is the safety of the vehicles. And I don't think anybody in this room would suggest that we shouldn't do that.

Goyal.

Q Two questions. One, according to The Washington Post, tomorrow Saudi Arabia had religious tolerance conference at the United Nations. But Saudi Arabia doesn't tolerate other religions, and also rights of the woman and human rights. And President and Dr. Rice also are going to be attending this conference.

MS. PERINO: Yes. Tomorrow in New York City, the President will make remarks at the U.N. High Level Debate on Interfaith Dialogue. This will be an opportunity for him to reaffirm his commitment to religious freedom and tolerance, and the importance of people of all faiths coming together. He welcomes the opportunity to have this event and he believes that the King of Saudi Arabia has recognized that they have a long way to go and that he is trying to take some steps to get there. But this -- and this dialogue is a good way to bring people of all religions together. And you'll hear more from the President tomorrow.

Q And second, in Pakistan, U.S. consulate was hit. Do you think this is a warning for this administration and the coming new administration?

MS. PERINO: I've seen the reports, Goyal. I'm going to decline to comment now because I don't have further information. Let me just take a last one from Mark.

Q Is the Federal Hall speech -- is it just trade, or is it a broader message to Wall Street?

MS. PERINO: It's focused on the summit. And what I'm going to try to do later today if I can -- and we'll try to release those remarks for you. I don't know if we'll be able to accomplish that, but we'll get it for you as soon as we can.

Q I think Helen had a question.

MS. PERINO: Helen has a question.

Q Yes, I do. You say the President is not at fault for the auto industry problem. Do you think he's responsible for a solution?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that he --

Q And also, is there a quid pro quo on the Colombia trade agreement?

MS. PERINO: There is absolutely no quid pro quo for that. And I was able to clarify that yesterday, and I was pleased that the President-elect's team clarified that as well. But I think that the President of the United States believes that companies are responsible for finding solutions. However, this is an industry, as I've said before, that's very important to the American people. And there are a lot of regulations that the government has tried to place on these companies over the years. And so Congress and the administration and the companies have an obligation to put their best minds towards trying to find out -- figure out what we can do to the greatest extent possible to try to keep these companies viable. And if we can do that, we certainly will.

Q Is he aware that Michigan has 9 percent unemployment?

MS. PERINO: Very well aware of it. And he's been very concerned about it. It's one of the reasons that he agreed to the UI extension from -- unemployment insurance extension that we provided in August. And we'll see what the Congress puts forward on that if they come back for a lame duck.

Q Is he aware that Detroit won World War II by retooling in a matter of days to a wartime condition?

MS. PERINO: He know how important Detroit is, how -- its history, the industry, and how many people it supports, not just in Detroit, but all across our country, and the people all around the world who work for those corporations. He's very mindful of it.

Q Dana, can I follow? At the risk of -- you said we'll see what Congress puts forward on an unemployment extension if they come back. It seems to me in the past, you opposed that, saying that it encourages people to stay out of work longer.

MS. PERINO: What we have said is that -- well, if you just look at the statistics, the historical data, that as soon as that last week comes about, that's -- it's like a hockey stick and people's employment goes up. But it doesn't mean that we're not mindful of the fact that -- how distressed some people are because we realize how high unemployment is, how tough the economy is, and how it's taken a while to get people back to work. And so, we'll just see if Congress comes back with anything.

Q Thank you.

END 12:31 P.M. EST

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 12, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino