Text 4011, 588 rader
Skriven 2007-02-06 23:31:22 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0702066) for Tue, 2007 Feb 6
===================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

Press Briefing


1:13 P.M. EST

MR. SNOW: Good afternoon. A quick statement by the President before I get
to questions -- again, reading the statement by the President: Today I'm
pleased to announce my decision to create a Department of Defense Unified
Combatant Command for Africa. I've directed the Secretary of Defense to
stand up a U.S.-Africa Command by the end of fiscal year 2008.

This new command will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and
create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in
Africa. Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security
to the people of Africa and to promote our common goals of development,
health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa.

We will be consulting with African leaders to seek their thoughts on how
Africa Command can respond to security challenges and opportunities in
Africa. We will also work closely with our African partners to determine an
appropriate location for the new command in Africa.

Q How much does it cost, and is Darfur included?

MR. SNOW: Well, Darfur continues to be a matter of concern. I direct you to
DOD for specifics on this.

Q Is this specifically to address the Darfur problem --

MR. SNOW: No, there are a whole series of -- we have a lot of commitments
and interests in Africa, Darfur clearly being one of them. But we also
continue to work with the African Union to try to work to get forces in to
stop the genocide in Darfur.

Q How much does this cost?

MR. SNOW: Again, I direct that to DOD. They'll be able to give you a
precise breakdown.

Terry.

Q Iran says it's holding the United States responsible for the safety of an
Iranian diplomat who was seized by people in Iraqi uniforms, Iraqi soldier
uniforms. What do you know about this?

MR. SNOW: All we know is that the Iraqi government is investigating it. And
obviously, we abide by and support the Vienna Convention for diplomats. But
we don't really know a lot about it at this point. We know that the Iraqi
government is investigating.

Q And is the United States -- can it confirm that Iraqi soldiers took this
person?

MR. SNOW: Again, I think you -- refer all that to the Iraqi government.
We've seen the news reports. We're not in the business of confirming.
They're investigating. I would refer you to the people doing the
investigation.

Q Do we know, did it happen?

MR. SNOW: I've seen news reports, again, Terry --

Q Nothing more than that?

MR. SNOW: Terry, you know who to call, or you know who to have your people
call.

Q I'm starting with you.

MR. SNOW: All right, and I'm telling you that this is something that the
Iraqis are investigating.

Q Secretary Gates, earlier today, testified that if -- he said in his
words, if the plan to quiet Baghdad is successful, the Iraqis accept the
responsibilities, that he could see withdrawing some U.S. troops, a
drawdown, within a couple of months. Does that sound like the goal of the
administration? Is that a realistic assessment?

MR. SNOW: The question is, Secretary Gates was saying that if certain
things took place on the ground, he could see possible drawdowns in U.S.
forces -- and I'm paraphrasing Suzanne's question -- within a couple of
months; is that the administration's goal?

Our goal is to make sure that the Iraqis are able to assume full and
effective control of security operations, and also political and economic
operations within their country as soon as possible. There are any numbers
of scenarios that are going to play out, but as we've also said many times,
you've got to see what's going on on the ground. So that, certainly, is one
of the scenarios, but there are many that could play out.

Jim.

Q I've read a couple of articles, in two papers this morning, that seems to
back up what our people in Iraq are saying, which is that the Iraqi
soldiers do not make, at this point, the kind of partners on a raid that a
lot of the U.S. troops feel comfortable trusting, that they're not up to
the job yet. What evidence do you have, or have you seen, that the Iraqi
soldiers are up to the job?

MR. SNOW: Number one, we have all seen differing reports. As a matter of
fact, you open today's newspapers, and you have everything from, yes,
they're doing great, to, we're still building -- working with them.

There are two things. First, we have heard many times from our combatant
commanders that there is significantly increased capability among the
Iraqis, and there is also testimony from reporters, bloggers, embeds and
others that they've seen a considerable improvement over the last 12
months.

Nevertheless, it's also the case that there is still the need to build
greater capability. As I've said many times from this podium, part of the
embed program is to build capacity in such things as transportation,
logistics, intelligence, and other fundamental business when it comes to
securing Baghdad or other areas around the country.

So we're going to continue working with the Iraqis to get them up. I would
be very careful about trying to draw a broad brush about every Iraqi unit,
because, obviously, there are going to be different levels of readiness
with different units, and the Iraqi government has asked us, and we are
certainly happy to help, in building greater capability so that the Iraqis
can, at the earliest possible date, be fully responsible for their
operations.

Q When you're making -- when the administration is making decisions about
how to proceed, who has got their eyes on the quality of soldiers that the
U.S. troops will be partnering with?

MR. SNOW: It starts, as you know, at the unit level. And people who are
directly engaged are going to do their assessments, and they're going to
work through combatant commanders. So everybody is taking a look -- not
only at that, but also the readiness of our own forces. You constantly do
that in a time of war.

Bret.

Q Budget question for you, Tony. A lot of the criticism Democrats are
having early on is about the AMT -- the alternative minimum tax. Mr.
Portman tried to explain this the other day, but there is a patch for this
year, yet it's not built into the budget years forward. Can you do your
best to explain how the administration is thinking about this?

MR. SNOW: Well, we continue -- obviously, the AMT is a source of concern to
a lot of people, and we'll continue working with Congress to try to address
it. It's also politically ticklish. And we will work with Democrats and
Republicans to try to come up with a satisfactory resolution. We do have a
one-year AMT patch, you're absolutely right. But if you want to get into
the tall grass on that, I'll get you in touch with people at OMB who can
walk through the specifics on it.

Q But on the higher level, balancing the budget by 2012, how can you do it
if you don't forecast what you're going to do with the AMT after next year?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, that's one of the things that -- we still think that
this is something that we can deal with over a period of time. Part of it
is Congress also has to make some decisions about how they deal with AMT.
This is not something where the administration is in a position to decree,
so we're going to be working with Congress.

But on the other hand, what do we have in this budget, and what have had in
the last few budgets? A combination of discipline, especially on the
domestic side, with strong economic growth, which is a byproduct of the tax
cuts. And we continue to have projections for strong economic growth. And
it's the combination of strong growth and fiscal discipline that we're
confident is going to get us to a position of having a balanced budget
within the next five years.

I'd also point out -- if you take a look at those who complained about rosy
scenarios, they've complained in each of the last few years, and it turns
out we've been, if anything, pessimistic about our projections -- which is
what you want to be, in a sense. You want to be conservative about your
revenue projections. As Rob Portman was pointing out yesterday, we
projected a 5.5 percent increase in revenue; the first quarter revenues
were up 8.2 percent. Last year revenues were in -- increased in excess of
11 percent; the year before that, in excess of 14 percent.

So, a byproduct of strong economic growth is, you're always going to have
more revenue. And we are determined to try to hold the line on spending,
and so we use conservative fiscal calculations. And, as I said, on the
particular issues of AMT, it makes more sense to get you in touch with the
numbers guys at OMB.

Q Tony, in his speech today in Virginia, the President talked about trying
to find common ground on Medicare and Social Security. Are there any new
ideas that he wants to put on the table, or is he referring to --

MR. SNOW: No, the President really has put his ideas on the table, and now
what has been going on is Treasury Secretary Paulson and others have been
talking around town to say, we know everybody has concern; it is absolutely
clear to one and all that the present system is unsustainable in the long
run. So you need to find a way that is going to enable us to meet our
obligations to retirees without bankrupting younger generations of workers.
So if people have other ideas, we'd certainly like to see them.

Q But he doesn't have any new ones?

MR. SNOW: He does have --

Q They were non-starters in the last session.

MR. SNOW: Well, you know what? They make sense. The point is, at some
point, one has to stop looking strictly through a political lens and ask
the very pragmatic question, what works? And we're absolutely confident
that this approach works.

Q Tony, first of all, I am very, very thankful to the U.S. Ambassador, Mr.
Mulford, in New Delhi. He opened the doors of the U.S. embassy on a
courtesy call. And I bring the best wishes for the President. What he said
was U.S.-India relations, that couldn't be better than today. And my
question is that, can you add, or how would President put the U.S.-India
relations today after this civil nuclear agreement signed? Because this is
the talk of the town all over India, or among Indians.

MR. SNOW: Well, before you left -- and we talked about this before -- this
is exceedingly important to us. We see India as an increasingly vital and
important partner, not merely with the civil nuclear agreement, but also on
matters of security and trade. As we proceed toward the Doha Round,
obviously India becomes a key partner there, as well.

So we look forward to closer relations in years to come. We're bound by
common interests. India is the largest democracy on the face of the Earth,
and an important -- and an increasingly important ally.

Q Is there any significance to the budget regarding Iraq, going down to
$142 billion in 2008, and then going down to $50 billion in 2009? I know
these are place-holders, but does that give us some indication of where --

MR. SNOW: Well, not necessarily. You know, it's often said that they're
place-holders, but what we also have -- there are a series of expenditures,
especially in these budgets, that have to do with resets -- in other words,
resetting with equipment -- and there are one-time expenditures also for
arming up Iraqis. So there are some significant up-front expenditures,
especially in this year's budget.

Our commanders have put together what they think are going to meet their
requirements. And let's note that we're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan,
as well as other engagements around the world. This is a defense budget
that includes all of those. And we've tried to be as transparent as
possible. They've given it their best guess. We are certainly confident
that these budget projections represent everybody's best estimate of what
it will cost to conduct operations through the end of this administration.

But as always is the case, you got to react to facts on the ground. So if
there are changes, certainly we're going to make them, either on the plus
side or the minus side in terms of budgetary impact. But the one thing we
also committed to Congress is we would try to be as transparent as possible
in terms of estimating what the expenditures and what the carrying costs
would be.

Q Does the best guess in terms of money indicate that the best guess in
terms of troop levels would be a pretty significant decline?

MR. SNOW: I'd leave that -- I'll direct that back to the Secretary of
Defense and General Pace. I don't want to be up here trying to be the guy
speculating on troop levels.

Q Can I ask you about an argument the President made today and has made
repeatedly in terms of the tax cuts? He speaks of the economic output that
is raised by the tax cuts. But he specifically is crediting his tax cuts
for the increased revenues to the U.S. Treasury. Does the President believe
that the tax cuts have paid for themselves, or will pay for themselves
anytime in the foreseeable future?

MR. SNOW: What you're doing is you're getting yourself into abstruse
ground. There are any number of ways of calculating it. By some
calculations they have paid for themselves and then some. But what I'd ask
to do before getting into that thicket is to find out what you want to use
as your base, know what your baselines are, because whenever one gets into
games like this, it's all about assumptions. And I don't know what
assumptions are embedded in the question.

Q I'm not sure I'd look at it as a game, but when the President says low
taxes means economic vitality, which means more tax revenues --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q -- does the Treasury tell him that more money is coming in than was lost
to the tax cuts?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not sure -- the whole point is that the tax cuts
generate extra economic activity. All you have to do is -- I would, if you
want to --

Q That's a separate issue.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, it's not. It's not a separate issue at all. What it
says is when you have greater economic --

Q If the economy is growing more, that's one thing; but whether tax
revenues are growing is a separate issue.

MR. SNOW: Well, but tax revenues tend to grow in tandem with economic
activity. When you've got a growing economy -- let's take a look at what we
have. We have an economy where we've had economic growth for 42 consecutive
months. You also have an economy that now has more people working than ever
before. You've got higher levels of employment, home ownership, economic
activity. Wages, especially in recent months, have shown real significant
growth. Real disposable income up 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of last
year. You put all that together, you're going to have more revenue. And the
fact is, a good, growing economy is always good for revenues.

Q I'm asking specifically about the budget, which is what the President was
arguing about today. And when he says low taxes means more tax revenues --

MR. SNOW: Yes, that's right.

Q -- he is, in a sense, saying that it makes it easier to balance the
budget, is he not?

MR. SNOW: Yes. A growing economy always makes it easier to balance the
budget.

Q No, that cutting taxes in the way he's done makes it easier to balance
the budget.

MR. SNOW: But cutting the taxes -- you're not connecting the dots. Cutting
the taxes, in fact, is something that encourages economic growth. And it is
that economic growth that ends up generating the revenue, that allows you
to balance the budget ahead of time.

Q But has the Treasury told him that the tax cuts enacted on his watch make
it easier to balance the budget?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that anybody has framed it that way. Call over to
Treasury, ask them.

Q I've looked at their analyses; I don't see it, is why I'm asking.

MR. SNOW: Like I said, that's why -- when you talk about pay-for, that
really does get into how are you cutting it, and what are you using as your
baseline, what's your projection, what are the assumptions. That is not as
simple a question as you might think it is. It just isn't. Whenever you get
into --

Q I know this debate is to how big the effect is, but I've not seen it --

MR. SNOW: But I've also heard people say, yes, we can say it's paid for.
But you're asking me to play the role of economist, and as any first-year
economic student will tell you, it's all about assumptions. So if you want
to get into that argument, I really would suggest you talk to trained
economists at the Department of Treasury or within our economic shop, and
they'll be able to give you a more precise readout on it.

April.

Q Tony, could you explain the $3.4 billion for Katrina in the President's
FY 2008 budget?

MR. SNOW: This is part of the -- the $3.4 billion additional for Katrina
funding, and this is part of a relief fund, an emergency relief fund. I
think, in fact, I sent you the charts on it yesterday. So it's part of the
emergency relief fund that is used for various operations; FEMA is the one
that administers that fund.

Q But some might question as there is still a disparity between New Orleans
receiving their money and other Katrina-affected localities receiving
theirs. Why keep putting money on top of money when money has not been
spent in some of the Katrina-affected localities?

MR. SNOW: Well, there are different accounts here, and part of this is
maintaining flexibility. This is an emergency spending account, where
actually the various states have drawn more out of this account than any
other, so you want to make sure you have flexibility. But, for instance,
when it comes to housing, in the housing funds, New Orleans -- they've
appropriated $10.4 billion for New Orleans, and New Orleans has spent
one-tenth of a billion, $100 million, so about 1 percent of the allocated
money. Obviously, in that case, you're not going to be adding more money.
But if you take a look at some of the FEMA funding, that's where you've had
the most significant draws to date.

Q I hate to beat a dead horse, but when will the administration -- or does
the administration plan to put fire under the leaders in New Orleans and
some of the other areas as to why money has not been spent as of yet? And
who is at fault?

MR. SNOW: Look, I'm not -- we're not going to point fingers, but this is
something that's now in the hands of local jurisdictions, and they have the
opportunity. The money has been allocated -- I mean the money has been
appropriated, so the question now is have they done what they need to do.

As you see quite often, April, you do have to do certain things to try to
guard against over-expenditure. As a matter of fact, there is a request on
the part of FEMA for some $300 million to be returned because there were
more checks cut in some areas than were residents. But on the other hand --
so you do have a certain fiduciary obligation to try to make sure that
people are putting in place the right kind of guidelines to ensure that
money is being spent wisely. But this is something that we're perfectly
willing to assist local officials. They're the ones who now -- the ball is
in their court.

Q If I'm reading this between the lines, are you saying that they're
basically not wanting your help? Is that what you're --

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not saying that at all. I would -- if you want a
characterization of their state of mind, you need to call them. We are
eager to help.

Q Thank you, Tony. A couple of questions. There's a news report from the
Yazoo City Federal Correctional Complex in Mississippi that former U.S.
Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos was -- has been attack by five illegal
alien inmates and severely beaten. My question: What is the President's
reaction to this, since he refused thousands of requests to pardon this
man?

MR. SNOW: Well, first I would be careful, even though your own publication
was responsible for that report. Here is a statement from Charles Smith --

Q They're the only ones -- are you say they were the only ones?

MR. SNOW: Here's a statement from Charles Smith, who represents the
institution, and here's their report: "On February 3rd, 2007, at
approximately 10:15 p.m., inmate Ignacio Ramos, an inmate incarcerated at
the federal correctional complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi, reported to
staff that he had been assaulted. Mr. Ramos was evaluated by medical staff
at the institution, who determined he had sustained some bruises and
abrasions. The injuries sustained were minor in nature. Inmate Ramos was
subsequently placed in the special housing unit, pending a thorough
investigation of the incident. He will remain in the special housing unit
until the conclusion of this investigation. No further information is
available at this time."

Q That's a good answer. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: It was a predictable question.

Q I have a couple of follow-ups. The Fort Worth Star Telegraph quotes
President Bush on Fox TV network as saying that he is bound by strict
federal guidelines on pardons, and cannot immediately grant a pardon to
Border Patrol agents Ramos and Campean because, quote, "there is a series
of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a
recommendation as to whether or not a President grants a pardon," from the
President. Was this series of analyzed steps followed when President Jerry
Ford pardoned President Nixon even before he was tried; when President
Carter pardoned all those draft resisters?

MR. SNOW: You know, that is one of the most preposterous comparisons I've
ever heard. But having said that, let me just -- what you're asking is,
should the President waive standard procedures in this case. And the answer
is, no, we want to be careful about issuing pardons, and we're trying to be
careful about the facts, which is why the Department of Justice is in the
process of trying to get full transcripts of the trial of Agents Compean
and Ramos, so you and everybody else who are willing to ask questions about
this will be armed with facts.

Q Page one of The Washington Times quotes --

MR. SNOW: This is part three of a two-part question.

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: This is the last one.

Q That's right, it is.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

Q Forever?

Q Yes. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. Page one of The Washington Times quotes Texas Republican
Congressman Ted Poe, who deplored the conviction of Texas Deputy Sheriff
Guillermo Hernandez, who fired shots at a fleeing vehicle with illegal
aliens, saying, "This is another example of how the federal government is
more concerned about people who are illegally invading America than it is
about the men who protect America." And my question: Does the President
believe that Texas Republican Poe, another Republican Congressman, and
hundreds of thousands of petition signers on this issue are all wrong?

MR. SNOW: You have just conflated two entirely different stories, Les, and
I want to congratulate you for it. I think what the President has done is
spend more money on border security than any President in American history.
And there have been more --

Q But the wall -- why isn't the wall in the budget? The wall was cut out.

MR. SNOW: It's a fence, and it is in the budget. Sorry.

Q The report is that it's not.

MR. SNOW: No, the report is about how much can be afforded, and that is a
fiscal question.

Ann.

Q Presidents may not be able to predict the weather or change the weather,
but is there anything that the President has been either briefed on about
the current cold wave across the country, or any federal resources that are
being brought to bear?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I'll find out.

Q North Korea wants more from the United States -- more oil, the unfreezing
of its bank accounts, peaceful nuclear energy, and normal relations with
the U.S. What is the President's reaction?

MR. SNOW: The President's reaction is, our conditions have always been the
same for returning to the six-party talks, which we believe the North
Koreans will do on Thursday, which is, they do it without precondition. Our
view is very simple, which is that the North Koreans have to suspend
nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities, and furthermore, they have
to back off the nuclear program. And we have made it clear, also within the
context of the six-party talks, that we are willing to discuss a wide range
of issues, including closer relations. But first thing is to get to the
table. That should happen on Thursday.

Victoria.

Q Tony, a question that's arisen about the budget is, the President talked
about bipartisanship over the weekend when he spoke to House Democrats. Yet
in the budget there are fairly large cuts for Medicare and Medicaid, $77
billion over five years, I think $280 billion over the next 10 years. And
some say that this could be seen as a slap in the face to Democrats, who
are certainly not going to take this sitting down.

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, a number of these -- for instance, the
President's proposals on prescription drugs are things that in the past --
not only prescription drugs, but also health care reform -- you go back and
look at a number of Democrats have proposed things that are quite similar
in the past. This isn't a slap in the face. This is an acknowledgment that
you have to find a humane and sensible way of making health care more
affordable for everybody.

Also you will note -- and we've been encouraged by statements, because we
have continued to reach out to Democrats who understand the nature of the
long-term challenge, who have talked about their willingness to explore
ideas for trying to make private health insurance available to everybody
regardless of medical condition or income.

And that -- if you take a look at the President's health care proposal, it
talks about creating a true private market for individuals -- this is what
the tax deduction involves. But at the same time, he acknowledges that
there are people with preexisting conditions and also those who have low
incomes who still are going to have difficulty affording it. So he is now
working to try to come up with ways of bridging that gap to make sure that
private insurance becomes available to everybody. And that's a goal that
both parties share.

So, no, this is not a slap in the face. Furthermore, this is one of these
classic Washington definitions of cuts where the expenditure level
increases -- as a matter of fact, the expenditure level on Medicare I
believe falls from 7.4 percent annual growth to 6.7 percent annual growth.
So there's significant annual growth. And in terms of dollars, there are no
cuts at all. So this is -- what you're talking about is the classic cuts
against a projected baseline.

What the President is trying to do is to give people the best of all
worlds, which is more effective access to health care in the form of
private insurance for all Americans, and at the same time, try to work it
in a way that it's going to be fiscally responsible. And we look forward --
and we have been having conversations with Democrats about this. The
President had some over the weekend.

Q Would you say then that these cuts are, in fact, a way of perhaps phasing
Medicare or Medicaid, and to move more towards private accounts?

MR. SNOW: No, because you're still looking for innovative ways to make sure
that you make private insurance affordable to all, and you can, in fact,
use some of those monies for doing it. But again, they are not cuts. If you
can come back and demonstrate to me that there is less money available
after five years, then I will call them cuts. But they are increases on the
order of 6.7 percent per year.

Q Regarding the British soldier who was killed by friendly fire -- why has
it taken the administration so long to release the video?

MR. SNOW: Again, that I would refer to the Department of Defense. That's
properly their jurisdiction.

All right, thanks.

END 1:39 P.M. EST
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070206-6.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)